Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-20 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 1, 9, and 17 each recite the limitation the limitation each classical data point. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no classical data points have previously been recited, so it is indefinite as to which each of a non-defined set can refer. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be interpreted to read corresponding to each of a plurality of classical data points.
Similarly, each of these claims recite each classical data input. The limitation is indefinite for the same reason, and additionally because it is unclear whether each data input refers to each data point or to a separate entity.
Dependent claims are rejected for inheriting the indefiniteness of a parent claim.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a computing device comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor, thus an article of manufacture, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, Claim 1 further recites steps to: generate a quantum feature map corresponding to a quantum circuit (a mental process of generating a representation of data, see [0005]); compute a quantum wave function corresponding to each classical data point using the quantum feature map (a mental or mathematical process of calculation); computer a plurality of projection operators for each quantum wave function corresponding to each classical data input (a mental or mathematical process of calculation); generate a respective quantum density operator for a positive class and a negative class based upon a sum of the plurality of projection operators and a count of the plurality of projection operators (a mental or mathematical process of calculation); evaluate a different between a first expectation value corresponding to the positive class for the respective quantum density operator and a second expectation value corresponding to the negative class for the respective quantum density operator, for each quantum wave function corresponding to each classical data point (a mental or mathematical process of calculation); compute a first average value of the difference between the first expectation value and the second expectation value for each classical data point in the positive class (a mathematical calculation): compute a second average value of the difference between the first expectation value and the second expectation value for each classical data point in the negative class (a mathematical calculation); and based upon a difference between the first average value and the second average value, generate a metric value (a mental process). Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea consisting of steps of calculations on wavefunctions and projections operators to generate a metric.
The claim does not include any additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because the only additional elements in the claim are generic computer components on which to perform the abstract idea steps – at least one memory and at least one processor. Implementation of an abstract idea on generic computer components, by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim is directed towards the recited abstract idea of generating a metric via the recited calculations.
Finally, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), because implementation of an abstract idea on generic computer components cannot do so, and there is no nexus in the combination of additional elements. Thus, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, e.g. subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 2 and 3, dependent upon Claim 1, only recites additional mathematical steps of the abstract idea (to subtract or add) but no new additional elements, thus no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 5, dependent upon Claim 1, only recites an additional mental process step of the abstract idea (to evaluate a strength of the quantum feature map based upon the difference) but no new additional elements, thus no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 4, 6, and 7 (dependent upon Claims 1 or 5) merely recite additional details about the computations previously recited (wherein the difference ranges between -2 to +2; wherein a greater value of the difference indicates …; wherein the quantum feature map is a variational quantum feature map including parameters), and thus modify the abstract idea, but do not recite any new additional elements, thus no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 8, dependent upon Claim 1, merely recites a particular field of use of the invention (wherein the quantum feature map is used for separating different classes of data in a risk assessment application), which by MPEP 2106.05(h) neither integrates the abstract idea into a practical application nor provides significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 9-16 recite precisely the method performed by the computing devices of Claims 1-8, respectively, and are thus rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-8, respectively.
Claims 17-20 recite a non-transitory computer readable medium embodying programmed instructions for causing a computing device to perform the operations that the computing devices of Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 are configured to perform. As a non-transitory computer readable medium is merely a generic computer component for implementing the recited abstract idea, which by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) can neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, Claims 17-20 are rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8, respectively.
Conclusion
The claims have been searched but no combination or prior art which anticipates nor renders the claims obvious has been uncovered.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Sergioli et al., “A Quantum-inspired Version of the Classification Problem,” teaches classification of positive and negative classes based on density operators and sets of quantum features recites the difference between two density operators and quantum states, but fails to compute average values of the differences and fails to explicitly recite quantum wave functions corresponding to classical data points.
Sergioli et al., “A new quantum approach to binary classification” recites encoding real data vectors into density operators in order to perform classification, as well as differences (Hellstrom distance) but fails to compute the recited average values of the differences and also fails to explicitly recite quantum wave functions.
Rab, US PG Pub 2023/0206104, teaches conversion of classical features to quantum features for binary classification, but also fails to compute average values of the differences based on density operators.
Ghobadi, US PG Pub 2020/0249050, teaches density operators to be used in a quantum machine learning algorithm, and distances between positive and negative classes operators in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M SMITH whose telephone number is (469)295-9104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm Pacific.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN M SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights