DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1-15 are to a machine, claims 6 is to a process, and claim 7 is to an article of manufacture. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claims contain at least the following bolded limitations (see representative independent claims) that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes:
1. A method, comprising:
initiating, by a quantum computing device, a first quantum algorithm comprising a test method implemented as a quantum oracle, wherein the first quantum algorithm receives an input of a first quantum register comprising one or more qubits and a second quantum register comprising one qubit, each qubit of the one or more qubits in the first quantum register corresponding to a test case for the test method;
receiving, by the quantum computing device, an output of the first quantum algorithm comprising the one or more qubits in the first quantum register;
initiating, by the quantum computing device, a second quantum algorithm, wherein the second quantum algorithm receives an input of a third quantum register and the output of the first quantum algorithm;
performing, by the quantum computing device, a measurement on the first quantum register and a measurement on the third quantum register; and
determining, by the quantum computing device based on the measurement on the first quantum register and the measurement on the third quantum register, that the test method passed or failed.
13. A quantum computing device, comprising:
a memory;
a processor device coupled to the memory, the processor device to:
initiate a first quantum algorithm comprising a test method implemented as a quantum oracle, wherein the first quantum algorithm receives an input of a first quantum register comprising one or more qubits and a second quantum register comprising one qubit, each qubit of the one or more qubits in the first quantum register corresponding to a test case for the test method;
receive an output of the first quantum algorithm comprising the one or more qubits in the first quantum register;
initiate a second quantum algorithm, wherein the second quantum algorithm receives an input of a third quantum register and the output of the first quantum algorithm;
perform a measurement on the first quantum register and a measurement on the third quantum register; and determine, based on the measurement on the first quantum register and the measurement on the third quantum register, that the test method passed or failed.
20. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processor devices to:
initiate a first quantum algorithm comprising a test method implemented as a quantum oracle, wherein the first quantum algorithm receives an input of a first quantum register comprising one or more qubits and a second quantum register comprising one qubit, each qubit of the one or more qubits in the first quantum register corresponding to a test case for the test method;
receive an output of the first quantum algorithm comprising the one or more qubits in the first quantum register;
initiate a second quantum algorithm, wherein the second quantum algorithm receives an input of a third quantum register and the output of the first quantum algorithm;
perform a measurement on the first quantum register and a measurement on the third quantum register; and determine, based on the measurement on the first quantum register and the measurement on the third quantum register, that the test method passed or failed.
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). The bolded limitations above appear to amount to a description in words of carrying out mathematical calculations as implemented in quantum theory. The limitations of "initiating…a first quantum algorithm comprising a test method implemented as a quantum oracle, wherein the first quantum algorithm receives as input of a first quantum register comprising one or more qubits and a second quantum register comprising one qubit, each qubit of the one or more qubits in the first quantum register corresponding to a test case for a test method" describes carrying out an algorithm having inputs of data-based qubits from first and second quantum registers (data constructs). The limitations of "receiving…an output of the first quantum algorithm comprising the one or more qubits in the first quantum register" describes the solving for an output of the quantum algorithm. The limitations of "initiating…a second quantum algorithm, wherein the second quantum algorithm receives an input of a third quantum register and the output of the first quantum algorithm" describes the mathematical implementation of a second quantum algorithm having a separate set of inputs. The limitations of "determining…based on the measurement on the first quantum register and the measurement on the third quantum register, that the test method passed or failed" amount to a description in words of using the data from the first and third quantum registers to solve for whether the test method has passed or failed. Taken together, the bolded limitations appear to describe the application of abstract idea mathematical quantum algorithms to process test cases (represented as qubits) to solve for a test result of whether the test method passed or failed.
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the recitations of "a quantum computing device," "a memory," "a processor device coupled to the memory," or "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors," amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); (2) the recitations of "performing…a measurement on the first quantum register and a measurement on the third quantum register" amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next in step 2B, the independent claims are considered to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. The limitations regarding a quantum computing device, processor, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes computer-executable instructions, do not add something significantly more because they amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations regarding performing a measurement on the first quantum register and the third quantum register do not add something significantly more because they amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and do not describe any gathering of data in an unconventional way.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 contain additional limitations that fall under the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, as they describe further details regarding the algorithmic/theoretical-based calculation steps to process various state values of the qubits.
3. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular structural physical limitations to describe a particularly configured machine or a reconfiguration of such a machine, or further physical applications using the calculated determination of whether a test method passed or failed to drive a physical transformation, change in operation, or repair/maintenance of a technology or technical process could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field. Otherwise, the claims merely describe the implementation of mathematical quantum algorithms using a quantum computing device, without imparting any improvement to the quantum computer itself.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 1, the closest prior art, Burkot et al. (US Pat Pub. 2021/0287127, hereinafter "Burkot") at least teaches a method (Burkot abstract teaches a method for use with a quantum circuit), comprising:
initiating, by a quantum computing device (Burkot Fig. 1B teaches a quantum circuit as a quantum computing device), a first quantum algorithm comprising a test method implemented as a quantum oracle (Burkot paragraphs [0021]-[0022] teach initiating an implementation of Grover's algorithm as a first quantum algorithm comprising an oracle test method, where oracle gates call a quantum oracle operator on a plurality of qubits).6. However, claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Burkot et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0287127) fails to anticipate or render obvious a method comprising: wherein the first quantum algorithm receives an input of a first quantum register comprising one or more qubits and a second quantum register comprising one qubit, each qubit of the one or more qubits in the first quantum register corresponding to a test case for the test method; receiving, by the quantum computing device, an output of the first quantum algorithm comprising the one or more qubits in the first quantum register; initiating, by the quantum computing device, a second quantum algorithm, wherein the second quantum algorithm receives an input of a third quantum register and the output of the first quantum algorithm, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Similarly, claim 13 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Burkot et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0287127) fails to anticipate or render obvious a quantum computing device, comprising: wherein the first quantum algorithm receives an input of a first quantum register comprising one or more qubits and a second quantum register comprising one qubit, each qubit of the one or more qubits in the first quantum register corresponding to a test case for the test method; receive an output of the first quantum algorithm comprising the one or more qubits in the first quantum register; initiate a second quantum algorithm, wherein the second quantum algorithm receives an input of a third quantum register and the output of the first quantum algorithm; in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Similarly, claim 20 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Burkot et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0287127) fails to anticipate or render obvious a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processor devices to: wherein the first quantum algorithm receives an input of a first quantum register comprising one or more qubits and a second quantum register comprising one qubit, each qubit of the one or more qubits in the first quantum register corresponding to a test case for the test method; receive an output of the first quantum algorithm comprising the one or more qubits in the first quantum register; initiate a second quantum algorithm, wherein the second quantum algorithm receives an input of a third quantum register and the output of the first quantum algorithm, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
7. Dependent claims 2-12 depend from claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 1. Dependent claims 14-19 depend from claim 13 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 13.
Pertinent Art
8. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
B. Babbush et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0234176) discloses Quantum Phase Estimation of Multiple Eigenvalues. C. Javadiabhari (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0285985) discloses Constant Folding for Compilation of Quantum Algorithms.
D. Das et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0042651) discloses Systems for Coupling Decoders to Quantum Registers.
E. Vivoli et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0049493) discloses Systems and Methods for Quantum Computing Based Sample Analysis.
F. Guimaraes Silverio et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0274176) discloses Methods for Allocating Logical Qubit of a Quantum Algorithm in a Quantum Processor.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9:30 am to 6 pm.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 1/23/2026