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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments, filed January 27, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 14 and 20 have been amended, claim 12 has been canceled, and claims 1-10, 13-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pp. 9-12, filed January 27, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in-part.
Applicant argues that Jose Garcia-Alonso, Javier Rojo, David Valencia, Enrique Moguel, Javier Berrocal, and Juan Manuel Murillo, “Quantum Software as a Service Through a Quantum API Gateway”, December 9, 2021, IEEE, pages 34-41 (hereinafter “Garcia-Alonso”) does not disclose “determining that the first version from among the plurality of versions of the quantum service to route the request to is unavailable”, as recited by amended claim 1, because a “quantum service” is not a quantum computer and a “current trait” of a quantum computer does not disclose whether a “version of…a quantum service…is unavailable.” (Remarks pp. 9-10). First, the current traits of quantum computers are listed as qubit topology, error rate, or fidelity, none of which is the information utilized by the Quantum API Gateway like quantum computer availability (see Garcia-Alonso [p. 3, Col. 1 lines 11-22]). Second, the client specifies the service they are invoking, the Quantum API Gateway determines which quantum computer is best suited to attend the request (i.e. availability), and then the quantum computer executes the service based on the request (Garcia-Alonso, p. 3 lines 11-28).
Applicant argues that Richardson et al. (Patent No. US 11,270,220 B1, hereinafter “Richardson”) does not teach “waiting a predetermined period of time…and subsequent to waiting the predetermined period of time, routing the request from the client computing device to the first version from among the plurality of versions of the quantum service”, as recited in amended claim 1, because a service expiring after a predetermined period of time does not disclose, and is unrelated to, “waiting a period of time” subsequent to “determining that the first version…of the quantum service is unavailable” (Remarks pp. 10-11). Examiner finds this argument persuasive.
Applicant argues that Garcia-Alonso does not teach “a plurality of versions of the quantum service executing on a plurality of quantum computing devices” because it is directed to an approach for deploying a new service invocation by determining which of several available quantum computers is best suited for the particular instance of that service (Remarks p. 11). In response, Examiner respectfully submits that Garcia-Alonso teaches that a plurality of versions of the quantum service (see Garcia-Alonso p. 2 lines 47-53, where the API Gateway services as a system’s entry point, routing requests to the appropriate microservices) executing on a plurality of quantum computing devices (see Garcia-Alonso p. 3 lines 10-14, where the Quantum API Gateway decides at run time which of the available quantum computers is best suited for that particular execution). Examiner interprets that each microservice is a version accessed through the API Gateway service.
Applicant argues that Garcia-Alonso teaches away from the claims because one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to arrive at “a plurality of versions of the quantum service executing on a plurality of quantum computing devices” in light of Garcia-Alonso’s teaching that this “disrupts the usual workflow”, and more specifically because Garcia-Alonso teaches that “every time a quantum piece of code has to be executed, it needs to be deployed first” which “increases the computational cost of running the software and disrupts the usual workflow of service-oriented solution” (Remarks p. 11). First, Applicant identifies the problem Garcia-Alonso attempts to solve (see Garcia-Alonso, p. 3 lines 1-14). Second, Applicant appears to be arguing that Garcia-Alonso teaches away from the invention and therefore is nonanalogous art (see MPEP 2131.05, which provides that the nonanalogous art or teaching away from the invention is not germate to a rejection under section 102, and 2141.01(a), which provide in-part that a reference can be in the same field of endeavor to be considered analogous art in a rejection under section 103). In response, examiner respectfully submits that both Garcia-Alonso and the claims of the instant invention are directed to the art of quantum computing.
Based on the persuasive argument discussed above, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ross et al. (Patent no. US 11,418,603 B2, hereinafter “Ross”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6-10, 13, 14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia-Alonso in view of Durazzo further in view of Ross.
Regarding claim 1, Garcia-Alonso teaches:
receiving, by a computing device from a client computing device, a request to access a quantum service, the request comprising a plurality of parameters associated with the quantum service, wherein a plurality of versions of the quantum service execute on a plurality of quantum computing devices (Garcia-Alonso – an API Gateway is a service composition pattern developed to allow creating end-user applications based on the composition of different microservices. The API Gateway serves as the system’s entry point, routing requests to the appropriate microservices (i.e. plurality of versions) [p. 2, Col. 2 lines 50-54]. Whenever a quantum service is called, the Quantum API Gateway will decide at run time which of the available quantum computers (i.e. plurality of quantum computing devices) is best suited for that particular execution [p. 3, Col. 1, lines 11-15]. The process starts when a client needs to call one of the quantum services available through the Quantum API Gateway. As shown in step 1, the client needs to specify the service they are invoking (i.e. request), the input parameters of the service, and the execution optimization parameters (i.e. plurality of parameters) [p. 3, Col. 2, lines 5-10].)
identifying, by the computing device, characteristics of the plurality of versions of the quantum service (Garcia-Alonso – considering the optimization parameters provided, the Quantum API Gateway determines which of the quantum computers available is best suited to attend to the current request. For this purpose, the quantum computer recommender requests all the information available to the QCaaS Provider (i.e. versions, step 2), and this one sends it the updated status information of the available quantum hardware (i.e. quantum computing devices, step 3) [p. 3, Col. 2, lines 14-18]. To determine the best quantum computer for each execution, the Quantum API Gateway takes into account parameters (i.e. characteristics) such as the type of code to be executed, the number of qubits requested to execute the service, the maximum economic cost for execution, or the tradeoff between execution time and cost. Other traits of current quantum computers, such as qubit topology or error rate, are not offered programmatically by Bracket. If the platform offers more information in the future, this could integrated into the selection algorithm [p. 4, Col. 1 lines 18-34, Col. 2 lines 1-3].)
identifying, by the computing device, characteristics of the plurality of quantum computing devices, (Garcia-Alonso – once machines below the cost threshold have been selected, the Quantum API Gateway uses the Amazon Braket API to check the availability of the quantum computers that meet the requirements. This step is the most time-consuming step, since it requires communicating with Amazon Braket to establish the actual status of each machine. That is why, it is performed at this point – once the machines meeting the developer’s requirements have been selected [p. 4, Col. 2 lines 33-37, p. 5, Col. 1, lines 51-53, Col. 2 lines 1-2]. Also see p. 5 lines 2-27 for characteristics such as estimated execution time for each computer based on the characteristics of the execution, its context, and the actual time taken by past executions performed on that computer.)
determining, by the computing device, a first version from among the plurality of versions of the quantum service to route the request to based on the request, the characteristics of the plurality of versions of the quantum service, [and the characteristics of the plurality of quantum computing devices] (Garcia-Alonso – once the best quantum computer to run a given service invocation is determined, the quantum service manager requests all the necessary information (step 4) to deploy (i.e. route) the service to the selected quantum hardware with the appropriate input parameters (i.e. characteristics) [p. 3, Col. 2, lines 19-23].
wherein a second version of the plurality of versions executes on the first quantum computing device, wherein the first version of the plurality of versions executes on a second quantum computing device of the plurality of quantum computing devices, and wherein determining the first version from among the plurality of versions comprises: (Garcia-Alonso – considering the optimization parameters provided, the Quantum API Gateway determines which of the quantum computers available is best suited to attend to the current request. For this purpose, the quantum computer recommender requests all the information available to the QCaaS Provider (i.e. versions, step 2), and this one sends it the updated status information of the available quantum hardware (i.e. quantum computing devices, step 3) [p. 3, Col. 2, lines 14-18].)
and routing, by the computing device, the request from the client computing device to the version from among the plurality of versions of the quantum service (Garcia-Alonso – once the best quantum computer to run a given service invocation is determined, the quantum service manager requests all the necessary information (step 4) to deploy (i.e. route) the service to the selected quantum hardware with the appropriate input parameters (i.e. characteristics) [p. 3, Col. 2, lines 19-23].)
determining that the first version from among the plurality of versions of the [quantum] service to route the request to is unavailable (Garcia-Alonso – when a quantum service is called, the Quantum API Gateway will decide at run time which of the available quantum computers is best suited for that particular execution, thus optimizing the quantum service invocation process. To make this decision, the Quantum API Gateway will not only use any information available that is useful in this regard like quantum computers availability, economic cost of the quantum hardware usage, estimated response time, etc., but also current traits of quantum computers like qubit topology, error rate, or fidelity [p. 3, Col. 1 lines 11-22].)
quantum service (Garcia-Alonso – an API Gateway is a service composition pattern developed to allow creating end-user applications based on the composition of different microservices. The API Gateway serves as the system’s entry point, routing requests to the appropriate microservices (i.e. plurality of versions) [p. 2, Col. 2 lines 50-54]. Whenever a quantum service is called, the Quantum API Gateway will decide at run time which of the available quantum computers (i.e. plurality of quantum computing devices) is best suited for that particular execution [p. 3, Col. 1, lines 11-15].
Garcia-Alonso does not appear to teach:
wherein the characteristics of the plurality of quantum computing devices comprise a number of errors associated with a first quantum computing device
and the characteristics of the plurality of quantum computing devices
determining, by the computing device, that the number of errors associated with the first quantum computing device exceeds a threshold number of errors
based on the number of errors associated with the first quantum computing device exceeding the threshold number of errors
waiting a predetermined period of time; and subsequent to waiting the predetermined period of time, routing the request from the client computing device to the first version from among the plurality of versions of the [quantum] service
However, Durazzo teaches:
wherein the characteristics of the plurality of quantum computing devices comprise a number of errors associated with a first quantum computing device (Durazzo – see [0019], where any or all of the users may define and/or specify a job configuration concerning a quantum computing job that is need by the user to be performed. A job configuration may comprise various parameters relating to the quantum computing services that are needed. Such parameters may comprise the number of shots, acceptable error rate – or “accuracy” – for a quantum machine output, and minimum acceptable vendor score. Also see [0029], where the orchestrator may request various information from one or more of the quantum computing service vendors, and a quantum computing service vendor may provide information such as number of shots needed to achieve a particular output by a quantum circuit, and a OD QPU error rate.)
and the characteristics of the plurality of quantum computing devices (Durazzo – see [0019], where any or all of the users may define and/or specify a job configuration concerning a quantum computing job that is need by the user to be performed. A job configuration may comprise various parameters relating to the quantum computing services that are needed. Such parameters may comprise the number of shots, acceptable error rate – or “accuracy” – for a quantum machine output, and minimum acceptable vendor score. Also see [0029], where the orchestrator may request various information from one or more of the quantum computing service vendors, and a quantum computing service vendor may provide information such as number of shots needed to achieve a particular output by a quantum circuit, and a OD QPU error rate.)
determining, by the computing device, that the number of errors associated with the first quantum computing device exceeds a threshold number of errors (Durazzo – see [0019], where any or all of the users may define and/or specify a job configuration concerning a quantum computing job that is need by the user to be performed. A job configuration may comprise various parameters relating to the quantum computing services that are needed. Such parameters may comprise the number of shots, acceptable (i.e. threshold) error rate – or “accuracy” – for a quantum machine output, and minimum acceptable vendor score. Also see [0029-0030], where the orchestrator may request various information from one or more of the quantum computing service vendors, and a quantum computing service vendor may provide information such as number of shots needed to achieve a particular output by a quantum circuit, and a OD QPU error rate. The information received by the orchestrator from the quantum computing service vendor may then be provided as input to the deterministic algorithm of the orchestrator, and a respective vendor score is generated by the orchestrator for each quantum computing service vendor from which information was received by the orchestrator.)
