DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for determining a decoherence model of a qubit, comprising: acquiring decoherence measurement data obtained by performing decoherence measurement on the qubit; determining a plurality of type-parameter combinations that includes combinations of model types and model parameters; determining candidate decoherence models corresponding to the plurality of type- parameter combinations based on the decoherence measurement data; and determining a target decoherence model from the candidate decoherence models corresponding to the plurality of types of parameter combinations.
Claim 13:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing a set of instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a device to cause the device to perform operations for determining fidelity of a qubit gate in a quantum chip, the operations comprising: acquiring decoherence measurement data obtained by performing decoherence measurement on the qubit; determining a plurality of type-parameter combinations that includes combinations of model types and model parameters; determining candidate decoherence models corresponding to the plurality of type-parameter combinations based on the decoherence measurement data; and determining a target decoherence model from the candidate decoherence models corresponding to the plurality of type-parameter combinations.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the 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 claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Claim 1, for example, steps of “determining a plurality of type-parameter combinations that includes combinations of model types and model parameters; determining candidate decoherence models corresponding to the plurality of type- parameter combinations based on the decoherence measurement data; and determining a target decoherence model from the candidate decoherence models corresponding to the plurality of types of parameter combinations” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
The limitation of “acquiring decoherence measurement data obtained by performing decoherence measurement on the qubit,” is considered necessary data gathering and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 13.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: processing system
In Claim 13: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium
The additional element of “a display interface and display control” represents a mere data gathering/outputting step and only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium and processing system (generic processing system) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-11 and 14-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 12, Li et al. teaches receiving decoherence measurement data obtained after performing decoherence measurement on the qubit (Abstract; pg. 2-3). Li, along with all other references, alone, or in combination, fail to teach a method for determining a decoherence model of a qubit, comprising: displaying a data input control, a decoherence model display control and a decoherence model determination control on a display interface; in response to an operation on the data input control; in response to an operation on the decoherence model display control, displaying a plurality of candidate decoherence models on the display interface, the plurality of candidate decoherence models corresponding to a plurality of type-parameter combinations and being determined based on the decoherence measurement data, and the plurality of type-parameter combinations being determined based on a plurality of model types and a plurality of model parameters; and in response to an operation on the decoherence model determination control, displaying a target decoherence model determined from the candidate decoherence models corresponding to the plurality of type-parameter combinations on the display interface.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 would be allowable if written overcome the 101 rejection set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Li et al. teaches acquiring decoherence measurement data obtained by performing decoherence measurement on the qubit (Abstract; pg. 2-3). Li, along with all other references, alone, or in combination, fail to teach a method for determining a decoherence model of a qubit, comprising: determining a plurality of type-parameter combinations that includes combinations of model types and model parameters; determining candidate decoherence models corresponding to the plurality of type- parameter combinations based on the decoherence measurement data; and determining a target decoherence model from the candidate decoherence models corresponding to the plurality of types of parameter combinations. It is for this reason, Claim 1 and all of its dependencies would be allowed.
Regarding Claim 13, Li et al. teaches acquiring decoherence measurement data obtained by performing decoherence measurement on the qubit (Abstract; pg. 2-3). Li further teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, storing a set of instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a device to cause the device to perform operations, but along with all other references, alone, or in combination, fail to teach determining fidelity of a qubit gate in a quantum chip, the operations comprising: determining a plurality of type-parameter combinations that includes combinations of model types and model parameters; determining candidate decoherence models corresponding to the plurality of type-parameter combinations based on the decoherence measurement data; and determining a target decoherence model from the candidate decoherence models corresponding to the plurality of types of parameter combinations. It is for this reason, Claim 13 and all of its dependencies would be allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Young et al. (APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ANALYZING QUANTUM PROCESS, 2019-10-22) teaches an apparatus for analyzing a quantum process. The apparatus comprises: a first measurement unit measuring a first observation amount of qubit in a quantum state when an initial quantum state of the qubit is set based on a state of a single photon; a second measurement unit measuring a second observation amount of the qubit in the quantum state to which a quantum process is applied after the first observation amount is measured; and a control unit measuring components of the quantum process based on the first and second observation amounts. A first measurement operation performed to measure the first observation amount in the first measurement unit and a second measurement operation performed to measure the second observation amount in the second measurement unit have a noncumulative relationship.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights