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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are pending and rejected. The instant action is a non-final office action on the merits.
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.
Claims 1, 2,3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14,16 and dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a first evolution time”
Claim 2 “the same first evolution time”, are these the same or different times.
Claim 4 by virtue of dependency on claim 1
Claim 5 “the first evolution time” “a second evolution time”
Claim 6 “identical first evolution times” and “identical second evolution times”, no identical evolution times were introduced. Further more “first” and “second” should be “the first” and “the second”
Claim 7 No different first and second evolution times were introduced.
Claim 9 The plurality of first evolution times, does this refer to the first evolution times, no plurality of evolution times were introduced.
Claim 16 “the plurality of evolution times” lacks antecedent basis, in claim 14 only “a first evolution time is introduced”
Claims 13,14 are unclear because “a first evolution time” lacks “a second evolution time”, first implies at least a second. No “second is introduced”
Claim 8 refers to all claims in the alternate;
For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret claim 8 as if it depends from claim 3, or alternatively, as requiring the iterative measurement procedure to be repeated with different first evolution times. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10, 11, 12 by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 recites “ensembles of atoms arranged at predetermined locations using optical trapping techniques” and subsequently recites “each atom of the array has a plurality of energy levels…” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the array” within claim 13. The claim introduces “ensembles of atoms” but never introduces “an array.”
While the method claims 1–12 (from which claim 13 incorporates subject matter) use the term “array,” the body of claim 13 itself establishes “ensembles of atoms” as the structural element without equating this term to “an array.” It is unclear whether “the array” is intended to refer to the previously recited “ensembles of atoms” or to some other structure. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “the array” as referring to the “ensembles of atoms.” Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected on two grounds:
(a) Section I) of claim 14 recites “for each graph, an array (120) of atoms arranged to model the graph (G1, G2) using optical trapping techniques, wherein: each atom (121) of the array (120) corresponds to a node (111) of the graph (G1, G2) and each interaction (123) between two of said atoms corresponds to an edge (113) of the graph (G1)” (emphasis added). The claim preamble introduces “two graphs (G1, G2)” and the body language introduces the array “for each graph,” yet the clause defining the correspondence of interactions to edges references only “the graph (G1).” It is unclear whether this structural correspondence of interactions to edges is intended to apply to both graphs G1 and G2 (consistent with the “for each graph” language) or solely to graph G1. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as applying to each respective graph.
(b) Section IV)a of claim 14 recites “wherein the plurality of values corresponds to a plurality of the measurement.” This phrase is unclear. Section III) of claim 14 introduces “performing a measurement” (singular). The phrase “a plurality of the measurement” is grammatically unclear and does not clearly convey whether it means a plurality of iterations of the measurement, a plurality of distinct measurements, or something else. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret “a plurality of the measurement” as —a plurality of iterations of the measurement—. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 recites “the plurality of first evolution times.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 depends from claim 14, and claim 14, section III)b, recites only “a first evolution time (T1)” (singular). Claim 14 does not introduce or require a plurality of different first evolution times. It is unclear what “the plurality of first evolution times” refers to. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret claim 16 as further requiring that the measurement is performed with a plurality of different first evolution times. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claims 15, 17–19:
Claims 15, 17–19 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 14 and therefore incorporating the indefiniteness identified therein.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter;
Claim 13 rolled into claim 1 and the equivalent for claim 14, with any and all fixes for 35 USC 112(b) as identified.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s own disclosure of July 12, 2021, Quantum Evolution Kernel: Machine Learning on graphs with programmable arrays of Qubits. Physical review Vol. 104, no3 9/20/2021 .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights