DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 11 June 2026 for application 18/463,240 filed 07 September 2023.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-16, 18-20 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims are based on the newly amended subject matter. All arguments are addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims are based on the newly amended subject matter. All arguments are addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of training a neural network model to generate a policy for design of quantum devices.
The limitation of defining an environment for a reinforcement learning architecture that includes the neural network model as at least part of an agent, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of applying the policy to generate ... one or more programming code statements defining a physical layout for a quantum-device design, the physical layout specifying a configuration of one or more predefined quantum components provided by the quantum hardware design kit and parameter values for the one or more predefined quantum components, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of defining actions of the neural network model from one or more combinations of the instructions of the quantum hardware design kit and the parameters associated with the instructions, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of defining a reward function for generation of the policy, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum devices, quantum hardware design kit, instructions, predefined quantum components. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – neural network model, reinforcement learning architecture, Lumped-Oscillator-Model (LOM) analysis, Energy-Participation-Ratio (EPR) analysis. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites generating the policy by performing iterative training of the neural network model using the environment, the iterative training including tuning model parameters of the neural network model which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites performing, using the quantum hardware design kit, an analysis of the physical layout defined by the one or more programming code statements, the analysis comprising one or more of a Lumped-Oscillator-Model (LOM) analysis and an Energy-Participation-Ratio (EPR) analysis which is simply applying the design kit recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
quantum devices, quantum hardware design kit, instructions, predefined quantum components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
generic training to perform the abstract idea and applying computer components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
neural network model, reinforcement learning architecture, Lumped-Oscillator-Model (LOM) analysis, Energy-Participation-Ratio (EPR) analysis amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 2 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein defining the environment includes receiving a quantum device architecture, and the reward function is configured to optimize one or more parameter values for the quantum device architecture.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein defining the environment includes receiving quantum device architecture, which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites the reward function is configured to optimize one or more parameter values for the quantum device architecture which is simply additional information regarding the reward function, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
additional information regarding the reward function do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 3 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the reward function is configured to reward completion of a design of a quantum device.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the reward function and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the reward function do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices.
The limitation of wherein the reward function is changed during the iterative training, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 5 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the environment includes, separate from the quantum hardware design kit, a third-party library of additional predefined quantum components.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the environment includes, separate from the quantum hardware design kit, a third-party library of additional predefined quantum components which is simply additional information regarding the environment, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – third-party library of additional predefined quantum components. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
third-party library of additional predefined quantum components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
additional information regarding the environment do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices.
The limitation of wherein defining the environment further includes defining physical constraints of a quantum device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum device. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
quantum device amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices.
The limitation of ... generate values associated with the reward function, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – second neural network model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
second neural network model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer hardware system for training a neural network model to generate a policy for design of quantum devices.
The limitation of defining an environment for a reinforcement learning architecture that includes the neural network model as at least part of an agent, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of applying the policy to generate ... one or more programming code statements defining a physical layout for a quantum-device design, the physical layout specifying a configuration of one or more predefined quantum components provided by the quantum hardware design kit and parameter values for the one or more predefined quantum components, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of defining actions of the neural network model from one or more combinations of the instructions of the quantum hardware design kit and the parameters associated with the instructions, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of defining a reward function for generation of the policy, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer hardware system, quantum devices, quantum hardware design kit, instructions, hardware processor, predefined quantum components. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – neural network model, reinforcement learning architecture, Lumped-Oscillator-Model (LOM) analysis, Energy-Participation-Ratio (EPR) analysis. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites generating the policy by performing iterative training of the neural network model using the environment, the iterative training including tuning model parameters of the neural network model which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites performing, using the quantum hardware design kit, an analysis of the physical layout defined by the one or more programming code statements, the analysis comprising one or more of a Lumped-Oscillator-Model (LOM) analysis and an Energy-Participation-Ratio (EPR) analysis which is simply applying the design kit recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer hardware system, quantum devices, quantum hardware design kit, instructions, hardware processor, predefined quantum components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
generic training to perform the abstract idea and applying computer components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
neural network model, reinforcement learning architecture, Lumped-Oscillator-Model (LOM) analysis, Energy-Participation-Ratio (EPR) analysis amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer hardware system for training a neural network model to generate a policy for design of quantum devices. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 9 carries out the system of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the operation of defining the environment further includes receiving a quantum device architecture, and the reward function is configured to optimize one or more parameter values for the quantum device architecture.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the operation of defining the environment further includes receiving a quantum device architecture, which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites the reward function is configured to optimize one or more parameter values for the quantum device architecture which is simply additional information regarding the reward function, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
additional information regarding the reward function do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer hardware system for training a neural network model to generate a policy for design of quantum devices. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 10 carries out the system of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the reward function is configured to reward completion of a design of a quantum device.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the reward function and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the reward function do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer hardware system for training a neural network model to generate a policy for design of quantum devices.
The limitation of wherein the reward function is changed during the iterative training, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer hardware system for training a neural network model to generate a policy for design of quantum devices. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 12 carries out the system of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the environment includes, separate from the quantum hardware design kit, a third-party library of additional predefined quantum components.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the environment includes, separate from the quantum hardware design kit, a third-party library of additional predefined quantum components which is simply additional information regarding the environment, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – third-party library of additional predefined quantum components. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
third-party library of additional predefined quantum components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
additional information regarding the environment do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer hardware system for training a neural network model to generate a policy for design of quantum devices.
The limitation of wherein the operation of defining the environment further includes defining physical constraints of a quantum device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum device. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
quantum device amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer hardware system for training a neural network model to generate a policy for design of quantum devices.
The limitation of ... generate values associated with the reward function, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – second neural network model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
second neural network model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product.
The limitation of defining an environment for a reinforcement learning architecture that includes the neural network model as at least part of an agent, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of applying the policy to generate ... one or more programming code statements defining a physical layout for a quantum-device design, the physical layout specifying a configuration of one or more predefined quantum components provided by the quantum hardware design kit and parameter values for the one or more predefined quantum components, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of defining actions of the neural network model from one or more combinations of the instructions of the quantum hardware design kit and the parameters associated with the instructions, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of defining a reward function for generation of the policy, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer program product, computer readable storage medium, program code, quantum devices, quantum hardware design kit, instructions, computer hardware system, predefined quantum components. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – neural network model, reinforcement learning architecture, Lumped-Oscillator-Model (LOM) analysis, Energy-Participation-Ratio (EPR) analysis. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites generating the policy by performing iterative training of the neural network model using the environment, the iterative training including tuning model parameters of the neural network model which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites performing, using the quantum hardware design kit, an analysis of the physical layout defined by the one or more programming code statements, the analysis comprising one or more of a Lumped-Oscillator-Model (LOM) analysis and an Energy-Participation-Ratio (EPR) analysis which is simply applying the design kit recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer program product, computer readable storage medium, program code, quantum devices, quantum hardware design kit, instructions, computer hardware system, predefined quantum components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
generic training to perform the abstract idea and applying computer components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
neural network model, reinforcement learning architecture, Lumped-Oscillator-Model (LOM) analysis, Energy-Participation-Ratio (EPR) analysis amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 15 is applicable here since claim 16 carries out the computer program product of claim 15 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the operation of defining the environment further includes receiving quantum device architecture, and the reward function is configured to optimize one or more parameter values for the quantum device architecture.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the operation of defining the environment further includes receiving quantum device architecture, which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites the reward function is configured to optimize one or more parameter values for the quantum device architecture which is simply additional information regarding the reward function, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
additional information regarding the reward function do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 15 is applicable here since claim 17 carries out the computer program product of claim 15 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the reward function is configured to reward completion of a design of a quantum device.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the reward function and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the reward function do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product.
The limitation of wherein the reward function is changed during the iterative training, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 15 is applicable here since claim 19 carries out the computer program product of claim 15 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the environment includes, separate from the quantum hardware design kit, a third-party library of additional predefined quantum components.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the environment includes, separate from the quantum hardware design kit, a third-party library of additional predefined quantum components which is simply additional information regarding the environment, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – third-party library of additional predefined quantum components. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
third-party library of additional predefined quantum components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
additional information regarding the environment do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product.
The limitation of wherein the operation of defining the environment further includes defining physical constraints of a quantum device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum device. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
quantum device amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (Quantum Architecture Search via Deep Reinforcement Learning, hereinafter referred to as “Kuo”) in view of Revant et al. (Simulating Quantum Hardware using Qiskit Metal, hereinafter referred to as “Revant”).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Kuo teaches a method of training a neural network model to generate a policy for design of quantum devices (Kuo, section I – teaches a method for quantum architecture search based on training a reinforcement learning; see also Kuo Fig. 1) using a quantum hardware design kit including instructions and parameters associated with the instructions (Kuo, section IV.A – teaches performing the QAS simulation using Qiskit), comprising:
defining an environment for a reinforcement learning architecture (Kuo, section III – teaches using a quantum computer or simulator as the environment) that includes the neural network model as at least part of an agent (Kuo, section IV.A.6 – teaches neural network models as agents);
generating the policy by performing iterative training of the neural network model using the environment (Kuo, section I - teaches training the RL model for quantum architecture search; Kuo, section II - teaches generating the RL policy by training the neural network using the environment), the iterative training including tuning model parameters of the neural network model (Kuo, section I – teaches iteratively training the RL model to updated model parameters);
applying the policy to generate, using the quantum hardware design kit, one or more programming code statements defining a physical layout for a quantum-device design (Kuo, section IV - teaches using Qiskit to perform quantum architecture search, see also Kuo, sections I-III), the physical layout specifying a configuration of one or more predefined quantum components provided by the quantum hardware design kit and parameter values for the one or more predefined quantum components (Kuo, section I - teaches using RL to configure a quantum layout; Kuo, section IV - teaches Qiskit, with its included components, to design a quantum architecture layout based on a RL algorithm); and
wherein defining the environment includes:
defining actions of the neural network model from one or more combinations of the instructions of the quantum hardware design kit and the parameters associated with the instructions (Kuo, section I - teaches the action specifies a quantum operation to be added to the system; Kuo section III - teaches actions consisting of different quantum operations (qubits and gates); Kuo, section IV.A – teaches performing the QAS simulation using Qiskit; Kuo, section IV.A.5 - teaches action is a selected gate for a specific qubit; see also Kuo, Fig. 1; Kuo, section III.B); and
defining a reward function for generation of the policy (Kuo, section III - teaches calculating the fidelity of the circuit and generating a reward based on the fidelity; Kuo, IV.A.5 - teaches a reward based on a fidelity measurement; see also Kuo, Fig. 1).
However, Kuo does not explicitly teach performing, using the quantum hardware design kit, an analysis of the physical layout defined by the one or more programming code statements, the analysis comprising one or more of a Lumped-Oscillator-Model (LOM) analysis and an Energy-Participation-Ratio (EPR) analysis.
Revant teaches performing, using the quantum hardware design kit, an analysis of the physical layout defined by the one or more programming code statements, the analysis comprising one or more of a Lumped-Oscillator-Model (LOM) analysis and an Energy-Participation-Ratio (EPR) analysis (Revant, section II – teaches performing analysis of quantum circuits in Qiskit Metal using LOM or ERP; see also Revant, section III).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuo with the teachings of Revant in order to provide alternative ways of simulating and analyzing quantum hardware circuits in the field of quantum circuit design (Revant, Abstract – “The process of building a quantum circuit often consists of several steps. We need a quantum framework that enables us to create these circuits and a simulation environment that enables us to analyse the circuit in order to execute these circuits. Qiskit Metal, an open-source framework made available by IBM, is the name of the quantum framework we used. Ansys Electronic Desktop is the modelling software used to evaluate these built-in circuits. In this paper, we go over how to build a quantum circuit and its simulation on Ansys’ electronic desktop. The conventional methods of modelling the circuit—manually by launching the project in Ansys or automatically through a code—don’t always work. This paper will examine the alternative ways of allowing simulations on quantum hardware projects.”).
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Kuo in view of Revant teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Kuo further teaches wherein
defining the environment further includes receiving a quantum device architecture (Kuo, section I - teaches the action specifies a quantum operation to be added to the system; Kuo section III - teaches actions consisting of different quantum operations (qubits and gates) to be added to a quantum computer or simulator as the environment [environment]; Kuo, section IV.A.5 - teaches action is a selected gate for a specific qubit; see also Kuo, Fig. 1; Kuo, section III.B), and
the reward function is configured to optimize one or more parameter values for the quantum device architecture (Kuo, section III - teaches calculating the fidelity of the circuit, wherein the fidelity is a measure of the distance between the current circuit and the target circuit, and generating a reward based on the fidelity; Kuo, IV.A.5 - teaches a reward based on a fidelity measurement; see also Kuo, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kuo and Revant for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Kuo in view of Revant teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Kuo further teaches wherein the reward function is configured to reward completion of a design of a quantum device (Kuo, section III - teaches calculating the fidelity of the circuit and generating a reward based on the fidelity, where the reward is a large positive value when fidelity reaches a threshold [design completion] and a small negative value otherwise; Kuo, IV.A.5 - teaches a reward based on a fidelity measurement; see also Kuo, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kuo and Revant for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Kuo in view of Revant teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Kuo further teaches wherein the environment includes, separate from the quantum hardware design kit (Kuo, section IV.A – teaches performing the QAS simulation using Qiskit), a third-party library of additional predefined quantum components (Kuo, section V.F – teaches environment extensions using additional customized environments with available operations from specific quantum hardware).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kuo and Revant for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Kuo in view of Revant teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Kuo further teaches wherein defining the environment further includes defining physical constraints of a quantum device (Kuo, section IV.A.2 – teaches adding quantum noise in the simulator to the gates and the measurements; see also Kuo, sections V.B-C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kuo and Revant for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), it is the computer hardware system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Kuo further teaches a computer hardware system for training a neural network to generate a policy for design of quantum devices (Kuo, section I – teaches a method for quantum architecture search by training a reinforcement learning model; see also Kuo Fig. 1) using a quantum hardware design kit including instructions and parameters associated with the instructions (Kuo, section IV.A – teaches performing the QAS simulation using Qiskit), comprising:
a hardware processor configured to perform operations comprising (Kuo, section III – teaches using a quantum computer or simulator with an RL agent hosted on a classical computer; Kuo, section IV - teaches using the IBM Qiskit simulator and OpenAI Gym reinforcement learning software; see also Kuo section V.D; Kuo, Fig. 1) …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kuo and Revant for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Kuo in view of Revant for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Kuo in view of Revant for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Kuo in view of Revant for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Kuo in view of Revant for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended), it is the computer program product embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Kuo further teaches a computer program product, comprising:
a computer readable storage medium having stored therein program code (Kuo, section III – teaches using a quantum computer or simulator with an RL agent hosted on a classical computer; Kuo, section IV - teaches using the IBM Qiskit simulator and OpenAI Gym reinforcement learning software; see also Kuo section V.D; Kuo, Fig. 1) for training a neural network model to generate a policy for design of quantum devices (Kuo, section I – teaches a method for quantum architecture search by training a reinforcement learning model; see also Kuo Fig. 1) using a quantum hardware design kit including instructions and parameters associated with the instructions (Kuo, section IV.A – teaches performing the QAS simulation using Qiskit), wherein the program code is executable by a computer hardware system to cause the computer hardware system to perform operations comprising (Kuo, section III – teaches using a quantum computer or simulator with an RL agent hosted on a classical computer; Kuo, section IV - teaches using the IBM Qiskit simulator and OpenAI Gym reinforcement learning software; see also Kuo section V.D; Kuo, Fig. 1) …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kuo and Revant for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Kuo in view of Revant for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 17 (Original), the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Kuo in view of Revant for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 19 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Kuo in view of Revant for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Kuo in view of Revant for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Revant and further in view of Prati et al. (US 2024/0169237 A1 – A Computer Implemented Method for Real Time Quantum Compiling Based on Artificial Intelligence, hereinafter referred to as “Prati”).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Kuo in view of Revant teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. However, Kuo in view of Revant does not explicitly teach wherein the reward function is changed during the generating the policy.
Prati teaches wherein the reward function is changed during the iterative training (Prati, [0151] – teaches changing from a dense reward to a sparse reward when generating a policy through training).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuo in view of Revant with the teachings of Prati in order to allow the target policy to be deterministic and the behavior policy does not need to be updated at every interaction with the environment in the field of reinforcement learning for quantum devices (Prati, [0117] – “Q-learning is an off-policy method, i.e., it estimates the value of the policy, but it does not use it for control. The policy that defines the behaviour of the agent is called 'behaviour' policy, while the policy that is evaluated and improved 'target' policy. The advantages of this approach are that the latter can be deterministic and the former does not need to be updated at every interaction with the environment.”).
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Kuo in view of Revant and further in view of Prati for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Kuo in view of Revant and further in view of Prati for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo in view of Revant and further in view of Niu et al. (US 2020/0410343 A1 – Quantum Computation Through Reinforcement Learning, hereinafter referred to as “Niu”).
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Kuo in view of Revant teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. However, Kuo in view of Revant does not explicitly teach wherein a second neural network is configured to generate values associated with the reward function.
Niu teaches wherein a second neural network is configured to generate values associated with the reward function (Niu, [0083] – teaches a value function neural network [second neural network] that generates values associated with the reward).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuo in view of Revant with the teachings of Niu in order to reduce leakage, infidelity and total runtime of the quantum gates to improve robustness of performance against control noise during iterative adjustments in the field of reinforcement learning for quantum devices (Niu, Abstract – “Methods, systems, and apparatus for designing a quantum control trajectory for implementing a quantum gate using quantum hardware. In one aspect, a method includes the actions of representing the quantum gate as a sequence of control actions and applying a reinforcement learning model to iteratively adjust each control action in the sequence of control actions to determine a quantum control trajectory that implements the quantum gate and reduces leakage, infidelity and total runtime of the quantum gate to improve its robustness of performance against control noise during the iterative adjustments.”).
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Kuo in view of Revant and further in view of Niu for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights