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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 12 & 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Coopmans et al., US PG Pub 2023/0401485 A1, (hereafter Coopmans), (effective filing date of Jun 10, 2022, based on GB 2208524.5).
Regarding claim 1 where it is disclosed by Coopmans to have an apparatus and method for optimizing, monitoring and controlling a real physical system using quantum computing systems. Where it is disclosed by Coopmans to have, “A method for modeling a classical physical system using a quantum computing system [at least paragraphs 5-15], comprising: encoding one or more first properties of a classical physical system in a state of one or more qubits [at least paragraphs 79-80], the classical physical system comprising an oscillator network [at least paragraphs 54-59, where by the thermal pure quantum states is interpreted to read as the oscillator circuit due to the temperature of the bits which are observable]; and simulating, by one or more quantum computing devices using the one or more qubits, the classical physical system [at least paragraphs 5-6].”
Regarding claim 2 where it is further disclosed by Coopmans to have, “wherein the one or more first properties of the classical physical system comprise at least one of: a generalized momentum associated with at least one oscillator of the oscillator network [at least paragraph 95 where they describe the thermal drift of the parameters]; a generalized velocity associated with at least one oscillator of the oscillator network; a generalized displacement associated with at least one oscillator of the oscillator network; and a generalized position associated with at least one oscillator of the oscillator network.”
Regarding claim 3 where it is further disclosed by Coopmans in at least paragraph 58 to have, “simulating the classical physical system comprises performing a quantum computation; and a complexity of the quantum computation is logarithmic with respect to a size of the classical physical system.”
Regarding claim 4 where it is disclosed by Coopmans in at least paragraphs 6, 20, 34-35 & 50-53 to have, “simulating the classical physical system comprises simulating time evolution of a Hamiltonian.”
Regarding claim 5 where it is disclosed by Coopmans in at least paragraphs 17, 29, 35, 65 & 67 to have, “the Hamiltonian is configured so that time evolution of the Hamiltonian corresponds to time evolution of the one or more first properties of the classical physical system.”
Regarding claim 12, which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 2 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 15 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 3 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 16 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 4 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 17 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 5 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 5 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11, 13 & 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVESH V AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3255. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur, 8-6:30, EST.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
BHAVESH V. AMIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/BHAVESH V AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights