DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/29/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ response filed 07/29/26 has been considered.
Claims 1-14 are amended. Thus, claims 1-14 are pending in the present application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. — An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be
construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first quantum computation unit and second quantum computation unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In the instant application, it is not clear in the specification as to what particular
corresponding structures the Applicant intends to encompass for performing the claimed
functions. The specifications and drawings do not disclose sufficient corresponding structure,
material or acts for performing the claimed functions. The specification merely repeats the
function without any structure to perform the function. The drawing provided simply designates
a “block box” to perform the function (see for example Figures 2 and 5, elements 20 and 30, and
specification [0025-0030]). Thus, Examiner could not properly determine the scope of the claim
as the specification does not set forth clear structure that performs each function invoked by the
35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The patent law requires that applicants must disclose his invention in such detail that it
will not require undue experimentation for one skill in the art. Applicant did not comply with
this requirement of the first paragraph. The examiner contends (at the time the invention was
made) that it would require undue experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to make
and use the claimed invention for the reasons set forth above. Applicants are reminded that no new matter is allowed in the amendment to the specifications under 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR
1.118(a).
Dependent claims 2-7 are rejected upon dependency of the above independent claims.
Claims 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the control circuit interrupts the computation processing of the first quantum computation unit for backup of a result of the computation processing when the error amount exceeds a predetermined threshold”.
The interconnection between interruption of the computation process and the backup of the result of the computation is confusing and for the most part not detailed or mentioned in the claim. It is difficult to translate the claim and follow what processes are taking place. Further, it is not clear if the result of the computation processing is stored, for example, in a register, and furthermore updated the error amount before the control circuit determines whether the error amount exceeds the threshold. Clarification is required.
Dependent claim depends on the base claim and inherently includes limitations therein and therefore is rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un patentable over Kelly (U.S. PN: 10,692,009) in view of Muraki (U.S. PN: 10,861,363).
As per claim 1, Kelly substantially teaches an information processing apparatus comprising (see col. 1, lines 29-34 and col. 1, lines 63-67) a first quantum computation unit that includes a qubit and performs quantum computation; a second quantum computation unit that includes qubits and performs quantum computation with error correction (see col. 1, lines 30-45, col. 3, lines 9-42, and col. 5, lines 60-67 to col. 1-4); and a control unit that causes the first quantum computation unit to perform computation processing and performs control to transfer the computation processing to the second quantum computation unit, based on an error amount in the computation processing in the first quantum computation unit (see col. 2, lines 18-67 and col. 3, lines 9-
Kelly does not explicitly teach that the control circuit interrupts the computation processing of the first quantum computation unit for backup of a result of the computation processing when the error amount exceeds a predetermined threshold.
However, Muraki teaches a control circuit interrupts the computation processing of the first quantum computation unit for backup of a result of the computation processing when the error amount exceeds a predetermined threshold (see col. 12, lines 15-26) “as shown in step S2, the control circuit 110 determines whether or not the accumulated number of times of detection of an error indicated by the information regarding the accumulated number of times of detection exceeds a threshold value of accumulated number of times of detection. If the accumulated number of times of detection exceeds the threshold value of accumulated number of times of detection, the control circuit 110 outputs a notification signal from an error terminal, which is not illustrated, to the processing device 310, as shown in step S3. The notification signal is an interrupt signal to the processing device 310.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to interrupt the computation processing of the first quantum computation unit for backup of a result of the computation processing when the error amount exceeds a predetermined threshold as taught by Maraki to have incorporated in the system of Kelly.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that interruption the computation processing of the first quantum computation unit for backup of a result of the computation processing when the error amount exceeds a predetermined threshold would have minimized consumption of space processing power or resource consumption.
As per claim 2, Kelly substantially teaches as indicated in claims 1 and 8. Kelly teaches wherein the control circuit performs control to transfer the computation processing to the
second quantum computation unit, based on the error amount according to a processing time of
the computation processing (View Kelly col. 2, lines 18-67 and col. 3, lines 9-25, col. 5, lines 60-
67 to col. 1-4).
As per claim 3, Kelly substantially teaches as indicated in claims 1 and 8. Kelly
teaches wherein the control circuit performs control to transfer the computation processing to the second quantum computation unit, based on the error amount according to the number of single-qubit gate computations in the computation processing (View Kelly col. 1, lines 45-67 to col. 5, lines 1-9).
As per claim 4, Kelly substantially teaches as indicated in claims 1 and 8. Kelly
teaches wherein the control circuit performs control to transfer the computation processing to the
second quantum computation unit, based on the error amount according to the number of two- -
qubit gate computations in the computation processing (View Kelly col. 1, lines 36-40).
As per claim 5, Kelly substantially teaches as indicated in claims 1 and 8. Kelly
teaches wherein the control circuit further performs control to transfer the computation processing
to the first quantum computation circuit after causing the second quantum computation unit having been selected to perform the computation processing (View Kelly col. 2, lines 62-67 to col.3, lines 1-5).
As per claim 6, Kelly substantially teaches as indicated in claims 1 and 8. Kelly
teaches wherein the control circuit further performs control to transfer the computation processing having been transferred to the second quantum computation unit to the first quantum
computation unit again (View Kelly col. 6, lines 5-15).
As per claim 7, Kelly substantially teaches as indicated in claims 1 and 8. Kelly
teaches wherein the control circuit adjusts a code distance for the error correction in the second
quantum computation unit (View Kelly col. 3, lines 6-19 and col. 6, lines 5-15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction
of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if
the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same
under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Kelly (U.S.
PN: 10,692,009).
As per claim 8, Kelly substantially teaches an information processing method comprising (see col. 1, lines 29-34 and col. 1, lines 63-67) causing, by a control circuit, a first quantum computation unit to perform computation processing; transferring, by a control circuit, the computation processing from the first quantum computation unit to a second quantum computation unit based on an error amount in the computation processing of the first quantum computation unit wherein the first quantum computation unit includes a qubit and performs quantum computation; the second quantum computation unit includes qubits and performs quantum computation with error correction (see col. 1, lines 30-45, see col. 2, lines 18-67, col. 3, lines 9-45, and col. 5, lines 60-67 to col. 1-15).
As per claim 9, Kelly substantially teaches as indicated in claims 1 and 8. Kelly teaches wherein the control circuit performs control to transfer the computation processing to the
second quantum computation unit, based on the error amount according to a processing time of
the computation processing (View Kelly col. 2, lines 18-67 and col. 3, lines 9-25, col. 5, lines 60-
67 to col. 1-4).
As per claim 10, Kelly substantially teaches as indicated in claims 1 and 8. Kelly
teaches wherein the control circuit performs control to transfer the computation processing to the second quantum computation unit, based on the error amount according to the number of single-qubit gate computations in the computation processing (View Kelly col. 1, lines 45-67 to col. 5, lines 1-9).
As per claim 11, Kelly substantially teaches as indicated in claims 1 and 8. Kelly
teaches wherein the control circuit performs control to transfer the computation processing to the
second quantum computation unit, based on the error amount according to the number of two- -
qubit gate computations in the computation processing (View Kelly col. 1, lines 36-40).
As per claim 12, Kelly substantially teaches as indicated in claims 1 and 8. Kelly
teaches wherein the control circuit further performs control to transfer the computation processing to the first quantum computation unit after causing the second quantum computation unit having been selected to perform the computation processing (View Kelly col. 2, lines 62-67 to col.3, lines 1-5).
As per claim 13, Kelly substantially teaches as indicated in claims 1 and 8. Kelly
teaches wherein the control circuit further performs control to transfer the computation processing having been transferred to the second quantum computation unit to the first quantum
computation unit again (View Kelly col. 6, lines 5-15).
As per claim 14, Kelly substantially teaches as indicated in claims 1 and 8. Kelly
teaches wherein the control circuit adjusts a code distance for the error correction in the second
quantum computation unit (View Kelly col. 3, lines 6-19 and col. 6, lines 5-15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Esaw T. Abraham whose telephone number is (571) 272-3812. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicants are 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, Albert DeCady can be reached on (571) 272-3819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (703) 872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2112