based on the number of errors associated with the first quantum computing device exceeding the threshold number of errors (Durazzo – see [0019], where any or all of the users may define and/or specify a job configuration concerning a quantum computing job that is need by the user to be performed. A job configuration may comprise various parameters relating to the quantum computing services that are needed. Such parameters may comprise the number of shots, acceptable (i.e. threshold) error rate – or “accuracy” – for a quantum machine output, and minimum acceptable vendor score.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Garcia-Alonso and Durazzo before them, to modify the system of Garcia-Alonso with the teachings of Durazzo as shown above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to evaluate a quantum circuit in a way that provides useful results (Durazzo- [0002-0003]).
Garcia-Alonso modified by Durazzo does not appear to teach:
waiting a predetermined period of time; and subsequent to waiting the predetermined period of time, routing the request from the client computing device to the first version from among the plurality of versions of the [quantum] service
However, Ross teaches:
waiting a predetermined period of time; and subsequent to waiting the predetermined period of time, routing the request from the client computing device to the first version from among the plurality of versions of the [quantum] service (Ross – each server includes a respective circuit breaker, which is a program module that is configured to control how one service retries service calls (e.g., a GET request) to another service. Each circuit breaker is provided with logic that controls at least one of: a number of retry attempts, a time for each retry attempt, and a total time for all retry attempts [Col. 10 lines 42-48]. A first exemplary use case is described with respect to Fig. 4 to illustrate conventional operation. In the first use case, Service A receives input from the application and determines that the input requires performing operation 2. Service A calls getOp2 on Service B, and the circuit breaker of Service A sets a 5 second timeout on this call, i.e., meaning that Service A will wait for 5 seconds for a response from Service B for the getOp2 request. If Service A does not receive an answer (i.e. unavailable) to the call within 5 seconds, then Service A returns an error message to the application. Consider the example where Service B receives the getOp2 request from Service A, processes the request, and calls Service C with a getOp2 request. In response to receiving the getOp2 request from Service B, Service C responds with an error message (e.g., an HTTP Service Unavailable message, i.e. version of the service is unavailable) [Col. 11 lines 8-29].Service B follows the retry logic defined in the circuit breaker by retrying the getOp2 request to Service C three more times with the defined incremental backoff intervals (e.g., at 2 seconds, 4 seconds, 8 seconds), and Service C responds to each retry with the same error message [Col. 11 lines 28-33]. According to aspects of the invention, an upstream service (e.g., a calling service) includes metadata in a microservice call to a downstream service (e.g., a called service), and the downstream service adjusts its retry and backoff attempts based on the metadata. The metadata defines a required or anticipated response time specified by the upstream service. The downstream service adjusts its retry and backoff attempts by adjusting a number of retry attempts and/or a timing of return attempts (i.e. predetermined period of time) to fit within the response time indicated in the metadata [Col. 2 lines 35-45].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Garcia-Alonso, Durazzo and Ross before them, to modify the system of Garcia-Alonso and Durazzo with the teachings of Ross as shown above. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to save system resources (Ross - [Col. 1 lines 22-27]).
Claims 14 and 20 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 6, Garcia-Alonso teaches:
wherein the characteristics of the plurality of versions of the quantum service comprises one or more of an error count, a type of error correction software, heat sensitivities, noise sensitivities, performance optimizations, or qubit types of the plurality of versions of the quantum service (Garcia-Alonso – to determine the best quantum computer for each execution, the Quantum API Gateway takes into account parameters (i.e. characteristics) such as the type of code to be executed, the number of qubits requested to execute the service, the maximum economic cost for execution, or the tradeoff between execution time and cost (i.e. performance optimizations). Other traits of current quantum computers, such as qubit topology (i.e. qubit types) or error rate (i.e. error count), are not offered programmatically by Bracket. If the platform offers more information in the future, this could integrated into the selection algorithm [p. 4, Col. 1 lines 18-34, Col. 2 lines 1-3].)
Regarding claim 7, Garcia-Alonso teaches:
wherein identifying the characteristics of the plurality of quantum computing devices comprises: sending a request to an API for each quantum computing device of the plurality of quantum computing devices; and receiving, from the API, a response comprising the characteristics of each quantum computing device of the plurality of quantum computing devices (Garcia-Alonso – once machines below the cost threshold have been selected, the Quantum API Gateway uses the Amazon Braket API to check the availability of the quantum computers that meet the requirements. This step is the most time-consuming step, since it requires communicating with Amazon Braket to establish the actual status of each machine. That is why, it is performed at this point – once the machines meeting the developer’s requirements have been selected [p. 4, Col. 2 lines 33-37, p. 5, Col. 1, lines 51-53, Col. 2 lines 1-2]. Also see p. 5 lines 2-27 for characteristics such as estimated execution time for each computer based on the characteristics of the execution, its context, and the actual time taken by past executions performed on that computer.)
Claims 17 corresponds to claim 7 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 8, Garcia-Alonso teaches:
wherein the characteristics of the plurality of quantum computing devices comprise one or more of a type of error correction software, current heat, heat threshold, current noise, noise threshold, qubit types, a number of available qubits, or T1 and T2 times of the plurality of quantum computing devices (Garcia-Alonso – once machines below the cost threshold have been selected, the Quantum API Gateway uses the Amazon Braket API to check the availability of the quantum computers that meet the requirements. This step is the most time-consuming step, since it requires communicating with Amazon Braket to establish the actual status of each machine. That is why, it is performed at this point – once the machines meeting the developer’s requirements have been selected [p. 4, Col. 2 lines 33-37, p. 5, Col. 1, lines 51-53, Col. 2 lines 1-2]. Also see p. 5 lines 2-27 for characteristics such as estimated execution time for each computer based on the characteristics of the execution, its context, and the actual time taken by past executions performed on that computer. Other traits of current quantum computers, such as qubit topology (i.e. qubit types) or error rate (i.e. error count), are not offered programmatically by Bracket. If the platform offers more information in the future, this could integrated into the selection algorithm [p. 4, Col. 1 lines 18-34, Col. 2 lines 1-3].)
Regarding claim 9, Garcia-Alonso teaches:
wherein determining the first version from among the plurality of versions of the quantum service to route the request to based on the request, the characteristics of the plurality of versions of the quantum service, and the characteristics of the plurality of quantum computing devices comprise: applying a weighing algorithm to the request, the characteristics of the plurality of versions of the quantum service, and the characteristics of the plurality of quantum computing devices, wherein the weighing algorithm determines an optimal version of the quantum service to route the request to (Garcia-Alonso – see Quantum computer selection algorithm in Fig. 2, p. 5, where the type of code to be executed (gate-based or annealing, i.e. versions), the number of qubits required to execute the service, the maximum economic cost of execution (considering the number of shots needed), or the tradeoff between execution time and cost – to determine whether it is better to select the cheaper machine or the one that is estimated to give the results in the shortest possible time [p.4, Col. 1 lines 18-34, Col. 2 lines 1-3].)
Claims 18 corresponds to claim 9 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 10, Garcia-Alonso teaches:
wherein determining the first version from among the plurality of versions of the quantum service to route the request to based on the request, the characteristics of the plurality of versions of the quantum service, and the characteristics of the plurality of quantum computing devices comprise: accessing a set of rules including thresholds for the characteristics of the plurality of quantum computing devices; performing a comparison of the characteristics of the plurality of quantum computing devices and the set of rules (Garcia-Alonso – the next step is to evaluate the cost per selected computer. To that end, the number of shots indicated by the developer (i.e. characteristic), the cost per shot, and the desired maximum cost threshold are used – considering “shots” as the number of repetitions required to identify the solution and, hence, the results of the service execution. In particular, the economic cost of the service execution is calculated as the cost per execution + (cost per shot*N shots). Those computers with a result below the indicated threshold are selected. The cost per execution and cost per shot can be obtained from Amazon Braket [p. 4, Col. 2, lines 20-32].)
and determining, based on the comparison, that at least one quantum computing device of the plurality of quantum computing devices does not exceed the thresholds for the characteristics of the plurality of quantum computing devices, wherein the first version from among the plurality of versions of the quantum service to route the request to is executing on the at least one quantum computing device of the plurality of quantum computing devices (Garcia-Alonso – once the machines below the cost threshold have been selected, the Quantum API Gateway uses the Amazon Braket API to check the availability of the quantum computers that meet the requirements. The step is the most time-consuming step, since it requires communicating with Amazon Braket to establish the actual status of each machine [p.4, lines 33-37, p. 5, lines 1-3].)
Claims 19 corresponds to claim 10 and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 13, Garcia-Alonso teaches:
wherein each version of the plurality of versions of the quantum service executes on a different quantum computing device from among the plurality of quantum computing devices (Garcia-Alonso – most of the quantum computers available for researchers and developers are offered through cloud in a pay-per-use model. Following a naming scheme similar to that used for traditional computing in the cloud, researchers started calling this model Quantum Computing as a Service (QCaaS, i.e. version). Users can develop and execute quantum programs using the hardware they employ [p. 2, Col. 1, lines 17-32].)
Claims 2, 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia-Alonso in view of Durazzo in view of Ross in view of Coady et al. (Patent No. US 12,204,986 B2, hereinafter “Coady”).
Regarding claim 2, Garcia-Alonso teaches:
wherein the request comprises (Garcia-Alonso – an API Gateway is a service composition pattern developed to allow creating end-user applications based on the composition of different microservices. The API Gateway serves as the system’s entry point, routing requests to the appropriate microservices (i.e. plurality of versions) [p. 2, Col. 2 lines 50-54].)
Garcia-Alonso modified by Durazzo and Ross does not appear to teach:
a quantum instruction file (QIF) comprising one or more annotations associated with the plurality of parameters associated with the quantum service
However, Coady teaches:
a quantum instruction file (QIF) comprising one or more annotations associated with the plurality of parameters associated with the quantum service (Coady – the term “quantum service definition” and derivatives thereof are used herein to refer to a file, such as a Quantum Assembly Language (QASM) file, that contains quantum programming instructions that define content and configuration of a quantum service [Col. 3 lines 19-30]. The quantum analyzer service obtains service metadata corresponding to the quantum service. Service metadata may include data related to the number, identity, and/or location of one or more qubits used by the quantum service, inputs received by and outputs generated by the quantum service, and/or hardware resource usage data of the quantum service (i.e. annotations, see Applicant’s Specification [0027] which provides that annotations may include specific speed, location, or accuracy, that is requested for a quantum service, where speed, location, and accuracy are the parameters associated with the quantum service). The quantum service definition that defines one or more features of the quantum service is then generated based on the service metadata and stored on a persistent data store [Col. 3 lines 31-58]. The quantum service definition may be generated and stored by the quantum computing device itself or may be generated and stored by a classical computing device based on the service metadata received from the quantum computing device. The quantum service definition may be subsequently used in conjunction with a quantum simulator to simulate the quantum service [Col. 4 lines 4-10].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Garcia-Alonso, Durazzo, Ross and Coady before them, to modify the system of Garcia-Alonso, Durazzo and Ross with the teachings of Coady of a quantum instruction file (QIF) comprising one or more annotations associated with the plurality of parameters associated with the quantum service. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to efficiently obtain quantum service definitions for quantum services (Coady - [Col. 1 lines 12-15]).
Regarding claim 3, Garcia-Alonso teaches:
subsequent to receiving, from the client computing device, the request, (Garcia-Alonso – an API Gateway is a service composition pattern developed to allow creating end-user applications based on the composition of different microservices. The API Gateway serves as the system’s entry point, routing requests to the appropriate microservices (i.e. plurality of versions) [p. 2, Col. 2 lines 50-54].)
Garcia-Alonso modified by Durazzo and Ross does not appear to teach:
parsing the QIF to obtain the one or more annotations associated with the plurality of parameters associated with the quantum service
However, Coady teaches:
parsing the QIF to obtain the one or more annotations associated with the plurality of parameters associated with the quantum service (Coady – the quantum service definition may be generated and stored by the quantum computing device itself or may be generated and stored by a classical computing device based on the service metadata received from the quantum computing device. The quantum service definition may be subsequently used in conjunction with a quantum simulator to simulate the quantum service [Col. 4 lines 4-10].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Garcia-Alonso, Durazzo, Ross and Coady before them, to modify the system of Garcia-Alonso, Durazzo, Ross and Coady with the teachings of Coady of parsing the QIF to obtain the one or more annotations associated with the plurality of parameters associated with the quantum service. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to efficiently obtain quantum service definitions for quantum services (Coady - [Col. 1 lines 12-15]).
Claim 15 corresponds to claims 2 and 3 and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 4, 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia-Alonso in view of Durazzo in view of Ross in view of Griffin et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0382605 A1, hereinafter “Griffin”).
Regarding claim 4, Garcia-Alonso modified by Durazzo and Ross does not appear to teach:
wherein identifying the characteristics of the plurality of versions of the quantum service comprises accessing a data structure comprising characteristics of each version of the plurality of versions of the quantum service to obtain the characteristics of the plurality of versions of the quantum service
However, Griffin teaches:
wherein identifying the characteristics of the plurality of versions of the quantum service comprises accessing a data structure comprising characteristics of each version of the plurality of versions of the quantum service to obtain the characteristics of the plurality of versions of the quantum service (Griffin – the quantum computing system includes a qubit allocation service, which can be implemented via any number of functional blocks and data structures, and may comprise a service and a qubit registry. The qubit registry may be a data structure, and functional processing is implemented by the service orchestrator [0050]. The qubit registry maintains information (i.e. characteristics) about the qubits, including a total qubits counter, a total available qubit counter, and a qubit partition structure. The qubit registry also maintains qubit metadata [0054].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Garcia-Alonso, Durazzo, Ross and Griffin before them, to modify the system of Garcia-Alonso, Durazzo and Ross with the teachings of Griffin of wherein identifying the characteristics of the plurality of versions of the quantum service comprises accessing a data structure comprising characteristics of each version of the plurality of versions of the quantum service to obtain the characteristics of the plurality of versions of the quantum service. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide granular control of qubits (Griffin - [0002]).
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 5, Garcia-Alonso modified by Durazzo and Ross does not appear to teach:
identifying a change to at least one version of the plurality of versions of the quantum service; and updating the data structure to include the change to the at least one version of the plurality of versions of the quantum service
However, Griffin teaches:
identifying a change to at least one version of the plurality of versions of the quantum service; and updating the data structure to include the change to the at least one version of the plurality of versions of the quantum service (Griffin – the qubit allocation services communicate with one another via qubit update records to keep the qubit allocations services synchronized with one another. Each qubit allocation service is thus aware of the qubits implemented on both of the quantum computing systems and can allocate and deallocate any of the qubits [0058].)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, having the teachings of Garcia-Alonso, Durazzo, Ross and Griffin before them, to modify the system of Garcia-Alonso, Durazzo, Ross and Griffin with the teachings of Griffin of identifying a change to at least one version of the plurality of versions of the quantum service; and updating the data structure to include the change to the at least one version of the plurality of versions of the quantum service. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to provide granular control of qubits (Griffin - [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANJIT P DORAISWAMY whose telephone number is (571)270-5759. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571) 272-4098. 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.
/R.P.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166