DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 06 April 2024 for application 18/628,705 filed 06 April 2024.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that claim 11 depends from claim 10. This does not present an issue on its face, but analogous claims 5, 18 both depend from their respective independent claims. Further, this dependency of claim 11 requires an interpretation of the observable deice aspects to relate to two different value types, both local conductance and non-local conductance. Further, the dependency requires an interpretation of the image sets to comprise two different types of plots, both local conductance plots and non-local conductance plots.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, lines 1-2, the one or more implicit device parameters should read “the at least one implicit device parameter”
Claim 9, lines 1-2, the one or more implicit device parameters should read “the at least one implicit device parameter”
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) do(es) not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim(s) 14-20 is/are directed to a(n) system including elements that amount to software per se. In accordance with MPEP 2106.03: Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of the statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product). Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires.
The limitation of ... processing the measurements data obtained from the observed quantum device to infer values for the at least one implicit device parameter associated with the observed quantum device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer-implemented, quantum devices. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – machine learning model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites obtaining measurements data relating to the observable device aspects from a quantum device under observation, which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites training a machine learning model to create a mapping between observable device aspects of quantum devices and at least one implicit device parameter associated with the quantum devices which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites using the trained machine learning model ... which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer-implemented, quantum devices amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
training to perform the abstract idea and applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
machine learning model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 2 is applicable here since claim 1 carries out the method of claim 2 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the one or more implicit device parameters comprise at least one of a spin-orbit coupling, a semiconductor coupling, a chemical potential, a disorder level, a g-factor, or a lever arm.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the parameters and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the parameters do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 3 is applicable here since claim 1 carries out the method of claim 3 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the observable device aspects relate to observable device statistics associated with the quantum devices.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 4 is applicable here since claim 1 carries out the method of claim 4 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the observable device aspects relate to local conductance values associated with the quantum devices.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 5 is applicable here since claim 1 carries out the method of claim 5 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the observable device aspects relate to non-local conductance values associated with the quantum devices.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 6 is applicable here since claim 1 carries out the method of claim 6 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the observable device aspects relate to measurable transport properties associated with the quantum devices.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 7 is applicable here since claim 1 carries out the method of claim 7 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the machine learning model comprises a neural network.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the machine learning model comprises a neural network which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – neural network. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
neural network amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires.
The limitation of ... processing the second set of images to infer values for the at least one implicit device parameter associated with the observed quantum device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer-implemented, quantum devices. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – machine learning model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites obtaining a second set of images relating to the observable device aspects from a quantum device under observation, which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites training a machine learning model to create a mapping between a first set of images related to observable device aspects associated with the quantum devices and at least one implicit device parameter associated with the quantum devices which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites using the trained machine learning model ... which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer-implemented, quantum devices amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
training to perform the abstract idea and applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
machine learning model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 9 is applicable here since claim 8 carries out the method of claim 9 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the one or more implicit device parameters comprise at least one of a spin-orbit coupling, a semiconductor coupling, a chemical potential, a disorder level, a g-factor, or a lever arm.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the parameters and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the parameters do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 10 is applicable here since claim 8 carries out the method of claim 10 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the observable device aspects relate to local conductance values associated with the quantum devices, and wherein each of the first set of images and the second set of images comprises a local conductance plot.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 10 carries out the method of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the observable device aspects relate to non-local conductance values associated with the quantum devices, and wherein each of the first set of images and the second set of images comprises a non-local conductance plot.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 12 is applicable here since claim 8 carries out the method of claim 12 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each of the first set of images and the second set of images comprises a phase diagram associated with the quantum devices.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 13 is applicable here since claim 8 carries out the method of claim 13 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the observable device aspects relate to measurable transport properties associated with the quantum devices.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine [For the sake of compact prosecution, the system is interpreted as a machine for the eligibility analysis], one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires.
The limitation of ... process the second set of images to infer values for the at least one implicit device parameter associated with the observed quantum device, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – system, quantum devices. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – machine learning model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites obtain a second set of images relating to the observable device aspects from a quantum device under observation, which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim recites train a machine learning model to create a mapping between a first set of images related to observable device aspects associated with quantum devices and at least one implicit device parameter associated with the quantum devices which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites using the trained machine learning model ... which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
system, quantum devices amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
training to perform the abstract idea and applying a model amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving data amount(s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit(y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d))
machine learning model amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine [For the sake of compact prosecution, the system is interpreted as a machine for the eligibility analysis], one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 15 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the system of claim 15 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the machine learning model comprises a neural network model.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites wherein the machine learning model comprises a neural network which is simply additional information regarding the model, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – neural network model. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
neural network amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
additional information regarding the model do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine [For the sake of compact prosecution, the system is interpreted as a machine for the eligibility analysis], one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 16 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the system of claim 16 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the at least one implicit device parameter comprises one of a spin-orbit coupling, a semiconductor coupling, a chemical potential, a disorder level, a g-factor, or a lever arm.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the parameters and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the parameters do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine [For the sake of compact prosecution, the system is interpreted as a machine for the eligibility analysis], one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 16 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the system of claim 17 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the observable device aspects relate to local conductance values associated with the quantum devices, and wherein each of the first set of images and the second set of images comprises a local conductance plot.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine [For the sake of compact prosecution, the system is interpreted as a machine for the eligibility analysis], one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 16 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the system of claim 18 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the observable device aspects relate to non-local conductance values associated with the quantum devices, and wherein each of the first set of images and the second set of images comprises a non-local conductance plot.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine [For the sake of compact prosecution, the system is interpreted as a machine for the eligibility analysis], one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 16 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the system of claim 19 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each of the first set of images and the second set of images comprises a phase diagram associated with the quantum devices.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a system, which is directed to a machine [For the sake of compact prosecution, the system is interpreted as a machine for the eligibility analysis], one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 16 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the system of claim 20 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the observable device aspects relate to measurable transport properties associated with the quantum devices.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ban et al. (Neural-Network-Based Parameter Estimation for Quantum Detection, hereinafter referred to as “Ban”) in view of Aghaee et al. (InAs-A1 Hybrid Devices Passing the Topological Gap Protocol, hereinafter referred to as “Aghaee”).
Regarding claim 1, Ban teaches a computer-implemented method for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device (Ban, section 2 – teaches predicting unknown quantum parameters) …, the method comprising:
training a machine learning model to create a mapping between observable device aspects of quantum devices and at least one implicit device parameter associated with the quantum devices (Ban, section 2 – teaches training a neural network to input measured data to predict unknown quantum parameters);
obtaining measurements data relating to the observable device aspects from a quantum device under observation (Ban, section 2 – teaches acquiring measured data from a quantum device); and
using the trained machine learning model, processing the measurements data obtained from the observed quantum device to infer values for the at least one implicit device parameter associated with the observed quantum device (Ban, section 2 – teaches using the trained neural network to predict unknown quantum parameters from measured data of a quantum device).
While Ban teaches inferring implicit parameters of quantum devices from observable aspects, Ban does not explicitly teach quantum devices having nanowires.
Aghaee teaches predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires (Aghaee, section 1 – teaches quantum devices with nanowires; see also Aghaee, section 1 – teaches predicting disorder level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ban with the teachings of Aghaee in order to generate a reliable process for tuning devices into the topological phase in the field of quantum parameter prediction (Aghaee, section 6 – “A reliable process for tuning devices into the topological phase is an essential step on the journey to topological quantum computation, which relies on the fusion and braiding of anyons. Networks of such wires can be assembled into a many-qubit device, and this protocol can be used to tune each wire within a qubit into the topological phase...”).
Regarding claim 2, Ban in view of Aghaee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Aghaee further teaches wherein the one or more implicit device parameters comprise at least one of a spin-orbit coupling, a semiconductor coupling, a chemical potential, a disorder level, a g-factor, or a lever arm (Aghaee, section 1 – teaches predicting disorder level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ban and Aghaee in order to predict implicit parameters to generate a reliable process for tuning devices into the topological phase (Aghaee, section 6).
Regarding claim 3, Ban in view of Aghaee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Ban further teaches wherein the observable device aspects relate to observable device statistics associated with the quantum devices (Ban, section 2 – teaches measured data from the quantum device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ban and Aghaee for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Ban in view of Aghaee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Aghaee further teaches wherein the observable device aspects relate to local conductance values associated with the quantum devices (Aghaee, section 1 – teaches local conductance measurements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ban and Aghaee in order to identify observable aspects to generate a reliable process for tuning devices into the topological phase (Aghaee, section 6).
Regarding claim 5, Ban in view of Aghaee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Aghaee further teaches wherein the observable device aspects relate to non-local conductance values associated with the quantum devices (Aghaee, section 1 – teaches non-local conductance measurements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ban and Aghaee in order to identify observable aspects to generate a reliable process for tuning devices into the topological phase (Aghaee, section 6).
Regarding claim 6, Ban in view of Aghaee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Aghaee further teaches wherein the observable device aspects relate to measurable transport properties associated with the quantum devices (Aghaee, section 1 – teaches observed transport properties).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ban and Aghaee in order to identify observable aspects to generate a reliable process for tuning devices into the topological phase (Aghaee, section 6).
Regarding claim 7, Ban in view of Aghaee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Ban further teaches wherein the machine learning model comprises a neural network (Ban section 2 – teaches using a neural network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ban and Aghaee for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ban et al. (Neural-Network-Based Parameter Estimation for Quantum Detection, hereinafter referred to as “Ban”) in view of Greplova et al. (Quantum Parameter Estimation with a Neural Network, hereinafter referred to as “Greplova”) and further in view of Aghaee et al. (InAs-A1 Hybrid Devices Passing the Topological Gap Protocol, hereinafter referred to as “Aghaee”).
Regarding claim 8, Ban teaches a computer-implemented method for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device (an, section 2 – teaches predicting unknown quantum parameters) …, the method comprising:
training a machine learning model to create a mapping between a first set of … observable device aspects associated with the quantum devices and at least one implicit device parameter associated with the quantum devices (Ban, section 2 – teaches training a neural network to input measured data to predict unknown quantum parameters);
obtaining a second set of … observable device aspects from a quantum device under observation (Ban, section 2 – teaches acquiring measured data from a quantum device); and
using the trained machine learning model, processing the second set … to infer values for the at least one implicit device parameter associated with the observed quantum device (Ban, section 2 – teaches using the trained neural network to predict unknown quantum parameters from measured data of a quantum device).
While Ban teaches inferring implicit parameters of quantum devices from observable aspects, Ban does not explicitly teach input images or quantum devices having nanowires.
Greplova teaches
training a machine learning model (Greplova, pp. 3-4 – teaches training the machine learning model) to create a mapping between a first set of images related to observable device aspects associated with the quantum devices (Greplova, p. 1 – teaches input image of measured data) and at least one … parameter associated with the quantum devices (Greplova, p. 1 – teaches estimating quantum parameters using a neural network);
obtaining a second set of images relating to the observable device aspects from a quantum device under observation (Greplova, p. 1 – teaches input image of measured data); and
using the trained machine learning model, processing the second set of images (Greplova, p. 1 – teaches input image of measured data) to infer values for the at least one … parameter associated with the observed quantum device (Greplova, p. 1 – teaches estimating quantum parameters using a neural network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ban with the teachings of Greplova in order to improve parameter estimation in the field of quantum parameter prediction (Greplova, Abstract – “We propose to use neural networks to estimate the rates of coherent and incoherent processes in quantum systems from continuous measurement records. In particular, we adapt an image recognition algorithm to recognize the patterns in experimental signals and link them to physical quantities. We demonstrate that the parameter estimation works unabatedly in the presence of detector imperfections which complicate or rule out Bayesian filter analyses.”).
While Ban in view of Greplova teaches inferring implicit parameters of quantum devices from observable aspects, Ban does not explicitly teach quantum devices having nanowires.
Aghaee teaches predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires (Aghaee, section 1 – teaches quantum devices with nanowires; see also Aghaee, section 1 – teaches predicting disorder level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ban in view of Greplova with the teachings of Aghaee in order to generate a reliable process for tuning devices into the topological phase in the field of quantum parameter prediction (Aghaee, section 6 – “A reliable process for tuning devices into the topological phase is an essential step on the journey to topological quantum computation, which relies on the fusion and braiding of anyons. Networks of such wires can be assembled into a many-qubit device, and this protocol can be used to tune each wire within a qubit into the topological phase...”).
Regarding claim 9, Ban in view of Greplova and further in view of Aghaee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 8 as noted above. Aghaee further teaches wherein the one or more implicit device parameters comprise at least one of a spin-orbit coupling, a semiconductor coupling, a chemical potential, a disorder level, a g-factor, or a lever arm (Aghaee, section 1 – teaches predicting disorder level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ban, Greplova and Aghaee in order to predict implicit parameters to generate a reliable process for tuning devices into the topological phase (Aghaee, section 6).
Regarding claim 10, Ban in view of Greplova and further in view of Aghaee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 8 as noted above. Aghaee further teaches wherein the observable device aspects relate to local conductance values associated with the quantum devices (Aghaee, section 1 – teaches local conductance measurements), and wherein each of the first set of images and the second set of images comprises a local conductance plot (Aghaee, e.g., Fig 15 – teaches local conductance plot images).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ban, Greplova and Aghaee in order to identify observable aspects to generate a reliable process for tuning devices into the topological phase (Aghaee, section 6).
Regarding claim 11, Ban in view of Greplova and further in view of Aghaee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 10 as noted above. Aghaee further teaches wherein the observable device aspects relate to non-local conductance values associated with the quantum devices (Aghaee, section 1 – teaches non-local conductance measurements), and wherein each of the first set of images and the second set of images comprises a non-local conductance plot (Aghaee, e.g., Fig 15 – teaches non-local conductance plot images).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ban, Greplova and Aghaee in order to identify observable aspects to generate a reliable process for tuning devices into the topological phase (Aghaee, section 6).
Regarding claim 12, Ban in view of Greplova and further in view of Aghaee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 8 as noted above. Aghaee further teaches wherein each of the first set of images and the second set of images comprises a phase diagram associated with the quantum devices (Aghaee, e.g., Fig 15 – teaches phase diagram images).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ban, Greplova and Aghaee in order to identify observable aspects to generate a reliable process for tuning devices into the topological phase (Aghaee, section 6).
Regarding claim 13, Ban in view of Greplova and further in view of Aghaee teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 8 as noted above.
Aghaee further teaches wherein the observable device aspects relate to measurable transport properties associated with the quantum devices (Aghaee, section 1 – teaches observed transport properties).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ban, Greplova and Aghaee in order to identify observable aspects to generate a reliable process for tuning devices into the topological phase (Aghaee, section 6).
Regarding claim 14, it is the system embodiment of claim 8 with similar limitations to claim 8 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 8.
Ban further teaches a system for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device (Ban, section 2 – teaches predicting unknown quantum parameters) …, the system configured to …
Aghaee further teaches a system for predicting values of implicit device parameters for a quantum device having nanowires (Aghaee, section 1 – teaches quantum devices with nanowires; see also Aghaee, section 1 – teaches predicting disorder level), the system configured to …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ban, Greplova and Aghaee for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 15, Ban in view of Greplova and further in view of Aghaee teaches all of the limitations of the system of claim 14 as noted above.
Ban further teaches wherein the machine learning model comprises a neural network model (Ban section 2 – teaches using a neural network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ban, Greplova and Aghaee for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Ban in view of Greplova and further in view of Aghaee for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Ban in view of Greplova and further in view of Aghaee for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Ban in view of Greplova and further in view of Aghaee for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Ban in view of Greplova and further in view of Aghaee for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Ban in view of Greplova and further in view of Aghaee for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights