Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This office action is in response to the original filing of 08/14/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "…the Clifford circuit…" in lines 11, 14, 19 and claim 15 in lines 7 and 10.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All claims dependent on a claim rejected hereunder are also rejected for being dependent on a
rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
The limitations of “
PNG
media_image1.png
138
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
126
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification ([0004],[0027]), will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “sampling the fault operator F for the plurality of qubits according to the predetermined noise distribution in the Clifford circuit”, “returning the result based on the syndrome and on the set of logical flips” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“sampling the fault operator F for the plurality of qubits according to the predetermined noise distribution in the Clifford circuit”, “returning the result based on the syndrome and on the set of logical flips” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, the claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9:
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
The limitations of “
PNG
media_image1.png
138
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
126
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification ([0004],[0027]), will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “a qubit register with a plurality of physical qubits; an interface configured to measure each of the plurality of qubits, to thereby reveal a quantum state held in the qubit register”;”a controller coupled operatively to the interface and configured to direct the measurement according to a spacetime quantum code supporting quantum error correction, the spacetime quantum code…”these elements merely serve as tools to implement the abstract mathematical concept of quantum error correction. Thus, the claims amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components in a particular technological environment (i.e., a quantum computing system), which is insufficient to confer eligibility. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (mere instructions to apply an exception) and § 2106.05(h) (field of use limitations).
“sampling the fault operator F for the plurality of qubits according to the predetermined noise distribution in the Clifford circuit”, “returning the result based on the syndrome and on the set of logical flips” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“a qubit register with a plurality of physical qubits; an interface configured to measure each of the plurality of qubits, to thereby reveal a quantum state held in the qubit register”;”a controller coupled operatively to the interface and configured to direct the measurement according to a spacetime quantum code supporting quantum error correction, the spacetime quantum code…” these elements merely serve as tools to implement the abstract mathematical concept of quantum error correction. Thus, the claims amount to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components in a particular technological environment (i.e., a quantum computing system), which is insufficient to confer eligibility. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (mere instructions to apply an exception) and § 2106.05(h) (field of use limitations).
The recited elements, individually and as an ordered combination, are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of quantum computing. The specification does not describe any unconventional arrangement or specific technological improvement in how qubits are implemented, measured, or controlled. Rather, the claims merely invoke generic quantum computing components to execute the abstract algorithm. Furthermore, consistent with Berkheimer v. HP Inc., the record supports the conclusion that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as the specification does not indicate otherwise.
“sampling the fault operator F for the plurality of qubits according to the predetermined noise distribution in the Clifford circuit”, “returning the result based on the syndrome and on the set of logical flips” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, the claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15:
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
The limitations of “
PNG
media_image1.png
138
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
126
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification ([0004],[0027]), will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “supplying an error-correcting spacetime code to a controller coupled operatively to a qubit interface of the quantum computer…” sampling the fault operator F for the plurality of qubits according to the predetermined noise distribution in the Clifford circuit”, “returning the result based on the syndrome and on the set of logical flips” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“supplying an error-correcting spacetime code to a controller coupled operatively to a qubit interface of the quantum computer…” sampling the fault operator F for the plurality of qubits according to the predetermined noise distribution in the Clifford circuit”, “returning the result based on the syndrome and on the set of logical flips” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, the claims do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the fault operator is sampled repeatedly, and for each sample a bit of the syndrome is computed for each row of Ms and the set of logical flips is computed for each row of Ml” 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.
Claim 3 recites “
PNG
media_image3.png
128
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g))
Claim 4 recites “further comprising classical post-processing based on the set of logical flips f.” This limitation is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claim 5 recites “wherein the Clifford circuit equates to a low-density parity-check (LDPC) spacetime code.” This limitation is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claim 6 recites “wherein the Clifford circuit comprises a repeated, constant-depth circuit” This limitation is directed to the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network).
Claim 7 recites “wherein the syndrome and the set of logical flips are computed without explicit computation of a forward cumulant {right arrow over (F)} of the fault operator”. This limitation is directed to field of use.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the syndrome and the set of logical flips are computed without explicit computation of the effect f=eff.sub.m(F)” This limitation is directed to field of use.
Claims 10-14 and 16-20 contain subject matter similar to that of claims 2-8 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phenuel S. Salomon whose telephone number is (571) 270-1699. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Alternate Friday Off) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHENUEL S SALOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights