DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 29 October 2024 for application 18/742,960 filed 13 June 2024.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 21 is/are new.
Claim(s) 9 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-21 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-20 is/are rejected.
Claim 21 is allowed.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6, the square root should read “a square root”
Claim 3, line 2, the square root should read “a square root”
Claim 3, line 2, the weighted average should read “a weighted average”
Claim 3, line 3, where the weights should read “where
Claim 3, line 3, for the corresponding values of x should read “for
Claim 4, line 3, of the corresponding value of x should read “of a corresponding value of x”
Claim 5, line 2, based on the absolute values should read “based on
Claim 5, line 4, performs the operation should read “performs a operation”
Claim 5, lines 7-8, p digits to the left of the binary point should read “p digits a binary point”
Claim 6, line 1, the absolute value of the smallest x value should read “an absolute value of a smallest x value”
Claim 11, line 8, the square root should read “a square root”
Claim 13, line 2, the square root should read “a square root”
Claim 13, line 2, the weighted average should read “a weighted average”
Claim 13, line 3, where the weights should read “where
Claim 13, line 4, for the corresponding values of x should read “for
Claim 14, line 3, of the corresponding value of x should read “of a corresponding value of x”
Claim 15, line 3, based on the absolute values should read “based on
Claim 15, line 5, performs the operation should read “performs a operation”
Claim 15, lines 8-9, p digits to the left of the binary point should read “p digits a binary point”
Claim 16, line 2, the absolute value of the smallest x value should read “an absolute value of a smallest x value”
Claims 2-8, 10, 12-20 is objected to due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly, on claim 1, 3-6, 11, 13-16
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8, 10, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7, 17 recite several equations while failing to properly identify and define each and every variable of each and every equation. The claims fail to define m.
Examiner’s Note: For the purposes of examination, m will be interpreted as an m-qubit register with m total digits.
Claims 8, 18 recite several equations while failing to properly identify and define each and every variable of each and every equation. The claims fail to define s, m, p. (Correcting the missing variable definition in claims 7/17 may correct the missing variable in claims 8/18)
Examiner’s Note: For the purposes of examination, s will be interpreted as the absolute value of the smallest x value of the values of x and
|
x
+
s
m
is a quantum state on an m-qubit register storing a representation of a value of
x
+
s
with m total digits and p digits to the left of the binary point.
Claims 8, 10, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly, on claims 7-8, 17-18.
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) 1-8, 10-20 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) method.
The limitation of determining a quantum operator
U
+
∅
→
that, when executed by a second quantum computing system, encodes an approximation of the function
f
(
x
)
in an amplitude of a second quantum state without calculating
|
f
(
x
)
for any of the values of x, the approximation being within an error threshold of the function
f
(
x
)
, 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.
The limitation of determining the value of the object based on the generated third quantum state, 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) – first quantum computing system, second quantum computing system, third quantum computing system. 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 instructing a third quantum computing system to execute both of the quantum operators
P
and
U
+
∅
→
to generate a third quantum state on a register of qubits, one of the amplitudes of the third quantum state including probabilities
p
(
x
)
for the values of x and output values of the approximation of the function
f
(
x
)
for the values of x which is simply applying computer components 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)).
The claim recites receiving a function
f
(
x
)
describing a value of an object, values of x, and probabilities
p
(
x
)
for the values of x; receiving a quantum operator
P
that, when executed by a first quantum computing system, creates a first quantum state characterized by a superposition of states encoding the x values, where the amplitude for a corresponding x value is the square root of the probability
p
(
x
)
for that x value, which is simply recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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:
first quantum computing system, second quantum computing system, third quantum computing system amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying computer components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
acquiring 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))
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) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 2 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the method does not include calculating
|
f
(
x
)
.
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 method 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 method 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) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 3 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the one of the amplitudes of the third quantum state is the square root of the weighted average of the approximation of the function
f
(
x
)
for the x values where the weights are the probabilities
p
(
x
)
for the corresponding values of x.
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) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 4 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the first quantum state is given by
∑
x
p
(
x
)
|
x
n
where
|
x
n
is a quantum state on an n-qubit register storing an n-bit binary representation of the corresponding value of x.
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) method.
The limitation of determining s, where s is based on the absolute values of the x values, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating an absolute value.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" 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 instructing the third quantum computing system to apply a quantum binary addition circuit that performs the operation:
|
x
n
|
0
m
→
|
x
n
|
x
+
s
m
, where n and m are integers greater than zero, m>n,
|
x
n
is a quantum state on an n-qubit register storing an n-bit binary representation of a value of x, and
|
x
+
s
m
is a quantum state on an m-qubit register storing a representation of a value of
x
+
s
with m total digits and p digits to the left of the binary point which is simply applying computer components 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:
applying computer components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional element(s) do(es) 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) method. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 5 is applicable here since claim 6 carries out the method of claim 5 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein s is the absolute value of the smallest x value of the values of x.
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) method.
The limitation of wherein determining the quantum operator
U
+
∅
→
comprises generating an initial quantum operator given by
U
=
C
(
I
⊗
m
⊗
H
⊗
m
⊗
I
)
where C is a comparator quantum circuit defined by
C
:
a
b
0
→
a
b
a
<
b
,
I
is an identity matrix, and H is a Hadamard gate, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses generating a mathematical relationship.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" 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 does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which
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) method.
The limitation of wherein determining the quantum operator
U
+
∅
→
further comprises applying the initial quantum operator U to state
|
x
+
s
m
|
0
m
+
1
to generate the following quantum state:
U
|
x
+
s
m
|
0
m
=
|
x
+
s
m
(
x
+
s
2
p
|
ψ
0
m
|
0
+
1
-
x
+
s
2
p
|
ψ
1
m
|
1
)
, where
|
ψ
0
m
and
|
ψ
1
m
are normalized quantum states, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a quantum state.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" 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 does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which
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) method.
The limitation of wherein determining the quantum operator
U
+
∅
→
further comprises performing a quantum signal processing (QSP) algorithm, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses performing QSP.
The limitation of performing the QSP algorithm includes determining phase parameters representing a polynomial approximation that approximates
A
e
(
x
2
-
2
p
)
e
-
s
-
B
C
where A, B, and C are constants: (1) based on the function
f
(
x
)
and (2) that satisfy
A
e
(
x
2
-
2
p
)
e
-
s
-
B
C
∈
0,1
, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses performing QSP.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" 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) – quantum signal processing (QSP) algorithm. 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:
quantum signal processing (QSP) algorithm 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 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 computer readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer readable storage medium.
The limitation of determining a quantum operator
U
+
∅
→
that, when executed by a second quantum computing system, encodes an approximation of the function
f
(
x
)
in an amplitude of a second quantum state without calculating
|
f
(
x
)
for any of the values of x, the approximation being within an error threshold of the function
f
(
x
)
, 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.
The limitation of determining the value of the object based on the generated third quantum state, 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 readable storage medium, instructions, computing system, first quantum computing system, second quantum computing system, third quantum computing system. 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 instructing a third quantum computing system to execute both of the quantum operators
P
and
U
+
∅
→
to generate a third quantum state on a register of qubits, one of the amplitudes of the third quantum state including probabilities
p
(
x
)
for the values of x and output values of the approximation of the function
f
(
x
)
for the values of x which is simply applying computer components 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)).
The claim recites receiving a function
f
(
x
)
describing a value of an object, values of x, and probabilities
p
(
x
)
for the values of x; receiving a quantum operator
P
that, when executed by a first quantum computing system, creates a first quantum state characterized by a superposition of states encoding the x values, where the amplitude for a corresponding x value is the square root of the probability
p
(
x
)
for that x value, which is simply recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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 readable storage medium, instructions, computing system, first quantum computing system, second quantum computing system, third quantum computing system amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying computer components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
acquiring 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))
The additional element(s) do(es) 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 computer readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer readable storage medium. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 12 carries out the computer readable storage medium of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the operations do not include calculating
|
f
(
x
)
.
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 method 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 method 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 computer readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer readable storage medium. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 13 carries out the computer readable storage medium of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the one of the amplitudes of the third quantum state is the square root of the weighted average of the approximation of the function
f
(
x
)
for the x values where the weights are the probabilities
p
(
x
)
for the corresponding values of x.
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 computer readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer readable storage medium. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 11 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the computer readable storage medium of claim 11 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the first quantum state is given by
∑
x
p
(
x
)
|
x
n
where
|
x
n
is a quantum state on an n-qubit register storing an n-bit binary representation of the corresponding value of x.
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 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 computer readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer readable storage medium.
The limitation of determining s, where s is based on the absolute values of the x values, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating an absolute value.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" 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 instructing the third quantum computing system to apply a quantum binary addition circuit that performs the operation:
|
x
n
|
0
m
→
|
x
n
|
x
+
s
m
, where n and m are integers greater than zero, m>n,
|
x
n
is a quantum state on an n-qubit register storing an n-bit binary representation of a value of x, and
|
x
+
s
m
is a quantum state on an m-qubit register storing a representation of a value of
x
+
s
with m total digits and p digits to the left of the binary point which is simply applying computer components 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:
applying computer components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
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 computer readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer readable storage medium. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 15 is applicable here since claim 16 carries out the computer readable storage medium of claim 15 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein s is the absolute value of the smallest x value of the values of x.
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 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 computer readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer readable storage medium.
The limitation of wherein determining the quantum operator
U
+
∅
→
comprises generating an initial quantum operator given by
U
=
C
(
I
⊗
m
⊗
H
⊗
m
⊗
I
)
where C is a comparator quantum circuit defined by
C
:
a
b
0
→
a
b
a
<
b
,
I
is an identity matrix, and H is a Hadamard gate, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses generating a mathematical relationship.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" 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 does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which
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 computer readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer readable storage medium.
The limitation of wherein determining the quantum operator
U
+
∅
→
further comprises applying the initial quantum operator U to state
|
x
+
s
m
|
0
m
+
1
to generate the following quantum state:
U
|
x
+
s
m
|
0
m
=
|
x
+
s
m
(
x
+
s
2
p
|
ψ
0
m
|
0
+
1
-
x
+
s
2
p
|
ψ
1
m
|
1
)
, where
|
ψ
0
m
and
|
ψ
1
m
are normalized quantum states, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a quantum state.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" 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 does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which
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 computer readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer readable storage medium.
The limitation of wherein determining the quantum operator
U
+
∅
→
further comprises performing a quantum signal processing (QSP) algorithm, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses performing QSP.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" 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) – quantum signal processing (QSP) algorithm. 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:
quantum signal processing (QSP) algorithm 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 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 computer readable storage medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer readable storage medium.
The limitation of wherein performing the QSP algorithm includes determining phase parameters representing a polynomial approximation that approximates
A
e
(
x
2
-
2
p
)
e
-
s
-
B
C
where A, B, and C are constants: (1) based on the function
f
(
x
)
and (2) that satisfy
A
e
(
x
2
-
2
p
)
e
-
s
-
B
C
∈
0,1
, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses performing QSP.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" 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 does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 21 is/are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: in view of claim(s) 21 and further search, claim(s) 21 is/are considered allowable since when reading the claim(s) in light of the specification, as per MPEP 2111.01, none of the references of record either alone or in combination fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claim(s).
Regarding the limitation(s) of claim(s) 6 which do(es) not appear to be taught by the prior art: Chakrabarti et al. teaches quantum derivative pricing. Kariya et al. teaches financial derivative. McArdle et al. quantum state preparation without arithmetic. Rebentrost et al. teaches a quantum algorithm for the Monte Carlo pricing of financial derivatives.
However, the claim(s) in the application is/are deemed to be directed to a nonobvious improvement over the prior art of record. As noted above, the independent claim(s) comprise(s) executing a quantum operator that prepares an approximation to a given target quantum state.
Therefore, the cited/applied prior art fails to teach or suggest each and every feature of each of the combination of features recited in independent claim(s) 6.
When taken into context, the claim(s) as a whole were not uncovered in the prior art; i.e., all dependent claims which depend from claim(s) 6 are allowed as they depend upon an allowable independent claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
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
