CTNF 18/481,042 CTNF 101641 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings 06-22-06 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “+s” . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para[0031] recites “lattice or qubits” which should be “lattice of qubits”. Para[0031] recites “set of qubits 200” which should be “set of qubits 220”. Para[0034] recites “second stage 205” which should be “second stage 204”. Para[0037] recites “fifth state 210” which should be “fifth stage 210”. Para[0038] recites “first calibration group 242” which should be “first computation group 242”. Para[0038] recites “fourth stage 206” which should be “fourth stage 208”. Para[0043] recites “semicircle times” which should be “semicircle tiles”. Para[0043] recites “ZZZ” which should be “ZZZZ”. Para[0052] recites “fifth step 504” which should be “fifth step 310”. Para[0056] recites “two graph” which should be clarified to explain what “two graph” means. Para[0059] recites “1002” which should be “1102”. Para[0061] recites “FIG. 3” which should be “FIG. 13”. Para[0061] recites “method 300” which should be “method 1300” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 7-20 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “wherein subdividing the set of qubits”, which should be “wherein the subdividing the set of qubits”. Claims 7, 14, and 20 recite “the other (N-1) non-selection qubit groups”, which should be “(N-1) other non-selection qubit groups”. Claims 9-14 recite “The system” which should be “The quantum computing system”. Claim 15 recites “by one or more processors” which should be “by one or more quantum processors” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 8-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 8 recites “a quantum processor”, but later recites “the one or more processors” twice. It is unclear if there is only one quantum processor or if there is more than one processor, rendering the instances of “a quantum processor” and “the one or more processors” in this claim as indefinite. Claim 8 recites “the QLC”, which is not defined in the claims nor in the disclosure, rendering this limitation as indefinite. Examiner will interpret “the QLC” as “the Quantum Logic Circuit”. Claims 8-9, 11, 13, 15-17, and 19 recite “the quantum computation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in these claims. Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of With regards to Claim 1, A method for performing a quantum computation, wherein a set of qubits is allocated for the quantum computation, the method comprising: subdividing the set of qubits into a first calibration group and a first computation group, wherein the first calibration group and the first computation group are complementary subsets of the set of qubits; executing a first portion of the quantum computation with qubits included in the first computation group; and during execution of the first portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the first computation group, calibrating qubits included in the first calibration group; and executing a second portion of the quantum computation with the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group. With regards to Claim 8, A quantum computing system, comprising: a quantum processor that includes a set of qubits; one or more memory devices, the one or more memory devices storing computer readable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations for characterizing the QLC, the operations comprising: subdividing the set of qubits into a first calibration group and a first computation group, wherein the first calibration group and the first computation group are complementary subsets of the set of qubits; executing a first portion of the quantum computation with qubits included in the first computation group; and during execution of the first portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the first computation group, calibrating qubits included in the first calibration group; and executing a second portion of the quantum computation with the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group. With regards to Claim 15, One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more quantum processors including a set of qubits to perform operations comprising: subdividing the set of qubits into a first calibration group and a first computation group, wherein the first calibration group and the first computation group are complementary subsets of the set of qubits; executing a first portion of the quantum computation with qubits included in the first computation group; and during execution of the first portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the first computation group, calibrating qubits included in the first calibration group; and executing a second portion of the quantum computation with the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group. Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category. Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claims recite a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claims, the highlighted portions constitute abstract ideas because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, they recite limitations that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, they fall into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, cover performing mathematics or mental steps. Additionally, the clam limitations merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed, which is quantum computation. Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claims that recite a judicial exception are integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that even though the claimed method is tied to a particular machine or apparatus (i.e. the quantum computing system), it does not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field as the quantum computing system was already produced before the mental and mathematical steps listed in BOLD of Claims 1, 8, and 15, which do not indicate an improvement upon the component. Similarly, there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claim that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state. Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because every step in Claims 1, 8, and 15 point to a mental or mathematical step. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claims 8 and 15 recite “a quantum computing system”, “a quantum processor”, “one or more memory devices storing computer-readable instructions”, “one or more processors” , “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions”, “one or more quantum processors”, and “a set of qubits” which are generic computer elements and are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are further directed to abstract ideas and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reagor (US 20180260730 A1) . With regards to Claim 1, Reagor teaches subdividing the set of qubits into a first calibration group and a first computation group ( See Fig. 3A, where the first calibration group is the set of boundary qubits 305C, 305I, and 305O, and the first computation group is the qubits in 301A and 301B (which are the cores). The entire set of qubits includes the combination of the boundary qubits and cores, which subdivide the set of qubits. The boundary qubits constitute a calibration group because they are calibrated to evolve via the identity operation, see Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”. In addition, the cores constitute a computation group, See Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)” ), wherein the first calibration group and the first computation group are complementary subsets of the set of qubits ( See Fig. 3A, where the boundary qubits, and the cores 301A and 301B constitute the entire set of qubits without any overlap (i.e. they are complementary subsets). ); executing a first portion of the quantum computation with qubits included in the first computation group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core (i.e. which include qubits of the first computation group, see cores 301A and 301B in Fig. 3A and their respective qubits (where 301A and 301B constitute the computation group)) can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set.” Examiner notes that “executing a first portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the first iteration of steps 202-206. ); and executing a second portion of the quantum computation with the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” Examiner notes that “executing a second portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the second iteration of steps 202-206. In the second iteration, the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group (i.e. the boundary qubits from the first iteration) are re-processed back in steps 204-206 of the second iteration of Fig. 2 (i.e. the second portion of the quantum computation). Examiner notes that Fig. 3B can correspond to the second iteration of the quantum algorithm, see Para[0040] “ on a first iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3A for a first step in the quantum algorithm, and on a second iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3B for a second step in the quantum algorithm”. ). Reagor is silent to the language of during execution of the first portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the first computation group, calibrating qubits included in the first calibration group. Reagor teaches during execution of the first portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the first computation group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core (i.e. which include qubits of the first computation group, see cores 301A and 301B in Fig. 3A and their respective qubits (where 301A and 301B constitute the computation group)) can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set.” Examiner notes that “executing a first portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the first iteration of steps 202-206. ), calibrating qubits included in the first calibration group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), during the first iteration (i.e. during the first portion which are for steps 204-206) of the steps 202-206, the qubits of the boundary qubits (i.e. the first calibration group) are calibrated to evolve via an identity operator, see Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”. ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Reagor wherein during execution of the first portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the first computation group, calibrating qubits included in the first calibration group is done like in Reagor in order to iteratively reduce the complexity of building accurate quantum algorithms such as quantum error correction codes ( See Para[0007] “the complexity of large-scale quantum operations is reduced or avoided by modularizing the approach to control in-situ.” and Para[0013] “A sequence of quantum logic operations can be applied to the qubits to perform a quantum algorithm. The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure, a quantum state distillation procedure, or a combination of these and other types of operations.” ). With regards to Claim 2 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Reagor further teaches wherein during the execution of the first portion of the quantum computation ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core (i.e. which include qubits of the first computation group, see cores 301A and 301B in Fig. 3A and their respective qubits) can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. cores 301A and 301B combined is the first computation group in Fig. 3A and cores 301C and 301D combined is the second computation group).” Examiner notes that “executing a first portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the first iteration of steps 202-206. ), the qubits of the first computation group form a first logical qubit of a quantum error correction (QEC) code ( See Fig. 2 step 204 and Para[0034] “ An instruction set may be defined for a core (i.e. including the qubits of the first computation group), for example, as a target unitary evolution for the core (e.g., a unitary operator over the Hilbert space defined by the qubits assigned to the core, or another form), as a target quantum logic sequence (e.g., a series of quantum logic gates (i.e. a first logical qubit) applied for the qubits assigned to the core, or another form)” , “The target quantum algorithm may be constructed or composed as a sequence of operations that can be executed at the core level of the quantum information processor.”, and Para[0013] “The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure (i.e. a quantum error correction code) ” ), and wherein during the execution of the second portion of the quantum computation, the qubits of the first calibration group are included in the first logical qubit of the QEC code ( See Fig. 3B., the qubits 305C, 305I, and 305O correspond to qubits that were the boundary qubits (i.e. the first calibration group (The boundary qubits constitute a calibration group because they are calibrated to evolve via the identity operation, see Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”)) in Fig. 3A but are now part of the core 301C (i.e. part of the second computation group), which happens via step 202 in Fig. 2 for the reallocation of qubits in the second iteration of steps 202-206 ( i.e. where the second portion of the quantum computation is steps 204-206 in the second iteration). Therefore, in the second iteration, the first calibration group is now part of a core that can be part of the first logical qubit, see Para[0034] “ An instruction set may be defined for a core (i.e. including the qubits of the first computation group), for example, as a target unitary evolution for the core (e.g., a unitary operator over the Hilbert space defined by the qubits assigned to the core, or another form), as a target quantum logic sequence (e.g., a series of quantum logic gates (i.e. the first logical qubit) applied for the qubits assigned to the core, or another form)”, “The target quantum algorithm may be constructed or composed as a sequence of operations that can be executed at the core level of the quantum information processor.”, and Para[0013] “The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure (i.e. a quantum error correction code) ”. Examiner notes that Fig. 3B can correspond to the second iteration of the quantum algorithm, see Para[0040] “ on a first iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3A for a first step in the quantum algorithm, and on a second iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3B for a second step in the quantum algorithm”. ). With regards to Claim 3 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 2. Reagor further teaches wherein the QEC code ( See Para[0034] “The target quantum algorithm may be constructed or composed as a sequence of operations that can be executed at the core level of the quantum information processor.” and Para[0013] “The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure (i.e. a quantum error correction code) ” ) is a surface code ( See Fig. 3A, where the lattice of qubits are controlled to achieve a QEC algorithm. Since this is done on that lattice and defined thereon, the QEC code is a surface code. ). With regards to Claim 4 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Reagor is silent to the language of calibrating the qubits included in the first calibration group, subdividing the set of qubits into a second calibration group and a second computation group, wherein the second calibration group and the second computation group are complementary subsets of the set of qubits and the second computation group includes the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group; executing the second portion of the quantum computation with qubits included in the second computation group; and during execution of the second portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the second computation group, calibrating qubits included in the second calibration group. Reagor teaches in response to calibrating the qubits included in the first calibration group ( See Fig.2 the step 202 after the step 206, which would be the second iteration in Fig. 2. Step 202 begins in response to the completion of 206. In addition, see Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core (i.e. which include qubits of the first computation group, see cores 301A and 301B in Fig. 3A and their respective qubits (where 301A and 301B constitute the computation group)) can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. cores 301A and 301B combined is the first computation group in Fig. 3A and cores 301C and 301D combined is the second computation group).” Examiner notes that “executing a first portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the first iteration of steps 202-206. See also Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), during the first iteration (i.e. during the first portion which is steps 204-206) of the steps 202-206, the qubits of the boundary qubits (i.e. the first calibration group) are calibrated to evolve via an identity operator, see Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”. ), subdividing the set of qubits into a second calibration group and a second computation group ( See Fig.2 the step 202 after the step 206, which would be the second iteration in Fig. 2. Step 202 begins in response to the completion of 206 and Fig. 3B, where the second calibration group is the set of boundary qubits 305D, 305J, and 305P, and the second computation group is the groups 301A and 301B (which are the cores). The entire set of qubits includes the combination of the boundary qubits and cores, which subdivide the set of qubits. The boundary qubits in Fig. 3B constitute a second calibration group because they are calibrated to evolve via the identity operation, See Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”. In addition, the cores in Fig. 3B constitute the second computation group, see Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)” ), wherein the second calibration group and the second computation group are complementary subsets of the set of qubits and the second computation group includes the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group ( See Fig. 3B, where the boundary qubits, and the cores 301C and 301D constitute the entire set of qubits without any overlap (i.e. they are complementary subsets). Also, the qubits 305C, 305I, and 305O, which were the boundary qubits (i.e. the first calibration group) in Fig. 3A, became part of the core in 301C (i.e. part of the second computation group) of Fig. 3B. Examiner notes that Fig. 3B can correspond to the second iteration of the quantum algorithm, see Para[0040] “ on a first iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3A for a first step in the quantum algorithm, and on a second iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3B for a second step in the quantum algorithm”. ); executing the second portion of the quantum computation with qubits included in the second computation group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” Examiner notes that “executing a second portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the second iteration of steps 202-206. In the second iteration, the qubits included in the second computation group are processed in steps 204-206 after being defined as the second computation group in step 202 of the second iteration of Fig. 2 ); and during execution of the second portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the second computation group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” Examiner notes that “during execution of the second portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the second iteration of steps 202-206. In the second iteration, the qubits included in the second computation group are processed in steps 204-206 after being defined as the second computation group in step 202 of the second iteration of Fig. 2 ), calibrating qubits included in the second calibration group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), during the second iteration (i.e. during the second portion) of the steps 202-206, the qubits of the boundary qubits (i.e. the second calibration group) are calibrated to evolve via an identity operator, see Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”. ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Reagor wherein in response to calibrating the qubits included in the first calibration group, subdividing the set of qubits into a second calibration group and a second computation group, wherein the second calibration group and the second computation group are complementary subsets of the set of qubits and the second computation group includes the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group; executing the second portion of the quantum computation with qubits included in the second computation group; and during execution of the second portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the second computation group, calibrating qubits included in the second calibration group is done like in Reagor in order to iteratively reduce the complexity of building accurate quantum algorithms such as quantum error correction codes ( See Para[0007] “the complexity of large-scale quantum operations is reduced or avoided by modularizing the approach to control in-situ.” and Para[0013] “A sequence of quantum logic operations can be applied to the qubits to perform a quantum algorithm. The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure, a quantum state distillation procedure, or a combination of these and other types of operations.” ). With regards to Claim 5 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 4. Reagor further teaches wherein a portion of the qubits included in the first computation group are included in the second calibration group ( See Fig. 3B, where the qubits 305D, 305J, and 305P were part of the first computation group in Fig. 3A for the core 301B (the cores 301A and 301B constitute the first computation group, while cores 301C and 301D constitute the second computation group, see Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)”)), but in Fig. 3B they correspond to the second calibration group (the boundary qubits) as they do not belong to either core and the boundary qubits constitute a calibration group because they are calibrated to evolve via the identity operation, See Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation” ) and the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group are included in the second computation group ( See Fig. 3B, where the qubits 305C, 305I, and 305O were part of the first calibration group in Fig. 3A, but in Fig. 3B they are part of the second computation group (in the core 301C). Examiner notes that Fig. 3B can correspond to the second iteration of the quantum algorithm, see Para[0040] “ on a first iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3A for a first step in the quantum algorithm, and on a second iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3B for a second step in the quantum algorithm”. ). With regards to Claim 6 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 4. Reagor further teaches wherein during the execution of the first portion of the quantum computation ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core (i.e. which include qubits of the first computation group, see cores 301A and 301B in Fig. 3A and their respective qubits (where 301A and 301B constitute the first computation group, while 301C and 301D constitute the second computation group)) can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set(i.e. a computation for the first computation group).” Examiner notes that “executing a first portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the first iteration of steps 202-206. ), the qubits of the first computation group form a first logical qubit of a surface code ( See Fig. 2 step 204 and Para[0034] “ An instruction set may be defined for a core (i.e. including the qubits of the first computation group and the cores constitute a computation group (similarly for the second computation group), see Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)”)), for example, as a target unitary evolution for the core (e.g., a unitary operator over the Hilbert space defined by the qubits assigned to the core, or another form), as a target quantum logic sequence (e.g., a series of quantum logic gates (i.e. a first logical qubit) applied for the qubits assigned to the core, or another form)” , “The target quantum algorithm may be constructed or composed as a sequence of operations that can be executed at the core level of the quantum information processor.”, and Para[0013] “The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure (i.e. a quantum error correction code) ” and See Fig. 3A, where the lattice of qubits are controlled to achieve a QEC algorithm. Since this is done on that lattice and defined thereon, the QEC code is a surface code. ), and wherein during the execution of the second portion of the quantum computation, the qubits of the second computation group form the first logical qubit of the surface code ( See Fig. 3B., the qubits in cores 301C and 301D correspond to the second computation group in Fig. 3B and are processed in the second iteration of steps 202-206 ( i.e. during the execution of the second portion of the quantum computation for steps 204-206). Therefore, in the second iteration, the second computation group can now be part of the first logical qubit, see Para[0034] “ An instruction set may be defined for a core (i.e. including the qubits of the second computation group), for example, as a target unitary evolution for the core (e.g., a unitary operator over the Hilbert space defined by the qubits assigned to the core, or another form), as a target quantum logic sequence (e.g., a series of quantum logic gates (i.e. the first logical qubit) applied for the qubits assigned to the core, or another form)”, “The target quantum algorithm may be constructed or composed as a sequence of operations that can be executed at the core level of the quantum information processor.”, and Para[0013] “The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure (i.e. a quantum error correction code) ”. Examiner notes that Fig. 3B can correspond to the second iteration of the quantum algorithm, see Para[0040] “ on a first iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3A for a first step in the quantum algorithm, and on a second iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3B for a second step in the quantum algorithm”. ). With regards to Claim 7 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Reagor further teaches subdividing the set of qubits into N non-overlapping subsets of qubits to form a set of qubit groups, wherein N is a positive integer greater than one ( See Fig. 3A, where amongst the three sets (i.e. N non-overlapping subsets where N = 3), there are two cores 301A and 301B corresponding to two subsets, when combined correspond to the first computation group and the cores constitute a computation group, see Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)” and one subset for the boundary qubits, making the three subsets subdivide the entire set of qubits in Fig. 3A ), the subdivided set of qubit groups comprises the set of qubit groups ( See Fig. 3A, where the two cores 301A and 301B corresponding to two subsets and the set of boundary qubits (i.e. the subdivided set of qubit groups ) are the entire set of qubit groups ( i.e. comprises the set of qubit groups) ), and each qubit group of the set of qubit groups includes one of the N nonoverlapping subsets of qubits ( See Fig. 3A, the two cores 301A and 301B corresponding to two sets and the set of boundary qubits (i.e. the subdivided set of qubit groups each equal their respective non-overlapping subset of qubits, where there are N=3 such subsets ); and selecting a first qubit group of the set of qubit groups as the first calibration group such that the set of qubit groups comprises the first calibration group and a set of current computation groups that comprises the other (N-1) non-selection qubit groups of the set of qubit groups ( See Fig. 3A, the subset of boundary qubits 305C, 305I, 305O ( i.e. which combined constitutes selecting a first qubit group of the set of qubit groups as the first calibration group because they are calibrated to evolve via the identity operation, See Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation” ) and the other N-1 =2 subsets of cores 301A and 301B constitute the first computation group (and form a set of current computation groups (or current computation subsets), note the cores 301A and 301B constitute the first computation group, see Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)”), so the entire set of qubits in Fig. 3 (i.e. the set of qubit groups) contains the first calibration group and a set of current computation groups ), wherein the set of current computation groups excludes the first calibration group and forms the first computation group ( See Fig. 3A, where the current computation groups 301A and 301B (which combined forms the first computation group) do not include the qubits 305C, 305I, and 305O which combined form the first calibration group ). With regards to Claim 8, Reagor teaches a quantum processor that includes a set of qubits ( See Fig. 1 the quantum information processor 102 (i.e. a quantum processor) which contains qubits 105 (i.e. a set of qubits). ); one or more memory devices, the one or more memory devices storing computer readable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations for characterizing the QLC, the operations comprising ( See Para[0033] “In some cases, the cores assignments (i.e. computer-readable instructions for the cores (i.e. the Quantum Logic Circuit or QLC)) are stored in memory (i.e. a memory device), for example, for access by a processor in the control system 110 (i.e. the one or more processors. Examiner notes that the Claim does not recite them to be the quantum processor).” and “For example, in FIG. 1, the cores (i.e. which constitute a QLC) may be assigned by software or logic (i.e. operations for characterizing the QLC) executed on a processor in the control system 110.” ): subdividing the set of qubits into a first calibration group and a first computation group ( See Fig. 3A, where the first calibration group is the set of boundary qubits 305C, 305I, and 305O, and the first computation group is the qubits in 301A and 301B (which are the cores). The entire set of qubits includes the combination of the boundary qubits and cores, which subdivide the set of qubits. The boundary qubits constitute a calibration group because they are calibrated to evolve via the identity operation, see Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”. In addition, the cores constitute a computation group, See Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)” ), wherein the first calibration group and the first computation group are complementary subsets of the set of qubits ( See Fig. 3A, where the boundary qubits, and the cores 301A and 301B constitute the entire set of qubits without any overlap (i.e. they are complementary subsets). ); executing a first portion of the quantum computation with qubits included in the first computation group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core (i.e. which include qubits of the first computation group, see cores 301A and 301B in Fig. 3A and their respective qubits (where 301A and 301B constitute the computation group)) can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set.” Examiner notes that “executing a first portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the first iteration of steps 202-206. ); and executing a second portion of the quantum computation with the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” Examiner notes that “executing a second portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the second iteration of steps 202-206. In the second iteration, the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group (i.e. the boundary qubits from the first iteration) are re-processed back in steps 204-206 of the second iteration of Fig. 2 (i.e. the second portion of the quantum computation). Examiner notes that Fig. 3B can correspond to the second iteration of the quantum algorithm, see Para[0040] “ on a first iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3A for a first step in the quantum algorithm, and on a second iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3B for a second step in the quantum algorithm”. ). Reagor is silent to the language of during execution of the first portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the first computation group, calibrating qubits included in the first calibration group. Reagor teaches during execution of the first portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the first computation group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core (i.e. which include qubits of the first computation group, see cores 301A and 301B in Fig. 3A and their respective qubits (where 301A and 301B constitute the computation group)) can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set.” Examiner notes that “executing a first portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the first iteration of steps 202-206. ), calibrating qubits included in the first calibration group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), during the first iteration (i.e. during the first portion which are for steps 204-206) of the steps 202-206, the qubits of the boundary qubits (i.e. the first calibration group) are calibrated to evolve via an identity operator, see Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”. ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Reagor wherein during execution of the first portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the first computation group, calibrating qubits included in the first calibration group is done like in Reagor in order to iteratively reduce the complexity of building accurate quantum algorithms such as quantum error correction codes ( See Para[0007] “the complexity of large-scale quantum operations is reduced or avoided by modularizing the approach to control in-situ.” and Para[0013] “A sequence of quantum logic operations can be applied to the qubits to perform a quantum algorithm. The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure, a quantum state distillation procedure, or a combination of these and other types of operations.” ). With regards to Claim 9 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 8. Reagor further teaches wherein during the execution of the first portion of the quantum computation ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core (i.e. which include qubits of the first computation group, see cores 301A and 301B in Fig. 3A and their respective qubits) can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. cores 301A and 301B combined is the first computation group in Fig. 3A and cores 301C and 301D combined is the second computation group).” Examiner notes that “executing a first portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the first iteration of steps 202-206. ), the qubits of the first computation group form a first logical qubit of a quantum error correction (QEC) code ( See Fig. 2 step 204 and Para[0034] “ An instruction set may be defined for a core (i.e. including the qubits of the first computation group), for example, as a target unitary evolution for the core (e.g., a unitary operator over the Hilbert space defined by the qubits assigned to the core, or another form), as a target quantum logic sequence (e.g., a series of quantum logic gates (i.e. a first logical qubit) applied for the qubits assigned to the core, or another form)” , “The target quantum algorithm may be constructed or composed as a sequence of operations that can be executed at the core level of the quantum information processor.”, and Para[0013] “The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure (i.e. a quantum error correction code) ” ), and wherein during the execution of the second portion of the quantum computation, the qubits of the first calibration group are included in the first logical qubit of the QEC code ( See Fig. 3B., the qubits 305C, 305I, and 305O correspond to qubits that were the boundary qubits (i.e. the first calibration group (The boundary qubits constitute a calibration group because they are calibrated to evolve via the identity operation, see Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”)) in Fig. 3A but are now part of the core 301C (i.e. part of the second computation group), which happens via step 202 in Fig. 2 for the reallocation of qubits in the second iteration of steps 202-206 ( i.e. where the second portion of the quantum computation is steps 204-206 in the second iteration). Therefore, in the second iteration, the first calibration group is now part of a core that can be part of the first logical qubit, see Para[0034] “ An instruction set may be defined for a core (i.e. including the qubits of the first computation group), for example, as a target unitary evolution for the core (e.g., a unitary operator over the Hilbert space defined by the qubits assigned to the core, or another form), as a target quantum logic sequence (e.g., a series of quantum logic gates (i.e. the first logical qubit) applied for the qubits assigned to the core, or another form)”, “The target quantum algorithm may be constructed or composed as a sequence of operations that can be executed at the core level of the quantum information processor.”, and Para[0013] “The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure (i.e. a quantum error correction code) ”. Examiner notes that Fig. 3B can correspond to the second iteration of the quantum algorithm, see Para[0040] “ on a first iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3A for a first step in the quantum algorithm, and on a second iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3B for a second step in the quantum algorithm”. ). With regards to Claim 10 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 9. Reagor further teaches wherein the QEC code ( See Para[0034] “The target quantum algorithm may be constructed or composed as a sequence of operations that can be executed at the core level of the quantum information processor.” and Para[0013] “The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure (i.e. a quantum error correction code) ” ) is a surface code ( See Fig. 3A, where the lattice of qubits are controlled to achieve a QEC algorithm. Since this is done on that lattice and defined thereon, the QEC code is a surface code. ). With regards to Claim 11 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 8. Reagor is silent to the language of calibrating the qubits included in the first calibration group, subdividing the set of qubits into a second calibration group and a second computation group, wherein the second calibration group and the second computation group are complementary subsets of the set of qubits and the second computation group includes the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group; executing the second portion of the quantum computation with qubits included in the second computation group; and during execution of the second portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the second computation group, calibrating qubits included in the second calibration group. Reagor teaches in response to calibrating the qubits included in the first calibration group ( See Fig.2 the step 202 after the step 206, which would be the second iteration in Fig. 2. Step 202 begins in response to the completion of 206. In addition, see Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core (i.e. which include qubits of the first computation group, see cores 301A and 301B in Fig. 3A and their respective qubits (where 301A and 301B constitute the computation group)) can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. cores 301A and 301B combined is the first computation group in Fig. 3A and cores 301C and 301D combined is the second computation group).” Examiner notes that “executing a first portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the first iteration of steps 202-206. See also Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), during the first iteration (i.e. during the first portion which is steps 204-206) of the steps 202-206, the qubits of the boundary qubits (i.e. the first calibration group) are calibrated to evolve via an identity operator, see Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”. ), subdividing the set of qubits into a second calibration group and a second computation group ( See Fig.2 the step 202 after the step 206, which would be the second iteration in Fig. 2. Step 202 begins in response to the completion of 206 and Fig. 3B, where the second calibration group is the set of boundary qubits 305D, 305J, and 305P, and the second computation group is the groups 301A and 301B (which are the cores). The entire set of qubits includes the combination of the boundary qubits and cores, which subdivide the set of qubits. The boundary qubits in Fig. 3B constitute a second calibration group because they are calibrated to evolve via the identity operation, See Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”. In addition, the cores in Fig. 3B constitute the second computation group, see Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)” ), wherein the second calibration group and the second computation group are complementary subsets of the set of qubits and the second computation group includes the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group ( See Fig. 3B, where the boundary qubits, and the cores 301C and 301D constitute the entire set of qubits without any overlap (i.e. they are complementary subsets). Also, the qubits 305C, 305I, and 305O, which were the boundary qubits (i.e. the first calibration group) in Fig. 3A, became part of the core in 301C (i.e. part of the second computation group) of Fig. 3B. Examiner notes that Fig. 3B can correspond to the second iteration of the quantum algorithm, see Para[0040] “ on a first iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3A for a first step in the quantum algorithm, and on a second iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3B for a second step in the quantum algorithm”. ); executing the second portion of the quantum computation with qubits included in the second computation group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” Examiner notes that “executing a second portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the second iteration of steps 202-206. In the second iteration, the qubits included in the second computation group are processed in steps 204-206 after being defined as the second computation group in step 202 of the second iteration of Fig. 2 ); and during execution of the second portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the second computation group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” Examiner notes that “during execution of the second portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the second iteration of steps 202-206. In the second iteration, the qubits included in the second computation group are processed in steps 204-206 after being defined as the second computation group in step 202 of the second iteration of Fig. 2 ), calibrating qubits included in the second calibration group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), during the second iteration (i.e. during the second portion) of the steps 202-206, the qubits of the boundary qubits (i.e. the second calibration group) are calibrated to evolve via an identity operator, see Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”. ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Reagor wherein in response to calibrating the qubits included in the first calibration group, subdividing the set of qubits into a second calibration group and a second computation group, wherein the second calibration group and the second computation group are complementary subsets of the set of qubits and the second computation group includes the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group; executing the second portion of the quantum computation with qubits included in the second computation group; and during execution of the second portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the second computation group, calibrating qubits included in the second calibration group is done like in Reagor in order to iteratively reduce the complexity of building accurate quantum algorithms such as quantum error correction codes ( See Para[0007] “the complexity of large-scale quantum operations is reduced or avoided by modularizing the approach to control in-situ.” and Para[0013] “A sequence of quantum logic operations can be applied to the qubits to perform a quantum algorithm. The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure, a quantum state distillation procedure, or a combination of these and other types of operations.” ). With regards to Claim 12 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Reagor further teaches wherein a portion of the qubits included in the first computation group are included in the second calibration group ( See Fig. 3B, where the qubits 305D, 305J, and 305P were part of the first computation group in Fig. 3A for the core 301B (the cores 301A and 301B constitute the first computation group, while cores 301C and 301D constitute the second computation group, see Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)”)), but in Fig. 3B they correspond to the second calibration group (the boundary qubits) as they do not belong to either core and the boundary qubits constitute a calibration group because they are calibrated to evolve via the identity operation, See Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation” ) and the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group are included in the second computation group ( See Fig. 3B, where the qubits 305C, 305I, and 305O were part of the first calibration group in Fig. 3A, but in Fig. 3B they are part of the second computation group (in the core 301C). Examiner notes that Fig. 3B can correspond to the second iteration of the quantum algorithm, see Para[0040] “ on a first iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3A for a first step in the quantum algorithm, and on a second iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3B for a second step in the quantum algorithm”. ). With regards to Claim 13 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 11. Reagor further teaches wherein during the execution of the first portion of the quantum computation ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core (i.e. which include qubits of the first computation group, see cores 301A and 301B in Fig. 3A and their respective qubits (where 301A and 301B constitute the first computation group, while 301C and 301D constitute the second computation group)) can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set(i.e. a computation for the first computation group).” Examiner notes that “executing a first portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the first iteration of steps 202-206. ), the qubits of the first computation group form a first logical qubit of a surface code ( See Fig. 2 step 204 and Para[0034] “ An instruction set may be defined for a core (i.e. including the qubits of the first computation group and the cores constitute a computation group (similarly for the second computation group), see Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)”)), for example, as a target unitary evolution for the core (e.g., a unitary operator over the Hilbert space defined by the qubits assigned to the core, or another form), as a target quantum logic sequence (e.g., a series of quantum logic gates (i.e. a first logical qubit) applied for the qubits assigned to the core, or another form)” , “The target quantum algorithm may be constructed or composed as a sequence of operations that can be executed at the core level of the quantum information processor.”, and Para[0013] “The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure (i.e. a quantum error correction code) ” and See Fig. 3A, where the lattice of qubits are controlled to achieve a QEC algorithm. Since this is done on that lattice and defined thereon, the QEC code is a surface code. ), and wherein during the execution of the second portion of the quantum computation, the qubits of the second computation group form the first logical qubit of the surface code ( See Fig. 3B., the qubits in cores 301C and 301D correspond to the second computation group in Fig. 3B and are processed in the second iteration of steps 202-206 ( i.e. during the execution of the second portion of the quantum computation for steps 204-206). Therefore, in the second iteration, the second computation group can now be part of the first logical qubit, see Para[0034] “ An instruction set may be defined for a core (i.e. including the qubits of the second computation group), for example, as a target unitary evolution for the core (e.g., a unitary operator over the Hilbert space defined by the qubits assigned to the core, or another form), as a target quantum logic sequence (e.g., a series of quantum logic gates (i.e. the first logical qubit) applied for the qubits assigned to the core, or another form)”, “The target quantum algorithm may be constructed or composed as a sequence of operations that can be executed at the core level of the quantum information processor.”, and Para[0013] “The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure (i.e. a quantum error correction code) ”. Examiner notes that Fig. 3B can correspond to the second iteration of the quantum algorithm, see Para[0040] “ on a first iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3A for a first step in the quantum algorithm, and on a second iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3B for a second step in the quantum algorithm”. ). With regards to Claim 14 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 8. Reagor further teaches subdividing the set of qubits into N non-overlapping subsets of qubits to form a set of qubit groups, wherein N is a positive integer greater than one ( See Fig. 3A, where amongst the three sets (i.e. N non-overlapping subsets where N = 3), there are two cores 301A and 301B corresponding to two subsets, when combined correspond to the first computation group and the cores constitute a computation group, see Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)” and one subset for the boundary qubits, making the three subsets subdivide the entire set of qubits in Fig. 3A ), the subdivided set of qubit groups comprises the set of qubit groups ( See Fig. 3A, where the two cores 301A and 301B corresponding to two subsets and the set of boundary qubits (i.e. the subdivided set of qubit groups ) are the entire set of qubit groups ( i.e. comprises the set of qubit groups) ), and each qubit group of the set of qubit groups includes one of the N nonoverlapping subsets of qubits ( See Fig. 3A, the two cores 301A and 301B corresponding to two sets and the set of boundary qubits (i.e. the subdivided set of qubit groups each equal their respective non-overlapping subset of qubits, where there are N=3 such subsets ); and selecting a first qubit group of the set of qubit groups as the first calibration group such that the set of qubit groups comprises the first calibration group and a set of current computation groups that comprises the other (N-1) non-selection qubit groups of the set of qubit groups ( See Fig. 3A, the subset of boundary qubits 305C, 305I, 305O ( i.e. which combined constitutes selecting a first qubit group of the set of qubit groups as the first calibration group because they are calibrated to evolve via the identity operation, See Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation” ) and the other N-1 =2 subsets of cores 301A and 301B constitute the first computation group (and form a set of current computation groups (or current computation subsets), note the cores 301A and 301B constitute the first computation group, see Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)”), so the entire set of qubits in Fig. 3 (i.e. the set of qubit groups) contains the first calibration group and a set of current computation groups ), wherein the set of current computation groups excludes the first calibration group and forms the first computation group ( See Fig. 3A, where the current computation groups 301A and 301B (which combined forms the first computation group) do not include the qubits 305C, 305I, and 305O which combined form the first calibration group ). With regards to Claim 15, Reagor teaches One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions that ( See Para[0058] “Devices suitable for storing computer program instructions and data include all forms of non-volatile memory, media and memory devices, including by way of example semiconductor memory devices (i.e. a non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions)” ), when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more quantum processors including a set of qubits to perform operations comprising ( See Para[0058] “Generally, a processor will receive instructions and data from a read-only memory or a random-access memory or both. Elements of a computer can include a processor that performs actions in accordance with instructions (i.e. executing the stored instructions of the non-transitory computer-readable media), and one or more memory devices that store the instructions and data” and Para[0015] “The superconducting circuit devices 105 (i.e. a part of the quantum information processor 102, the quantum information processor including qubits 105) may be operated by microwave or radio frequency signals delivered in the quantum circuit system 104, for example, from the control system 110 (i.e. the processor 110 (110 includes a processor, See Para[0033] “the cores may be assigned by software or logic executed on a processor in the control system 110”) causes the quantum processor, which is the quantum information processor 102 to perform operations).” ): subdividing the set of qubits into a first calibration group and a first computation group ( See Fig. 3A, where the first calibration group is the set of boundary qubits 305C, 305I, and 305O, and the first computation group is the qubits in 301A and 301B (which are the cores). The entire set of qubits includes the combination of the boundary qubits and cores, which subdivide the set of qubits. The boundary qubits constitute a calibration group because they are calibrated to evolve via the identity operation, see Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”. In addition, the cores constitute a computation group, See Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)” ), wherein the first calibration group and the first computation group are complementary subsets of the set of qubits ( See Fig. 3A, where the boundary qubits, and the cores 301A and 301B constitute the entire set of qubits without any overlap (i.e. they are complementary subsets). ); executing a first portion of the quantum computation with qubits included in the first computation group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core (i.e. which include qubits of the first computation group, see cores 301A and 301B in Fig. 3A and their respective qubits (where 301A and 301B constitute the computation group)) can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set.” Examiner notes that “executing a first portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the first iteration of steps 202-206. ); and executing a second portion of the quantum computation with the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” Examiner notes that “executing a second portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the second iteration of steps 202-206. In the second iteration, the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group (i.e. the boundary qubits from the first iteration) are re-processed back in steps 204-206 of the second iteration of Fig. 2 (i.e. the second portion of the quantum computation). Examiner notes that Fig. 3B can correspond to the second iteration of the quantum algorithm, see Para[0040] “ on a first iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3A for a first step in the quantum algorithm, and on a second iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3B for a second step in the quantum algorithm”. ). Reagor is silent to the language of during execution of the first portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the first computation group, calibrating qubits included in the first calibration group. Reagor teaches during execution of the first portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the first computation group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core (i.e. which include qubits of the first computation group, see cores 301A and 301B in Fig. 3A and their respective qubits (where 301A and 301B constitute the computation group)) can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set.” Examiner notes that “executing a first portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the first iteration of steps 202-206. ), calibrating qubits included in the first calibration group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), during the first iteration (i.e. during the first portion which are for steps 204-206) of the steps 202-206, the qubits of the boundary qubits (i.e. the first calibration group) are calibrated to evolve via an identity operator, see Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”. ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Reagor wherein during execution of the first portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the first computation group, calibrating qubits included in the first calibration group is done like in Reagor in order to iteratively reduce the complexity of building accurate quantum algorithms such as quantum error correction codes ( See Para[0007] “the complexity of large-scale quantum operations is reduced or avoided by modularizing the approach to control in-situ.” and Para[0013] “A sequence of quantum logic operations can be applied to the qubits to perform a quantum algorithm. The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure, a quantum state distillation procedure, or a combination of these and other types of operations.” ). With regards to Claim 16 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 15. Reagor further teaches wherein during the execution of the first portion of the quantum computation ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core (i.e. which include qubits of the first computation group, see cores 301A and 301B in Fig. 3A and their respective qubits) can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. cores 301A and 301B combined is the first computation group in Fig. 3A and cores 301C and 301D combined is the second computation group).” Examiner notes that “executing a first portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the first iteration of steps 202-206. ), the qubits of the first computation group form a first logical qubit of a quantum error correction (QEC) code ( See Fig. 2 step 204 and Para[0034] “ An instruction set may be defined for a core (i.e. including the qubits of the first computation group), for example, as a target unitary evolution for the core (e.g., a unitary operator over the Hilbert space defined by the qubits assigned to the core, or another form), as a target quantum logic sequence (e.g., a series of quantum logic gates (i.e. a first logical qubit) applied for the qubits assigned to the core, or another form)” , “The target quantum algorithm may be constructed or composed as a sequence of operations that can be executed at the core level of the quantum information processor.”, and Para[0013] “The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure (i.e. a quantum error correction code) ” ), and wherein during the execution of the second portion of the quantum computation, the qubits of the first calibration group are included in the first logical qubit of the QEC code ( See Fig. 3B., the qubits 305C, 305I, and 305O correspond to qubits that were the boundary qubits (i.e. the first calibration group (The boundary qubits constitute a calibration group because they are calibrated to evolve via the identity operation, see Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”)) in Fig. 3A but are now part of the core 301C (i.e. part of the second computation group), which happens via step 202 in Fig. 2 for the reallocation of qubits in the second iteration of steps 202-206 ( i.e. where the second portion of the quantum computation is steps 204-206 in the second iteration). Therefore, in the second iteration, the first calibration group is now part of a core that can be part of the first logical qubit, see Para[0034] “ An instruction set may be defined for a core (i.e. including the qubits of the first computation group), for example, as a target unitary evolution for the core (e.g., a unitary operator over the Hilbert space defined by the qubits assigned to the core, or another form), as a target quantum logic sequence (e.g., a series of quantum logic gates (i.e. the first logical qubit) applied for the qubits assigned to the core, or another form)”, “The target quantum algorithm may be constructed or composed as a sequence of operations that can be executed at the core level of the quantum information processor.”, and Para[0013] “The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure (i.e. a quantum error correction code) ”. Examiner notes that Fig. 3B can correspond to the second iteration of the quantum algorithm, see Para[0040] “ on a first iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3A for a first step in the quantum algorithm, and on a second iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3B for a second step in the quantum algorithm”. ). With regards to Claim 17 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 15. Reagor is silent to the language of calibrating the qubits included in the first calibration group, subdividing the set of qubits into a second calibration group and a second computation group, wherein the second calibration group and the second computation group are complementary subsets of the set of qubits and the second computation group includes the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group; executing the second portion of the quantum computation with qubits included in the second computation group; and during execution of the second portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the second computation group, calibrating qubits included in the second calibration group. Reagor teaches in response to calibrating the qubits included in the first calibration group ( See Fig.2 the step 202 after the step 206, which would be the second iteration in Fig. 2. Step 202 begins in response to the completion of 206. In addition, see Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core (i.e. which include qubits of the first computation group, see cores 301A and 301B in Fig. 3A and their respective qubits (where 301A and 301B constitute the computation group)) can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. cores 301A and 301B combined is the first computation group in Fig. 3A and cores 301C and 301D combined is the second computation group).” Examiner notes that “executing a first portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the first iteration of steps 202-206. See also Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), during the first iteration (i.e. during the first portion which is steps 204-206) of the steps 202-206, the qubits of the boundary qubits (i.e. the first calibration group) are calibrated to evolve via an identity operator, see Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”. ), subdividing the set of qubits into a second calibration group and a second computation group ( See Fig.2 the step 202 after the step 206, which would be the second iteration in Fig. 2. Step 202 begins in response to the completion of 206 and Fig. 3B, where the second calibration group is the set of boundary qubits 305D, 305J, and 305P, and the second computation group is the groups 301A and 301B (which are the cores). The entire set of qubits includes the combination of the boundary qubits and cores, which subdivide the set of qubits. The boundary qubits in Fig. 3B constitute a second calibration group because they are calibrated to evolve via the identity operation, See Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”. In addition, the cores in Fig. 3B constitute the second computation group, see Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)” ), wherein the second calibration group and the second computation group are complementary subsets of the set of qubits and the second computation group includes the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group ( See Fig. 3B, where the boundary qubits, and the cores 301C and 301D constitute the entire set of qubits without any overlap (i.e. they are complementary subsets). Also, the qubits 305C, 305I, and 305O, which were the boundary qubits (i.e. the first calibration group) in Fig. 3A, became part of the core in 301C (i.e. part of the second computation group) of Fig. 3B. Examiner notes that Fig. 3B can correspond to the second iteration of the quantum algorithm, see Para[0040] “ on a first iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3A for a first step in the quantum algorithm, and on a second iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3B for a second step in the quantum algorithm”. ); executing the second portion of the quantum computation with qubits included in the second computation group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” Examiner notes that “executing a second portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the second iteration of steps 202-206. In the second iteration, the qubits included in the second computation group are processed in steps 204-206 after being defined as the second computation group in step 202 of the second iteration of Fig. 2 ); and during execution of the second portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the second computation group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” Examiner notes that “during execution of the second portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the second iteration of steps 202-206. In the second iteration, the qubits included in the second computation group are processed in steps 204-206 after being defined as the second computation group in step 202 of the second iteration of Fig. 2 ), calibrating qubits included in the second calibration group ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), during the second iteration (i.e. during the second portion) of the steps 202-206, the qubits of the boundary qubits (i.e. the second calibration group) are calibrated to evolve via an identity operator, see Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation”. ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Reagor wherein in response to calibrating the qubits included in the first calibration group, subdividing the set of qubits into a second calibration group and a second computation group, wherein the second calibration group and the second computation group are complementary subsets of the set of qubits and the second computation group includes the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group; executing the second portion of the quantum computation with qubits included in the second computation group; and during execution of the second portion of the quantum computation with the qubits included in the second computation group, calibrating qubits included in the second calibration group is done like in Reagor in order to iteratively reduce the complexity of building accurate quantum algorithms such as quantum error correction codes ( See Para[0007] “the complexity of large-scale quantum operations is reduced or avoided by modularizing the approach to control in-situ.” and Para[0013] “A sequence of quantum logic operations can be applied to the qubits to perform a quantum algorithm. The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure, a quantum state distillation procedure, or a combination of these and other types of operations.” ). With regards to Claim 18 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 17. Reagor further teaches wherein a portion of the qubits included in the first computation group are included in the second calibration group ( See Fig. 3B, where the qubits 305D, 305J, and 