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. Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 6 , the claims are not directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The subject matter of the claim must be directed to one of the four subject matter categories. If it is not, the claim is not eligible for patent protection and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, for at least this reason. See MPEP 2106(“Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories: … vi. a computer program per se,Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72, 175 USPQ at 676-77"). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear as to what math. 15 in claim 3 and math.16 in claim 4 refers to. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim (s) 1-3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190332731 A1-Chen et al (hereinafter referred to as “Chen”), in view of Patent 5649068 -Boser et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Boser”). Regarding claim 1 , Chen discloses a method for calculating a dimension boundary in a quantum circuit (Fig. 7-8) comprising: a step in which a computer acquires a depth L of the quantum circuit ([0036]) ; a step in which the computer acquires a width n of the quantum circuit ([0036], wherein width is interpreted as the qubits) ; and Chen fails to explicitly disclose a step in which the computer identifies the VC dimension boundary in the quantum circuit on the basis of the depth L and the width n. However, in the same field of endeavor, a step in which the computer identifies the VC dimension boundary in the quantum circuit (column 3, lines 35-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to disclose a step in which the computer identifies the VC dimension boundary in the quantum circuit on the basis of the depth L and the width n as taught by Boser , because it is mathematically provable that an automatic classification system built according to that principle has high probability to perform better than other systems on any particular classification task (Boser, column 2, lines 40-50). Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses t he method for calculating the VC dimension boundary in the quantum circuit according to claim 1, wherein the depth L is the number of steps in calculation and the width n is the number of qubits ([0036]) . Regarding claim 3 , Boser discloses t he method for calculating the VC dimension boundary in the quantum circuit according to claim 1, wherein, assuming that d is the dimension of a feature space, the boundary of the VC dimension dvc is identified by the following formula (1): 2<_ dvc <_(2n/d+1)^2d (column 3, lines 35-45) . Regarding claim 5 , Boser discloses t he method for calculating the VC dimension boundary in the quantum circuit according to any one of claim 1, further comprising a step of acquiring an upper bound of a generalization error in learning by the quantum circuit on the basis of the upper bound of the identified VC dimension dvc (column 9, lines 5-10, wherein an estimate for an upper bound of generalization error). Regarding claim 6 , analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 6 . Claim (s) 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190332731 A1-Chen et al (hereinafter referred to as “Chen”), in view of Patent 5649068-Boser et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Boser”) , in view of US 20210374550 A1-Cao et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Cao”). Regarding claim 4 , Boser discloses t he method for calculating the VC dimension boundary in the quantum circuit according to claim 1, wherein: in the case where a periodic boundary condition of the quantum circuit is one-dimensional, the boundary of the VC dimension dvc is identified by the following formula (2): 2<_ dvc <_(2min(#/d,[2l+1/d]+1)+1)^2d ( column 3, lines 35-45 ) Chen and Boser fail to disclose the quantum circuit is an HEA quantum circuit assuming that d is the dimension of the feature space . However, in the same field of endeavor, Cao discloses the quantum circuit is an HEA quantum circuit assuming that d is the dimension of the feature space ([0007]) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen and Boser to disclose the quantum circuit is an HEA quantum circuit assuming that d is the dimension of the feature space as taught by Cao , to im prove the memory and algorithmic efficiency of quantum computers. This has motivated recent interest in quantum autoencoders, where a parametrized quantum circuit is trained to compress a given set of states into states of fewer qubits ([0043], Cao). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LERON BECK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1175 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8 am-5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT David Czekaj can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-7327 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT LERON . BECK Examiner Art Unit 2487 /LERON BECK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487