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 .
OFFICE ACTION
This is a response to the election filed on 9/18/2026.
Group l (Claims 1-24) = elected without traverse
Group II (claims 25-56) = canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) The claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) being anticipated by the prior art of record Simmons (US 2026/0099749)
Regarding claim 1 and similarly recited claims 21-22, the prior art disclosed:
A method for managing entangled quantum states in a network of nodes (see one or more of title, fig 1, 9, 11, par 175, 180-184), the method comprising:
sending, from a controller in the network (control system for a network of quantum systems abstract) , a first message to a first node in the network, where the first message comprises at least a portion of scheduling information (scheduler in one or more of abstract, fig 1, 3) that specifies a procedure to be executed for scheduling entanglement swap operations associated with portions of a plurality of paths through nodes in the network (see one or more of par 21, 189, 239, 266, 331, 336);
sending, from the controller, a second message to a second node in the network, where the second message comprises at least a portion of the scheduling information (see one or more of fig 1, 3 and/or par 21-24, 421, 432-433, 494);
executing at least a portion of the procedure at the first node based at least in part on the first message and based at least in part on information associated with one or more previous attempts (see one or more of abstract, summary, and/or one ore or more fig 1-2, 6, 8 and related text) to establish entanglement between nodes on a first path of the plurality of paths that includes the first node (see one or more of abstract, summary, and/or one ore or more fig 1-2, 6, 8 and related text); and
executing at least a portion of the procedure at the second node based at least in part on the second message and based at least in part on information associated with one or more previous attempts (see one or more of abstract, summary, and/or one ore or more fig 1-2, 6, 8 and related text) to establish entanglement between nodes on a second path of the plurality of paths that includes the second node (see one or more of abstract, summary, and/or one ore or more fig 1-2, 6, 8 and related text).
(Claims 2-4) where the information associated with one or more previous attempts to establish entanglement between nodes on the first path comprises
information indicating success or failure of an entanglement swap operation of the scheduled entanglement swap operations (see one or more of abstract, par 25, 35-36, 45, 75-77, 238-240, 260).
information indicating receipt of classical messages (from classical computer in par 214).
an estimate of fidelity of entanglement established between a pair of nodes on the first path (see one or more of par 26, 36, 132, 189, 199, 252, 314).
(Claims 5-6) where the information associated with one or more previous attempts to establish entanglement between nodes on the first path comprises
information indicating that an estimate of fidelity of entanglement established between a pair of nodes on the first path is below a predetermined threshold (see one or more of par 22, 36; 54-55, 90, 132, 189, 286, 314, 375)
information corresponding to a result of a Bell state measurement performed in an entanglement swap operation of the scheduled entanglement swap operations (see one or more of par 103, 127, 130, 132, 174, 181, 190, 325, 405, 431, 449)
(Claims 7-8) sending, from the controller to the first node, a first virtual circuit identifier identifying a first virtual circuit, and information specifying that the first node is associated with the first virtual circuit (see one or more of par 36, 82, 276, 288, 305, 310, 312-313);
where the virtual circuit identifier and the information specifying that the first node is associated with the first virtual circuit are included in the first message (see one or more of par 36, 82, 276, 288, 305, 310, 312-313)
(Claim 9) sending, from the controller to the first node, a second virtual circuit identifier identifying a second virtual circuit, and information specifying that the first node is associated with the second virtual circuit (see one or more of par 8, 140, 188, 305. 308-313, 356, 391-392);
(Claim 11) sending, from the controller, to each node on the first path, respective messages that include at least a portion of the scheduling information (par 21, 421, 432, 449)
(Claims 12-13) where the information associated with one or more previous attempts to establish entanglement between nodes on the first path comprises a result of a set of one or more rules (i.e., weight, priority, threshold probability, score, hardware constraints, levels of criticality, priority rating/level/values, required entanglement (par 25, 34-36. 68-69, 77-81, 255, 281, 305, 321-323, 343, 364, 367, 374, 378)) for determining whether entanglement between a quantum element at the first node and a quantum element at another node on the first path should be re-established (remapping. Re-assigning weight (par 36, 81, 313, 378));
where the set of one or more rules is sent to the first node from the controller (abstract, fig 1).
(Claim 14) managing the scheduled entanglement swap operations during establishment of end-to-end entanglement between respective quantum elements in the nodes (fig 4, 9, 11) at the ends of the first path based at least in part on protocol information (par 106, 127. 130, 131, 143, 171-174, 189, 215, 234-235, 253, 257, 343) sent from the controller to one or more nodes on the first path;
(Claims 15-16) where the protocol information comprises information indicating that a new attempt to establish end-to-end entanglement is to be started in response to:
an indication of a previous successful attempt to establish end-to-end entanglement (fig 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11 and related text)
messages received at a node on the first path from each of the nodes at the ends of the first path (see one or more of fig 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11 and related text)
(Claim 17) where the protocol information comprises one or more of: at least one threshold for a fidelity of the end-to-end entanglement, at least one threshold for a fidelity of entanglement between respective quantum elements in nodes on the first path other than the nodes at the ends of the first path, a rate at which successful attempts to establish end-to-end entanglement are to be generated, a number of successful attempts to establish end-to-end entanglement that are to be generated, or resources to be reserved at one or more nodes on the first path for use during establishment of end-to-end entanglement (see one or more of fig 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11 and related text)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simmons (US 2026/0099749) in view of Orus Lacort (US 2023/0198634) or Rigetti (US 20260094039).
Simmons discloses substantially all the elements in the claims except the feature communication channel/link/interlink between first-second/ multiple/ individual quantum computers/ processors/elements in the networks of quantum node/ computers/ processors. However, this feature is disclosed by:
Orus Lacort, fig 1; or
Rigetti, par 79.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (in the instant application) to utilize
This feature because:
Orus Lacort, abstract: in distributed quantum system/nodes, transferring quantum information between (first and second) quantum processors is enabled/established via quantum channel units/elements; or
Rigetti, par 79: a quantum computer cluster/network may be configured, adjusted, calibrated or otherwise changed. For example, when a first quantum computer system in a quantum computer cluster needs to be offline for calibration or maintenance, a first set of coherent interlinks elements connecting second quantum computer systems to the first quantum computer system can be disabled and each of the second quantum computer systems may enable a second distinct set of coherent interlink elements to allow each of the second quantum computer systems to be communicably coupled to other quantum computer systems. In this case, each quantum computer system in the quantum computer cluster may be communicably coupled with every other quantum computer system in the quantum computer cluster.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10, 18-20 would be allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitations in claim 10 and claim 18.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DINH whose telephone number is 571-272-1890. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, Jack Chiang can be reached on 571-272-7483. 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.
/PAUL DINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights