CTNF 18/498,273 CTNF 94181 DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 31 October 2023 for application 18/498,273 filed 31 October 2023. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected. 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. 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. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al. , 573 US 208 (2014). Regarding claim 1 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device. The limitation of perform a process to generate a quantum circuit for preparing a target superposed state of a quantum bit register on a connectivity graph which comprises edges and vertexes in which each edge is assigned one label of a given set of unique labels such that no vertex of the connectivity graph is incident to two edges assigned with a same label , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generate an initial layer of the quantum circuit, wherein the initial layer comprises a single-qubit gate that is configured to place the quantum bit register in an initial superposed state , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generate a sequence of layers of the quantum circuit following the initial layer, which are configured to generate the target superposed state of the quantum bit register, wherein the sequence of layers comprises a plurality of layers of a same type of controlled two-qubit gate that is configured to conditionally flip a state of a target quantum bit based on a state of a control quantum bit , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – device, memory, program instructions, processing circuitry, quantum circuit, quantum bit register, target quantum bit, control quantum bit . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)). The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum circuit, connectivity graph, single-qubit gate, controlled two-qubit gate . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites wherein a number of unique layers of the plurality of layers of the same type of controlled two-qubit gate in the sequence of layers is no greater than a number of unique labels in the given set of labels for the connectivity graph which is simply additional information regarding the layers, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: device, memory, program instructions, processing circuitry, quantum circuit, quantum bit register, target quantum bit, control quantum bit amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) quantum circuit, connectivity graph, single-qubit gate, controlled two-qubit gate amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) additional information regarding the layers do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 2 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 2 carries out the device of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each layer of the same type of controlled two-qubit gate comprises a set of the controlled two-qubit gates which correspond to edges in the connectivity graph which are assigned the same label . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the layers and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the layers do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 3 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 3 carries out the device of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each controlled two-qubit gate corresponds to a respective pair of quantum bits represented by a respective pair of vertexes in the connectivity graph, which is connected by an edge . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein each controlled two-qubit gate corresponds to a respective pair of quantum bits represented by a respective pair of vertexes in the connectivity graph, which is connected by an edge which is simply additional information regarding the gates, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum bits . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: quantum bits amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) additional information regarding the gates do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 4 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device. The limitation of perform a backward iterative process that is configured to start with the target superposed state of the quantum bit register and determine a sequence of the plurality of layers of the same type of controlled two-qubit gate in a reverse order until reaching a state of the quantum bit register in which only one quantum bit of the quantum bit register has a state of 1 to which the single-qubit gate in the initial layer of the quantum circuit is applied , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 5 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device. The limitation of perform a forward iterative process that is implemented using the connectivity graph having a tree structure with a root node that is initialized with a state of 1, wherein the forward iterative process propagates the state of the root node down to nodes of the tree structure to generate a sparse state , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – tree structure . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: tree structure amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 6 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device. The limitation of generate a quantum circuit to prepare the sparse state , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of add one or more layers to the quantum circuit to produce the target superposed state of the quantum bit register from the sparse state , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 7 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device. The limitation of generate a sparse state of the target superposed state on a linear nearest-neighbor connected graph , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generate a quantum circuit to prepare the sparse state , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of add one or more layers to the quantum circuit to produce the target superposed state of the quantum bit register from the sparse state , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – linear nearest-neighbor connected graph . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: linear nearest-neighbor connected graph amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 8 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a(n) device, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) device. The limitation of derive the linear nearest-neighbor connected graph from a grid array of quantum bits , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – grid array of quantum bits . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: grid array of quantum bits amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 9 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The limitation of generating a quantum circuit for preparing a target superposed state of a quantum bit register on a connectivity graph which comprises edges and vertexes in which each edge is assigned one label of a given set of unique labels such that no vertex of the connectivity graph is incident to two edges assigned with a same label , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generating an initial layer of the quantum circuit, wherein the initial layer comprises a single-qubit gate that is configured to place the quantum bit register in an initial superposed state , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generating a sequence of layers of the quantum circuit following the initial layer, which are configured to generate the target superposed state of the quantum bit register, wherein the sequence of layers comprises a plurality of layers of a same type of controlled two-qubit gate that is configured to conditionally flip a state of a target quantum bit based on a state of a control quantum bit , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum circuit, quantum bit register, target quantum bit, control quantum bit . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)). The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum circuit, connectivity graph, single-qubit gate, controlled two-qubit gate . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites wherein a number of unique layers of the plurality of layers of the same type of controlled two-qubit gate in the sequence of layers is no greater than a number of unique labels in the given set of labels for the connectivity graph which is simply additional information regarding the layers, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: quantum circuit, quantum bit register, target quantum bit, control quantum bit amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) quantum circuit, connectivity graph, single-qubit gate, controlled two-qubit gate amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) additional information regarding the layers do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 10 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 9 is applicable here since claim 10 carries out the method of claim 9 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each layer of the same type of controlled two-qubit gate comprises a set of the controlled two-qubit gates which correspond to edges in the connectivity graph which are assigned the same label . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the layers and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the layers do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 11 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 9 is applicable here since claim 11 carries out the method of claim 9 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each controlled two-qubit gate corresponds to a respective pair of quantum bits represented by a respective pair of vertexes in the connectivity graph, which is connected by an edge . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein each controlled two-qubit gate corresponds to a respective pair of quantum bits represented by a respective pair of vertexes in the connectivity graph, which is connected by an edge which is simply additional information regarding the gates, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum bits . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: quantum bits amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) additional information regarding the gates do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 12 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The limitation of performing a backward iterative process that is configured to start with the target superposed state of the quantum bit register and determine a sequence of the plurality of layers of the same type of controlled two-qubit gate in a reverse order until reaching a state of the quantum bit register in which only one quantum bit of the quantum bit register has a state of 1 to which the single-qubit gate in the initial layer of the quantum circuit is applied , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 13 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The limitation of performing a forward iterative process that is implemented using the connectivity graph having a tree structure with a root node that is initialized with a state of 1, wherein the forward iterative process propagates the state of the root node down to nodes of the tree structure to generate a sparse state , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – tree structure . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: tree structure amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 14 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The limitation of generating a quantum circuit to prepare the sparse state , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of adding one or more layers to the quantum circuit to produce the target superposed state of the quantum bit register from the sparse state , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 15 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The limitation of generating a sparse state of the target superposed state on a linear nearest-neighbor connected graph , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generating a quantum circuit to prepare the sparse state , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of adding one or more layers to the quantum circuit to produce the target superposed state of the quantum bit register from the sparse state , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – linear nearest-neighbor connected graph . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: linear nearest-neighbor connected graph amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 16 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method. The limitation of deriving the linear nearest-neighbor connected graph from a grid array of quantum bits , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – grid array of quantum bits . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: grid array of quantum bits amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 17 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product. The limitation of generate a quantum circuit for preparing a target superposed state of a quantum bit register on a connectivity graph which comprises edges and vertexes in which each edge is assigned one label of a given set of unique labels such that no vertex of the connectivity graph is incident to two edges assigned with a same label , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generate an initial layer of the quantum circuit, wherein the initial layer comprises a single-qubit gate that is configured to place the quantum bit register in an initial superposed state , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generate a sequence of layers of the quantum circuit following the initial layer, which are configured to generate the target superposed state of the quantum bit register, wherein the sequence of layers comprises a plurality of layers of a same type of controlled two-qubit gate that is configured to conditionally flip a state of a target quantum bit based on a state of a control quantum bit , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – computer program product, one or more computer readable storage media, program instructions, quantum circuit, quantum bit register, target quantum bit, control quantum bit . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)). The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum circuit, connectivity graph, single-qubit gate, controlled two-qubit gate . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites wherein a number of unique layers of the plurality of layers of the same type of controlled two-qubit gate in the sequence of layers is no greater than a number of unique labels in the given set of labels for the connectivity graph which is simply additional information regarding the layers, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: computer program product, one or more computer readable storage media, program instructions, quantum circuit, quantum bit register, target quantum bit, control quantum bit amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) quantum circuit, connectivity graph, single-qubit gate, controlled two-qubit gate amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) additional information regarding the layers do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 18 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 17 is applicable here since claim 18 carries out the computer program product of claim 17 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each layer of the same type of controlled two-qubit gate comprises a set of the controlled two-qubit gates which correspond to edges in the connectivity graph which are assigned the same label . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the layers and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the layers do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 19 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 17 is applicable here since claim 19 carries out the computer program product of claim 17 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each controlled two-qubit gate corresponds to a respective pair of quantum bits represented by a respective pair of vertexes in the connectivity graph, which is connected by an edge . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein each controlled two-qubit gate corresponds to a respective pair of quantum bits represented by a respective pair of vertexes in the connectivity graph, which is connected by an edge which is simply additional information regarding the gates, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – quantum bits . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: quantum bits amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) additional information regarding the gates do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 20 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a(n) computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product. The limitation of generate a sparse state of the target superposed state on a linear nearest-neighbor connected graph , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generate a quantum circuit to prepare the sparse state , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of add one or more layers to the quantum circuit to produce the target superposed state of the quantum bit register from the sparse state , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – linear nearest-neighbor connected graph . The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: linear nearest-neighbor connected graph amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 2 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 3 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 4 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 5 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 6 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 7 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 8 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 9 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 10 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 11 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 12 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 13 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 15 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 16 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 17 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 18 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 19 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 21 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 22 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 23 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 24 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 25 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 26 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 27 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 28 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 29 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 30 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 31 Art Unit: 2125 Application/Control Number: 18/498,273 Page 32 Art Unit: 2125
Prosecution Insights