CTNF 18/468,358 CTNF 86679 DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the application filed 15 September 2023. Claims 1–20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claims 1–20 are rejected. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Claim Rejections—35 U.S.C. § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 inventions are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding independent claim 1 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows: Step 1: The claim recites [a] method comprising a series of steps, which is a process. Step 2A, Prong One: The limitations of applying a first Hadamard transformation… and applying a second Hadamard transformation… , under their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, are mathematical calculations. The limitations of responsive to the first Hadamard transformation returning the particular value, swapping the first qubit and the second qubit… and responsive to the measurement outcome being observed as having a value of zero, determining that a changepoint does not occur… , under their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, are mathematical relationships. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea in the “mathematical concept” grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A). Step 2A, Prong Two: The additional elements of obtaining a first quantum state… , obtaining a second quantum state… , and configuring a quantum circuit are insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, it is known in the art that it is necessary to initialize qubits, etc. in order to perform quantum computation. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Step 2B: The additional elements of obtaining a first quantum state… , obtaining a second quantum state… , and configuring a quantum circuit are insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, it is known in the art that it is necessary to initialize qubits, etc. in order to perform quantum computation. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, this is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving and/or transmitting data (e.g., receiving data regarding the qubits from the quantum computer, or transmitting initialization instructions from a classical computer to control the quantum computer); see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, the additional elements, taken individually or in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding dependent claim 2 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:The limitation of responsive to the second measurement outcome being observed… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical calculation. The limitation of applying the second Hadamard transformation… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical relationship. Regarding dependent claim 3 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:The limitation of responsive to the third measurement outcome being observed… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical calculation. The limitation of applying the second Hadamard transformation… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical relationship. Regarding dependent claim 4 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows: The limitation of applying the first Hadamard transformation to the ancillary qubit… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical calculation. The additional elements of obtaining a third quantum state… and configuring the quantum circuit… are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Regarding dependent claim 5 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:The limitation of applying the first Hadamard transformation to the ancillary qubit… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical calculation. The additional elements of obtaining a third quantum state… and configuring the quantum circuit… are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Regarding dependent claim 6 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:The additional element of the first quantum state and the second quantum state are obtained as part of a data stream in which the first quantum state and the second quantum state are encrypted upon being obtained and are discarded after observing the measurement outcome is insignificant extra-solution activity, namely transmitting or receiving data, or selecting a particular type of data. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Regarding dependent claim 7 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:The additional element of wherein the first data subset includes data samples categorized as normal data and the second data subset includes data samples categorized as abnormal data is insignificant extra-solution activity, namely selecting a particular type of data. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Regarding independent claim 8 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows: Step 1: The claim recites [o]ne or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media , which is a manufacture. Step 2A, Prong One: The limitations of applying a first Hadamard transformation… and applying a second Hadamard transformation… , under their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, are mathematical calculations. The limitations of responsive to the first Hadamard transformation returning the particular value, swapping the first qubit and the second qubit… and responsive to the measurement outcome being observed as having a value of zero, determining that a changepoint does not occur… , under their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, are mathematical relationships. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea in the “mathematical concept” grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A). Step 2A, Prong Two: The additional elements of obtaining a first quantum state… , obtaining a second quantum state… , and configuring a quantum circuit are insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, it is known in the art that it is necessary to initialize qubits, etc. in order to perform quantum computation. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element of [o]ne or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media generally links the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Therefore, the additional elements, taken individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B: The additional elements of obtaining a first quantum state… , obtaining a second quantum state… , and configuring a quantum circuit are insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, it is known in the art that it is necessary to initialize qubits, etc. in order to perform quantum computation. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, this is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving and/or transmitting data (e.g., receiving data regarding the qubits from the quantum computer, or transmitting initialization instructions from a classical computer to control the quantum computer); see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, the additional elements, taken individually or in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding dependent claim 9 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:The limitation of responsive to the second measurement outcome being observed… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical calculation. The limitation of applying the second Hadamard transformation… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical relationship. Regarding dependent claim 10 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:The limitation of responsive to the third measurement outcome being observed… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical calculation. The limitation of applying the second Hadamard transformation… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical relationship. Regarding dependent claim 11 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:The limitation of applying the first Hadamard transformation to the ancillary qubit… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical calculation. The additional elements of obtaining a third quantum state… and configuring the quantum circuit… are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Regarding dependent claim 12 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:The limitation of applying the first Hadamard transformation to the ancillary qubit… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical calculation. The additional elements of obtaining a third quantum state… and configuring the quantum circuit… are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Regarding dependent claim 13 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:The additional element of the first quantum state and the second quantum state are obtained as part of a data stream in which the first quantum state and the second quantum state are encrypted upon being obtained and are discarded after observing the measurement outcome is insignificant extra-solution activity, namely transmitting or receiving data, or selecting a particular type of data. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Regarding dependent claim 14 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:The additional element of wherein the first data subset includes data samples categorized as normal data and the second data subset includes data samples categorized as abnormal data is insignificant extra-solution activity, namely selecting a particular type of data. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Regarding independent claim 15 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows: Step 1: The claim recites [a] system comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media , which is a machine. Step 2A, Prong One: The limitations of applying a first Hadamard transformation… and applying a second Hadamard transformation… , under their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, are mathematical calculations. The limitations of responsive to the first Hadamard transformation returning the particular value, swapping the first qubit and the second qubit… and responsive to the measurement outcome being observed as having a value of zero, determining that a changepoint does not occur… , under their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of the specification, are mathematical relationships. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea in the “mathematical concept” grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A). Therefore, the additional elements, taken individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2A, Prong Two: The additional elements of obtaining a first quantum state… , obtaining a second quantum state… , and configuring a quantum circuit are insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, it is known in the art that it is necessary to initialize qubits, etc. in order to perform quantum computation. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional elements of one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements, taken individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B: The additional elements of obtaining a first quantum state… , obtaining a second quantum state… , and configuring a quantum circuit are insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, it is known in the art that it is necessary to initialize qubits, etc. in order to perform quantum computation. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, this is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving and/or transmitting data (e.g., receiving data regarding the qubits from the quantum computer, or transmitting initialization instructions from a classical computer to control the quantum computer); see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, the additional elements, taken individually or in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding dependent claim 16 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:The limitation of responsive to the second measurement outcome being observed… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical calculation. The limitation of applying the second Hadamard transformation… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical relationship. Regarding dependent claim 17 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:The limitation of responsive to the third measurement outcome being observed… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical calculation. The limitation of applying the second Hadamard transformation… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical relationship. Regarding dependent claim 18 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:The limitation of applying the first Hadamard transformation to the ancillary qubit… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical calculation. The additional elements of obtaining a third quantum state… and configuring the quantum circuit… are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Regarding dependent claim 19 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows: The limitation of applying the first Hadamard transformation to the ancillary qubit… , under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, is a mathematical calculation. The additional elements of obtaining a third quantum state… and configuring the quantum circuit… are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Regarding dependent claim 20 , the eligibility analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework is as follows:The additional element of the first quantum state and the second quantum state are obtained as part of a data stream in which the first quantum state and the second quantum state are encrypted upon being obtained and are discarded after observing the measurement outcome is insignificant extra-solution activity, namely transmitting or receiving data, or selecting a particular type of data. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler Schallhorn whose telephone number is 571-270-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. (ET). Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571-272-4241. The fax phone 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 the USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000. /Tyler Schallhorn/Examiner, Art Unit 2144 /TAMARA T KYLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/468,358 Page 2 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/468,358 Page 3 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/468,358 Page 4 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/468,358 Page 5 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/468,358 Page 6 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/468,358 Page 7 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/468,358 Page 8 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/468,358 Page 9 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/468,358 Page 10 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/468,358 Page 11 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/468,358 Page 12 Art Unit: 2144 Application/Control Number: 18/468,358 Page 13 Art Unit: 2144
Prosecution Insights