305P were part of the first computation group in Fig. 3A for the core 301B (the cores 301A and 301B constitute the first computation group, while cores 301C and 301D constitute the second computation group, see Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)”)), but in Fig. 3B they correspond to the second calibration group (the boundary qubits) as they do not belong to either core and the boundary qubits constitute a calibration group because they are calibrated to evolve via the identity operation, See Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation” ) and the calibrated qubits included in the first calibration group are included in the second computation group ( See Fig. 3B, where the qubits 305C, 305I, and 305O were part of the first calibration group in Fig. 3A, but in Fig. 3B they are part of the second computation group (in the core 301C). Examiner notes that Fig. 3B can correspond to the second iteration of the quantum algorithm, see Para[0040] “ on a first iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3A for a first step in the quantum algorithm, and on a second iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3B for a second step in the quantum algorithm”. ). With regards to Claim 19 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 17. Reagor further teaches wherein during the execution of the first portion of the quantum computation ( See Fig. 2 (i.e. the entire flowchart is the quantum computation), step 206 and Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core (i.e. which include qubits of the first computation group, see cores 301A and 301B in Fig. 3A and their respective qubits (where 301A and 301B constitute the first computation group, while 301C and 301D constitute the second computation group)) can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set(i.e. a computation for the first computation group).” Examiner notes that “executing a first portion of the quantum computation” are the steps 204-206 for the first iteration of steps 202-206. ), the qubits of the first computation group form a first logical qubit of a surface code ( See Fig. 2 step 204 and Para[0034] “ An instruction set may be defined for a core (i.e. including the qubits of the first computation group and the cores constitute a computation group (similarly for the second computation group), see Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)”)), for example, as a target unitary evolution for the core (e.g., a unitary operator over the Hilbert space defined by the qubits assigned to the core, or another form), as a target quantum logic sequence (e.g., a series of quantum logic gates (i.e. a first logical qubit) applied for the qubits assigned to the core, or another form)” , “The target quantum algorithm may be constructed or composed as a sequence of operations that can be executed at the core level of the quantum information processor.”, and Para[0013] “The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure (i.e. a quantum error correction code) ” and See Fig. 3A, where the lattice of qubits are controlled to achieve a QEC algorithm. Since this is done on that lattice and defined thereon, the QEC code is a surface code. ), and wherein during the execution of the second portion of the quantum computation, the qubits of the second computation group form the first logical qubit of the surface code ( See Fig. 3B., the qubits in cores 301C and 301D correspond to the second computation group in Fig. 3B and are processed in the second iteration of steps 202-206 ( i.e. during the execution of the second portion of the quantum computation for steps 204-206). Therefore, in the second iteration, the second computation group can now be part of the first logical qubit, see Para[0034] “ An instruction set may be defined for a core (i.e. including the qubits of the second computation group), for example, as a target unitary evolution for the core (e.g., a unitary operator over the Hilbert space defined by the qubits assigned to the core, or another form), as a target quantum logic sequence (e.g., a series of quantum logic gates (i.e. the first logical qubit) applied for the qubits assigned to the core, or another form)”, “The target quantum algorithm may be constructed or composed as a sequence of operations that can be executed at the core level of the quantum information processor.”, and Para[0013] “The quantum algorithm may correspond to a computational task, a quantum error correction procedure (i.e. a quantum error correction code) ”. Examiner notes that Fig. 3B can correspond to the second iteration of the quantum algorithm, see Para[0040] “ on a first iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3A for a first step in the quantum algorithm, and on a second iteration of the process 200, the cores may be assigned as shown in FIG. 3B for a second step in the quantum algorithm”. ). With regards to Claim 20 , Reagor teaches the limitations of Claim 15. Reagor further teaches subdividing the set of qubits into N non-overlapping subsets of qubits to form a set of qubit groups, wherein N is a positive integer greater than one ( See Fig. 3A, where amongst the three sets (i.e. N non-overlapping subsets where N = 3), there are two cores 301A and 301B corresponding to two subsets, when combined correspond to the first computation group and the cores constitute a computation group, see Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)” and one subset for the boundary qubits, making the three subsets subdivide the entire set of qubits in Fig. 3A ), the subdivided set of qubit groups comprises the set of qubit groups ( See Fig. 3A, where the two cores 301A and 301B corresponding to two subsets and the set of boundary qubits (i.e. the subdivided set of qubit groups ) are the entire set of qubit groups ( i.e. comprises the set of qubit groups) ), and each qubit group of the set of qubit groups includes one of the N nonoverlapping subsets of qubits ( See Fig. 3A, the two cores 301A and 301B corresponding to two sets and the set of boundary qubits (i.e. the subdivided set of qubit groups each equal their respective non-overlapping subset of qubits, where there are N=3 such subsets ); and selecting a first qubit group of the set of qubit groups as the first calibration group such that the set of qubit groups comprises the first calibration group and a set of current computation groups that comprises the other (N-1) non-selection qubit groups of the set of qubit groups ( See Fig. 3A, the subset of boundary qubits 305C, 305I, 305O ( i.e. which combined constitutes selecting a first qubit group of the set of qubit groups as the first calibration group because they are calibrated to evolve via the identity operation, See Para[0036] “For example, the control sequence may be configured to apply an identity operation to the boundary qubits.” and Para[0037] “The ideal unitary evolution of the boundary qubits may be expressed as the identity operation” ) and the other N-1 =2 subsets of cores 301A and 301B constitute the first computation group (and form a set of current computation groups (or current computation subsets), note the cores 301A and 301B constitute the first computation group, see Para[0036] “The control sequence for a core can include a specification of control signals that cause the core to execute a specific instruction set or gate set (i.e. a computation)”), so the entire set of qubits in Fig. 3 (i.e. the set of qubit groups) contains the first calibration group and a set of current computation groups ), wherein the set of current computation groups excludes the first calibration group and forms the first computation group ( See Fig. 3A, where the current computation groups 301A and 301B (which combined forms the first computation group) do not include the qubits 305C, 305I, and 305O which combined form the first calibration group ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 4 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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 USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 13 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 14 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 15 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 16 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 17 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 18 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 19 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 20 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 21 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 22 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 23 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 24 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 25 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 26 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 27 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 28 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 29 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 30 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 31 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 32 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 33 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 34 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 35 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 36 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 37 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 38 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 39 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 40 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 41 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 42 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 43 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/481,042 Page 44 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights