DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the current action filed on 03/09/2026.
Claims 1-14 have been amended.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made final.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of EP22171750.7 has been filed on 5/05/2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim. Claim 11 is dependent upon both Claims 1 and 9. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis:
Independent Claims 1, 12, and 14 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1, 12, and 14 are directed to an apparatus (i.e. machine), method, and apparatus, respectively. Dependent Claims 2-11 and 13 are directed to an apparatus and therefore also fall into one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Analysis – Prong One:
Claim 1, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites the following:
An apparatus for optimizing a laboratory scheduling control, the apparatus comprising one or more processors and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one of more processors, cause the apparatus to:
obtain a probe list including probe data for a plurality of probes, wherein the probe data for a probe comprises a probe identification and a task associated with the probe identification,
wherein a task is indicative of one or more operations to be performed with a predetermined timing by a laboratory equipment on the probe,
formulate, based on the probe list, a scheduling problem that is formulated such that optimizing the scheduling problem results in optimizing a scheduling of the tasks associated with the plurality of probed,
wherein formulating the scheduling problem comprises incorporating dependency constraints and the capacity constrains as penalty terms in the objective such that the scheduling problem comprises a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem,
prepare at least a part of the scheduling problem such that the optimizing the scheduling problem is performable utilizing a quantum computation,
wherein preparing the at least the part of the scheduling problem comprises determining control operations for controlling a quantum computer to perform the quantum computation of the at least the part of the scheduling problem,
send, via an interface, the at least a part of the scheduling problem to a quantum computer for performing a quantum computation usable to optimize the scheduling problem,
receive, via the interface, a result of the quantum computation from the quantum computer indicative of the optimized scheduling problem,
determine, based on the received result of the quantum computation, a schedule for the probe list,
wherein the schedule specifies which laboratory equipment is to perform which operation on which probe in which timeslot,
and determine a control signal for controlling the laboratory equipment based on the determined schedule.
Claim 14, additionally recites the following limitations:
A scheduling problem preparation apparatus comprising one or more processors and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the scheduling problem preparation apparatus to:
(a) receive, via an interface, a scheduling problem that is formulated such that optimizing the scheduling problem results in optimizing a scheduling of tasks associated with a plurality of probes;
(b) prepare at least a part of the scheduling problem such that optimizing the scheduling problem is performable utilizing a quantum computation, wherein preparing comprises transforming the at least a part of the scheduling problem into a formulation using binary variables and determining control operations for controlling a quantum computer to perform the quantum computation; and
(c) provide, via the interface, the prepared at least a part of the scheduling problem and the control operations to the quantum computer for calculating the prepared at least a part of the scheduling problem.
The limitations as shown in underline above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract ideas of certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, and/or mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions – in this case, obtaining a probe list of probe data and an associated task, formulating a scheduling problem based on the probe list, optimizing the scheduling problem, determining a schedule for the probe list, and determining a control signal) e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-9 include other limitations directed toward the abstract idea. For example, Claim 2 recites preparing at least a part of the scheduling problem, Claim 3 recites determining control operations, Claim 5 recites optimizing the scheduling problem comprises optimizing a time needed for performing operations indicated by the tasks, Claim 6 recites determining constraints for the scheduling based on the tasks and/or based on laboratory equipment information indicative of technical data of the laboratory equipment, Claim 7 recites the laboratory equipment information indicates whether one or more operations on probes are performable at the same time or sequentially, wherein the constraints are further determined based on this information, Claim 8 recites obtaining probe data, providing an updated probe list based on probe data, and reformulating the scheduling problem based on the updated probe list to determine an updated schedule, Claim 9 recites receiving a scheduling problem, performing a part of the scheduling problem, and providing a result indicative of the optimized scheduling problem. These limitations only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g., see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in the dependent claims not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-9 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claims 1, 12, and 14.
Step 2A Analysis – Prong Two:
Claims 1, 12, and 14 are not integrated into practical application because the additional elements (i.e., the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the apparatus, processors, memories, quantum computation, quantum computer, and interface of Claim 1, the interface, quantum computation, and quantum computer of Claim 12, and the interface, processors, memories, quantum computation, and quantum computer of Claim 14) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer parts. For example, Applicant’s specification states a probe list providing unit for providing a probe list including probe data for a plurality of probes, wherein the probe data for a probe comprises a probe identification and a task associated with the probe identification (Applicant’s specification, p. 2, lines 9-13). The scheduling problem formulation unit is configured to formulate a scheduling problem based on the probe list. Generally, the scheduling problem formulation unit can be configured to automatically formulate a scheduling problem, for instance, based on one or more predetermined rules or functions that determine the formulation of the scheduling problem based on the probe list (p. 5, lines 13-17). The quantum computer interface unit is adapted to interface with a quantum computer for utilizing quantum computing for optimizing the scheduling problem (p. 8, lines 13-14). The schedule determination unit is then adapted to determine a schedule for the provided probe list based on the received result of the quantum computation (p. 8, lines 21-22). The control signal determination unit is then adapted to determine a control signal for con- trolling the laboratory equipment based on the determined schedule (p. 9, lines 3-4). [T]he quantum computer interface unit provides an interface to the quantum computer via the scheduling problem preparation unit provided as another web service (p. 9, lines 24-26). Processing units may include a general-purpose processor and may also include a field programmable gate array (FPGA), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or any other specialized circuit. Any memory may be a physical system memory, which may be volatile, non-volatile, or some combination of the two. The term "memory" may include any computer-readable storage media such as a non-volatile mass storage (p. 33, lines 15-24). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. Therefore, independent Claims 1, 12, and 14 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6, 8-11 and 13 recite additional elements. Claim 2 recites the previously recited memories, processors, and quantum computation and specifies the memories store the processors that prepare a part of the scheduling problem such that the optimization of the scheduling problem is performable utilizing a quantum computation. Claim 3 recites the previously recited interface and quantum computer and specifies preparing comprises the determining control operations for controlling the quantum computer to perform the quantum computation of the scheduling problem and the interface sending the control operations to the quantum computer. Claim 4 recites the previously recited quantum computer and new elements of a quantum annealer and a gate-based quantum computer and specifies the preparing is configured such that the optimizing the scheduling problem is performable on a quantum computer comprising a quantum annealer or to a gate-based quantum computer. Claim 6 recites the previously recited processors and memories and specifies the memories store processors which determine constraints and formulate the scheduling problem based on the determined constraints. Claim 8 recites the previously recited processors and memories and specifies the memories store processors which obtain probe data, provide an updated probe list, and reformulate the scheduling problem. Claim 9 recites the recited processors, memories, interface, and a new element of a quantum computer system and specifies a quantum computing system comprising memories storing processors which receive, via an interface, a part of the scheduling problem from the apparatus, perform, using a quantum computer, the quantum computation, and provide, via the interface, a result of the quantum computation indicative of the optimized scheduling problem. Claim 10 recites the apparatus and new elements of laboratory equipment and specifies laboratory equipment adapted to perform operations in an automatic manner on one or more laboratory probes based on control signals, and the apparatus provides the control signals to the laboratory equipment which causes the equipment to perform operations in accordance with the determined schedule. Claim 11 recites the quantum computer system, apparatus and interface and specifies the quantum computer system are coupled via the interface such that the apparatus sends the scheduling problem to the quantum computer system and receives the result of quantum computation from the quantum computer system. Claim 13 recites a new additional element of a computer program product and specifies a computer program product, when executed by processors causes the performance of the method of claim 12. However, these additional elements are used in their expected fashion, so they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. These limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and hence, do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claims, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination, do 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 elements of the apparatus, processors, memories, quantum computation, quantum computer, and interface of Claim 1, the interface, quantum computation, and quantum computer of Claim 12, and the interface, processors, memories, quantum computation, and quantum computer of Claim 14 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely stating “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Dependent Claims 5 and 7 do not recite any additional elements and solely narrow the abstract idea. Claim 5 recites optimizing the scheduling problem comprises optimizing a time needed for performing operations indicated by the tasks. Claim 7 recites the laboratory equipment information indicates whether operations on probes are performable at the same time or sequentially.
Dependent Claims 4, 9-11, and 13 recite new additional elements. Claim 4 recites the previously recited quantum computer and new elements of a quantum annealer and a gate-based quantum computer and specifies the preparing is configured such that the optimizing the scheduling problem is performable on a quantum computer comprising a quantum annealer or to a gate-based quantum computer. Claim 9 recites the recited processors, memories, interface, and a new element of a quantum computer system and specifies a quantum computing system comprising memories storing processors which receive, via an interface, a part of the scheduling problem from the apparatus, perform, using a quantum computer, the quantum computation, and provide, via the interface, a result of the quantum computation indicative of the optimized scheduling problem. Claim 10 recites the apparatus and new elements of laboratory equipment and specifies laboratory equipment adapted to perform operations in an automatic manner on one or more laboratory probes based on control signals, and the apparatus provides the control signals to the laboratory equipment which causes the equipment to perform operations in accordance with the determined schedule. Claim 13 recites a new additional element of a computer program product and specifies a computer program product, when executed by processors causes the performance of the method of claim 12.
Claims 2-3, 6, 8, and 11 recite previously cited elements, which are not eligible for the reasons stated above, and further narrow the abstract idea. Claim 2 recites the previously recited memories, processors, and quantum computation and specifies the memories store the processors that prepare a part of the scheduling problem such that the optimization of the scheduling problem is performable utilizing a quantum computation. Claim 3 recites the previously recited interface and quantum computer and specifies preparing comprises the determining control operations for controlling the quantum computer to perform the quantum computation of the scheduling problem and the interface sending the control operations to the quantum computer. Claim 6 recites the previously recited processors and memories and specifies the memories store processors which determine constraints and formulate the scheduling problem based on the determined constraints. Claim 8 recites the previously recited processors and memories and specifies the memories store processors which obtain probe data, provide an updated probe list, and reformulate the scheduling problem. Claim 11 recites the quantum computer system, apparatus and interface and specifies the quantum computer system are coupled via the interface such that the apparatus sends the scheduling problem to the quantum computer system and receives the result of quantum computation from the quantum computer system. Hence, Claims 2-11 and 13 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-14 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 20230419155 A1) in view of Fauzzi et al. (US 20060148063 A1) and Venturelli et al. (Venturelli et al., Quantum annealing implementation of job-shop scheduling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.08479. (Year: 2015)).
Regarding Claim 1, You discloses the following:
An apparatus for optimizing a laboratory scheduling control, the apparatus comprising one or more processors and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: (You discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory; the at least one processing device being configured: to identify an optimization problem;… (Claim 1).)
formulate, …a scheduling problem that is formulated such that optimizing the scheduling problem results in optimizing a scheduling of the tasks (You discloses the classical computer 102 may determine an optimization problem in any suitable manner, such as receiving an instruction from a user, receiving a request from a remote compute device, as part of a program executing on the classical computer 102, etc. In the illustrative embodiment, the optimization problem has an objective function,…The optimization problem may correspond to any suitable real-world problem, such as a scheduling problem [0064]. At least some of the variables that are being optimized in the sub-problem being solved on the quantum computer [0041].
prepare at least a part of the scheduling problem such that optimizing the scheduling problem is performable using a quantum computation, wherein preparing the at least the part of the scheduling problem comprises determining control operations for controlling a quantum computer to perform the quantum computation of the at least the part of the scheduling problem (You discloses executing the first algorithm for the first sub-problem with use of the quantum processor to determine a current result of the first algorithm; (iii) executing the second algorithm for the second sub-problem with use of the classical computer based on the current result of the first algorithm to determine a current result of the second algorithm… stop the repeating steps until a preset convergence criteria is reached…the preset convergence criteria is determined by a first data value derived from the current result of the first algorithm and a second data value derived from the current result of the second algorithm (in the same iteration), wherein the first data value converges to the second data value [0008]. The preset convergence criteria is interpreted as the control operations.)
send, via an interface, the at least a part of the scheduling problem to a quantum computer for performing a quantum computation usable to optimize the scheduling problem, receive, via the interface, a result of the quantum computation from the quantum computer indicative of the optimized scheduling problem, (You discloses an optimization problem solvable by a quantum computer or quantum processor directly and/or independently [0005]. A user interface locally integrated to or remotely connected to the computation system configured to input initialization values of the optimization problem and report computation result of the solved optimization problem wherein computation result comprising at least one optimized objective, and/or at least a portion of optimal values for variables associated with the optimized objective [0228].)
and determine a control signal for controlling the laboratory equipment based on the determined schedule (You discloses one or more external devices comprise a plurality of sensors, wherein the sensors send signals or data to one or more classical computers, a control system and/or a central management platform which are communicatively coupled to a hybrid QC-CC system directly or indirectly, …a plurality of sensors configured to sense one or more parameters and to output one or more signals corresponding to the one or more parameters to the control systems, wherein the control system is configured to send the one or more signals to the hybrid QC-classical system as at least one parameter for the optimization problem to generate optimal solutions for the optimization problem,… [0381-382].)
You does not disclose the scheduling being for the application of scheduling laboratory experiments on probes which is met by Fauzzi:
obtain a probe list including probe data for a plurality of probes, wherein the probe data for a probe comprises a probe identification and a task associated with the probe identification,… based on the probe list, (Fauzzi teaches a biological sample may be acquired …and may be presented on a microscope slide or a similar plane, …[0011]. Every slide has its own unique identifier. The label 71 may comprise an area 72 for encoded information about the tissue sample on the slide 7, such as patient data, date and file number, the staining protocol and/or the series of process steps or a unique identification number that may identify a slide in a central networked database [0191]. The central database is interpreted as containing the probe list, and the sample (on the slide) is interpreted as the probe. Examiner notes Applicant has defined ‘probe’ in the specification as being ‘any kind of material on which a test procedure or analysis should be performed by the laboratory equipment of a laboratory’(page 3, line 26-31). A list of all currently pending robot tasks gathered from the top of each subsystem queue is obtained from control thread 2130 …objects 2160 may be associated with slides 7, slide drawers, reagents, and reagent racks. For example, a slide object pertaining to a slide 7 may include queues of pending tasks associated with the slide [0318].)
wherein a task is indicative of one or more operations to be performed with a predetermined timing by a laboratory equipment on the probe,…associated with the plurality of probes, (Fauzzi teaches embodiments of the invention include a scheduler, in some embodiments referred to as an adaptive sample processing control system, such that one or more groups of samples may be processed according to one or more protocols that may be automatically identified by the scheduler. As used herein tasks refer to steps that are executed according to a protocol [0115].)
determine, based on the received result of the…computation, a schedule for the probe list, wherein the schedule specifies which laboratory equipment is to perform which operation on which probe in which probe in which time slot (Fauzzi teaches an item of software or the like that acts as a multiple event scheduler 401 …may include robotic sample process functions or a robotic motion system 172 responsive to the process operation control system 171 to achieve the desired operation steps. An independent fluidics scheduler may also be enabled to run concurrently with the robotics adaptive scheduler as will be discussed further below [0296]. FIG. 50, embodiments of a robotic scheduler 2010 may include collect tasks module 2210, score tasks module 2220, schedule tasks module 2240, and execute tasks module 2250. In some embodiments, collect task module 2210 interfaces with a control thread to obtain a list of all pending robot tasks [0315].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for determining a scheduling problem and solving the identified scheduling problem using a quantum computer as disclosed by You to incorporate the tasks being laboratory experiments on probes as taught by Fauzzi. This modification would create a system capable of improving the automated, continuous workflow, pre-treatment and processing of biological samples (see Fauzzi, ¶ 0007).
You and Fauzzi do not teach the following limitations met by Venturelli:
wherein formulating the scheduling problem comprises incorporating dependency constraints and the capacity constraints as penalty terms in the objective such that the scheduling problem comprises a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem, (Venturelli teaches we account for the various constraints by adding penalty terms to the QUBO problem. For example, an operation must start once and only once, leading to the constraint and associated penalty function…There can only be one job running on each machine at any given point in time, which expressed as quadratic constraints yields…The set Am is defined so that the constraint forbids operation Oj from starting at t if there is another operation Oi still running, which happens if Oi started at time t and t−t is less than pi (p. 2-3 ¶ 0008-9, 0001). The Examiner interprets the constraint that forbids operation if there is another operation still running as a dependency constraint.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for determining a scheduling problem and solving the identified scheduling problem using a quantum computer as disclosed by You to incorporate formulating the scheduling problem with dependency constraints and penalty terms as taught by Venturelli. This modification would create a system capable of providing a quantum computing approach to solving combinatorial optimization problems (see Venturelli, abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, this claim recites limitations that are substantially similar to those recited in Claim 1 above; thus, the same rejection applies. You further discloses:
A method for optimizing a laboratory scheduling control, wherein the method comprises: (You discloses the system 100 may execute a method 600 for solving an optimization problem [0063].)
You does not disclose the scheduling being for the application of scheduling laboratory experiments on probes which is met by Fauzzi:
(a) providing a probe list including probe data (Fauzzi teaches every slide has its own unique identifier. The label 71 may comprise an area 72 for encoded information about the tissue sample on the slide 7, such as patient data, date and file number, the staining protocol and/or the series of process steps or a unique identification number that may identify a slide in a central networked database [0191]. The central database is interpreted as containing the probe list, and the sample (on the slide) is interpreted as the probe. The computer system may query a central database that contains a record for each individual reagent container…reagents may be automatically provided on a subscription or on demand basis…[0169].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for determining a scheduling problem and solving the identified scheduling problem using a quantum computer as disclosed by You to incorporate providing a probe list as taught by Fauzzi. This modification would create a system capable of improving the automated, continuous workflow, pre-treatment and processing of biological samples (see Fauzzi, ¶ 0007).
Regarding Claim 2, You, Fauzzi, and Venturelli teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. You further discloses:
the one or more memories store further instructions, that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to prepare the at least a part of the scheduling problem such that the optimization of the scheduling problem is performable utilizing a quantum computation. (You teaches at least some of the variables that are being optimized in the sub-problem being solved on the quantum computer [0041]. [S]ome or all of the variables being optimized on the quantum computer 104 may be initialized by the quantum computer 104 instead of the classical computer 102 [0066]. The optimization problem may correspond to any suitable real-world problem, such as a scheduling problem [0064].)
Regarding Claim 3, You, Fauzzi, and Venturelli teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 2 above. You further discloses:
wherein the preparing comprises the determining control operations for controlling the quantum computer to perform the quantum computation of the at least a part of the scheduling problem (You discloses executing the first algorithm for the first sub-problem with use of the quantum processor to determine a current result of the first algorithm; (iii) executing the second algorithm for the second sub-problem with use of the classical computer based on the current result of the first algorithm to determine a current result of the second algorithm… stop the repeating steps until a preset convergence criteria is reached…the preset convergence criteria is determined by a first data value derived from the current result of the first algorithm and a second data value derived from the current result of the second algorithm (in the same iteration), wherein the first data value converges to the second data value [0008]. The preset convergence criteria is interpreted as the control operations.)
You does not disclose sending a control operation to the [quantum] computer which is met by Fauzzi:
and wherein the further instructions, when executed cause the apparatus to send, via the interface the control operations to the …computer (Fauzzi teaches as shown in FIG. 48, exemplary architecture for SCS 1310 includes communication module 1920, which interacts with embedded computer communication hardware 1910 on stainer 1000, in order to communicate with SMS 1320 [0299]. The control system 440 can… comprise a host processor 441, such as, e.g., a personal computer, coupled to a master control board 442. In certain embodiments, the connection between the host processor 441 and the master control board 442 can be a fast data transfer connection such as a PC 104 connection through a system bus such as, e.g., an ISA bus…the host processor 441 can send commands to the master control board 442 [0384].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for determining a scheduling problem and solving the identified scheduling problem using a quantum computer as disclosed by You to incorporate the transmission of control data to the [quantum] computer as taught by Fauzzi. This modification would create a system capable of improving the automated, continuous workflow, pre-treatment and processing of biological samples (see Fauzzi, ¶ 0007).
Regarding Claim 4, You, Fauzzi, and Venturelli teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 2 above. You further discloses:
the preparing is configured such that optimizing the scheduling problem is performable utilizing a quantum computation on a quantum computer… (You discloses at least some of the variables that are being optimized in the sub-problem being solved on the quantum computer [0041]. It should be appreciated that, in some embodiments, some or all of the variables being optimized on the quantum computer 104 may be initialized by the quantum computer 104 instead of the classical computer 102 [0066]. The optimization problem may correspond to any suitable real-world problem, such as a scheduling problem,…[0064].)
You and Fauzzi do not teach the following limitations met by Venturelli:
…on a quantum computer comprising a quantum annealer or a gate-based quantum computer. (Venturelli teaches a solver for the job-shop scheduling problem that makes use of a quantum annealer is presented in detail. Inspired by methods used for constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) formulations, we first define the makespan-minimization problem as a series of decision instances before casting each instance into a time-indexed quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (abstract).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for determining a scheduling problem and solving the identified scheduling problem using a quantum computer as disclosed by You to incorporate formulating the use of a quantum annealer as taught by Venturelli. This modification would create a system capable of providing a quantum computing approach to solving combinatorial optimization problems (see Venturelli, abstract).
Regarding Claim 8, You, Fauzzi, and Venturelli teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. You further discloses:
wherein the one of more memories store further instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: obtain…data received…after determining the schedule for the probe list: (You discloses the quantum computer further receives data based on or derived from the current result of the second algorithm, updates one or more parameters of the at least one of the sub-problems (e.g. the first sub-problem) and further solves the at least one of the sub-problems in the iteration N+1 by the quantum processor using a first algorithm to generate an updated current result of the first algorithm and send the updated current result of the first algorithm to the classical computer via the communication engine of the quantum computer;… [0018]. The Examiner interprets updating the algorithm based on new data as obtaining data after determining the first schedule.)
and (c) reformulate the scheduling problem based on the updated…list to determine an updated schedule. (You discloses the quantum computer further receives data based on or derived from the current result of the second algorithm, updates one or more parameters of the at least one of the sub-problems (e.g. the first sub-problem) and further solves the at least one of the sub-problems in the iteration N+1 by the quantum processor using a first algorithm to generate an updated current result of the first algorithm and send the updated current result of the first algorithm to the classical computer via the communication engine of the quantum computer [0018]. The Examiner interprets the parameters of the problem being updated as the problem being updated itself.)
You does not disclose the following limitations met by Fauzzi:
(a) obtain probe data received…(Fauzzi teaches a biological sample may be acquired …and may be presented on a microscope slide or a similar plane, …[0011]. Every slide has its own unique identifier. The label 71 may comprise an area 72 for encoded information about the tissue sample on the slide 7, such as patient data, date and file number, the staining protocol and/or the series of process steps or a unique identification number that may identify a slide in a central networked database [0191]. The central database is interpreted as containing the probe list, and the sample (on the slide) is interpreted as the probe. Examiner notes Applicant has defined ‘probe’ in the specification as being ‘any kind of material on which a test procedure or analysis should be performed by the laboratory equipment of a laboratory’(page 3, line 26-31).)
(b) provide an updated probe list based on the probe data; (Fauzzi teaches the label 71 may comprise an area 72 for encoded information about the tissue sample on the slide 7, such as patient data, date and file number, the staining protocol and/or the series of process steps or a unique identification number that may identify a slide in a central networked database [0191]. The LIS may use, store and update data, for example, in a database and also request information from stainer related applications running on computing device 181 or from the staining apparatuses 1 directly [0375].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for determining a scheduling problem and solving the identified scheduling problem using a quantum computer as disclosed by You to incorporate the tasks being laboratory experiments on probes as taught by Fauzzi. This modification would create a system capable of improving the automated, continuous workflow, pre-treatment and processing of biological samples (see Fauzzi, ¶ 0007).
Regarding Claim 9, You, Fauzzi, and Venturelli teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. You further discloses:
A quantum computer system comprising one or more processors and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the quantum computer system to: (You discloses sub-problem solver 502 may be embodied as the quantum processor 302, the classical processor 304, and associated instructions stored on the data storage 310 and/or the memory 306 that may be executed by the quantum processor 302 and the classical processor 304 [0060].)
(a) receive, via an interface, at least a part of the scheduling problem from the apparatus according to claim 1 for performing a quantum computation usable to optimize the scheduling of the problem; (You discloses an optimization problem solvable by a quantum computer or quantum processor directly and/or independently [0005]. The communication engine 406 sends and receives data relating to results of the various sub-problems to and from the quantum computer 104 [0059]. The communication engine which receives the data from the quantum computer is interpreted as the quantum computer interface unit. The optimization problem is a scheduling problem, a planning problem, or a supply chain optimization problem. In some embodiments, the optimization problem is a job-shop scheduling or planning problem for enterprise resource planning (ERP)…or scheduling over time with a limited scope. Based on the optimal results of the optimization problem, an instruction or a guidance is generated to allocate the provided resources to the provided tasks or a series of instructions, guidance, plan, or decisions are generated to allocate the provided resources to the provided tasks over time [0015].)
(b) perform, using a quantum computer, the quantum computation of the at least a part of the scheduling problem; (You discloses an optimization problem solvable by a quantum computer or quantum processor directly and/or independently [0005]. The communication engine 406 sends and receives data relating to results of the various sub-problems to and from the quantum computer 104 [0059]. The communication engine which receives the data from the quantum computer is interpreted as the quantum computer interface unit.)
and (c) provide, via the interface, a result of the quantum computation to the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the result is indicative of the optimized scheduling problem. (You discloses an instruction unit configured to send instructions based on the optimal solution of the optimization problem, wherein the instruction unit is selected from a controller, a management system, a central management platform, an onsite management system, a display, a user interface,…[0157]. Fig. 8 shows the end of the workflow in which the system returns the end result/identified solution.)
Regarding Claim 10, You, Fauzzi, and Venturelli teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. You further discloses:
and the apparatus according to claim 1, (see rejection of Claim 1 above);
You does not disclose the following limitations met by Fauzzi:
laboratory equipment adapted to perform one or more operations indicated by tasks in an automatic manner on one or more laboratory probes based on control signals; (Fauzzi teaches by use of suitable control means e.g. a computer (not shown) having the appropriate software and input data for the purpose, this staining apparatus 1 is able to automatically stain or treat samples requiring different staining or treatment reagents and processes [0134].)
wherein the apparatus provides the control signals to the laboratory equipment and wherein the control signal causes the laboratory equipment to perform the operations in accordance with the determined schedule. (Fauzzi teaches the sample processing system 101 is configured to achieve an appropriate sequence of events that achieves a desired result to some degree. In achieving this sequence in an automated fashion to some degree, the sample processing system is deemed an automated sample processing system and achieves automatic processing of at least one sample. This automated sequence as well as other aspects of the invention may be controlled by hardware, software, or some combination of them to accomplish a desired sequence with limited human intervention…the automated control may be provided by a process operation control system 171 to direct the various activities. As shown in FIG. 42, this (as well as other functionalities discussed) may be software programming or subroutines; again… In processing a slide, the automated sample processing system may serve as an automated slide processing system [0295].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for determining a scheduling problem and solving the identified scheduling problem using a quantum computer as disclosed by You to incorporate sending control signals to the laboratory equipment for the automation of the operations schedule as taught by Fauzzi. This modification would create a system capable of improving the automated, processing of laboratory samples (see Fauzzi, ¶ 0007).
Regarding Claim 11, You, Fauzzi, and Venturelli teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. You further discloses:
the apparatus according to claim 1 and (see rejection of Claim 1 above);
the quantum computer system according to claim 9, wherein the apparatus and the quantum computer system are communicatively coupled via the interface (You discloses an optimization problem solvable by a quantum computer or quantum processor directly and/or independently [0005]. The communication engine 406 sends and receives data relating to results of the various sub-problems to and from the quantum computer 104 [0059]. )
such that the apparatus sends the at least a part of the scheduling problem to the quantum computer system and receives the result of the quantum computation from the quantum computer system. (You discloses an optimization problem solvable by a quantum computer or quantum processor directly and/or independently [0005]. The communication engine 406 sends and receives data relating to results of the various sub-problems to and from the quantum computer 104 [0059]. The communication engine which receives the data from the quantum computer is interpreted as the quantum computer interface unit. The optimization problem is a scheduling problem, a planning problem, or a supply chain optimization problem. In some embodiments, the optimization problem is a job-shop scheduling or planning problem for enterprise resource planning (ERP)…or scheduling over time with a limited scope. Based on the optimal results of the optimization problem, an instruction or a guidance is generated to allocate the provided resources to the provided tasks or a series of instructions, guidance, plan, or decisions are generated to allocate the provided resources to the provided tasks over time [0015].)
Regarding Claim 13, You, Fauzzi, and Venturelli teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 12 above. You further discloses:
A computer program product comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause performance of the method according to claim 12. (You discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software programs, wherein the program code, when executed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory, causes the at least one processing device: to identify an optimization problem;… and (ii) executing a second algorithm for a second one of the two or more sub-problems with a second subset of the plurality of variables on a quantum computing device…(Claim 18). Referring now to FIG. 6, in use, the system 100 may execute a method 600 for solving an optimization problem [0063].)
Regarding Claim 14, You discloses:
A scheduling problem preparation apparatus comprising one or more processors and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the scheduling problem preparation apparatus to: (You discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory; the at least one processing device being configured: to identify an optimization problem;… (Claim 1).
(a) receive, via an interface, a scheduling problem that is formulated such that optimizing the scheduling problem results in optimizing a scheduling of tasks… (You discloses at least some of the variables that are being optimized in the sub-problem being solved on the quantum computer [0041]. It should be appreciated that…some or all of the variables being optimized on the quantum computer 104 may be initialized by the quantum computer 104 instead of the classical computer 102 [0066]. The optimization problem may correspond to any suitable real-world problem, such as a scheduling problem [0064.)
(b) prepare at least a part of the scheduling problem such that optimizing the scheduling problem is performable utilizing a quantum computation, (You discloses a system for solving optimization problems comprises a classical computer comprising a classical processor and one or more non-transitory storage media comprising a plurality of instructions that, when executed, cause the classical computer to initialize a plurality of parameters of an optimization problem …[0013]. The system 100 may execute a method 600 for solving an optimization problem. The method 600 begins in block 602, in which the… computer 102 determines an optimization problem to solve. The optimization problem may correspond to any suitable real-world problem, such as a scheduling problem,… [0063-64].)
wherein preparing comprises transforming the at least a part of the scheduling problem into a formulation using binary variables and determining control operations for controlling a quantum computer to perform the quantum computation; (You discloses executing the first algorithm for the first sub-problem with use of the quantum processor to determine a current result of the first algorithm; … stop the repeating steps until a preset convergence criteria is reached…the preset convergence criteria is determined by a first data value derived from the current result of the first algorithm and a second data value derived from the current result of the second algorithm…, wherein the first data value converges to the second data value [0008]. The preset convergence criteria is interpreted as the control operations. The second sub-problem to be solved on the quantum computer 104 is expressed in the form of a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem with several binary variables [0065].)
and (c) provide, via the interface, the prepared at least a part of the scheduling problem and the control operations to the quantum computer for calculating the prepared at least a part of the scheduling problem. (You discloses an optimization problem solvable by a quantum computer or quantum processor directly and/or independently [0005]. The communication engine 406 sends and receives data relating to results of the various sub-problems to and from the quantum computer 104 [0059]. The communication engine which receives the data from the quantum computer is interpreted as the interface.)
You does not disclose the scheduling being for the application of scheduling laboratory experiments on probes which is met by Fauzzi:
…an optimization of a scheduling of tasks associated with a plurality of probes,… (Fauzzi teaches every slide has its own unique identifier [0191]. The sample (on the slide) is interpreted as the probe. A list of all currently pending robot tasks gathered from the top of each subsystem queue is obtained from control thread 2130…objects 2160 may be associated with slides 7, slide drawers, reagents, and reagent racks [0318]. The same central networked database may be used by multiple instruments, such as stainer assembly 1, on the network. The system may further comprise an additional apparatus, for example, automated microtome, tissue processor, special stainer (non-antibody), in-situ hybridization stainer, fluorescent in-situ hybridization stainer, flow cytometry analyzer, flow cytometry sorter, sample transporter, slide imager, and hybridizer [0175]. The stainer is interpreted as laboratory equipment.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for determining a scheduling problem and solving the identified scheduling problem using a quantum computer as disclosed by You to incorporate the tasks being laboratory experiments on probes as taught by Fauzzi. This modification would create a system capable of improving the automated, continuous workflow, pre-treatment and processing of biological samples (see Fauzzi, ¶ 0007).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over You, Fauzzi, and Venturelli in view of Syrichas et al. (US 20170083873 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, You, Fauzzi, and Venturelli teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. You, Fauzzi, and Venturelli do not teach the following limitations met by Syrichas:
optimizing the scheduling problem comprises optimizing a time needed for performing operations indicated by the tasks. (Syrichas teaches a first hard constraint that a task must start on time and a second hard constraint that the worker carrying out the skilled must have the appropriate set of skills required for carrying out the task FIG. 5 illustrate an example of task data 500 which identifies a set of tasks to be allocated to the workers. In this example, each task is associated with a specific start time period, duration, set of skills requirements and location [0054-55, see also Fig. 5]. The duration of each task is interpreted as the time needed for performing operations.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for determining a scheduling problem and solving the identified scheduling problem using a quantum computer as disclosed by You to incorporate optimizing the time needed to accomplish each task as taught by Syrichas. This modification would create a system capable of yielding good results in a reasonable time within a set of problems (see Syrichas, ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 6, You, Fauzzi, and Venturelli teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. You and Fauzzi do not teach the following limitations met by Venturelli:
… and (b) formulate the scheduling problem further based on the determined one or more constraints by incorporating at least a subset of the determined one or more constraints as penalty terms in an objective of the scheduling problem. (Venturelli teaches we account for the various constraints by adding penalty terms to the QUBO problem. For example, an operation must start once and only once, leading to the constraint and associated penalty function…There can only be one job running on each machine at any given point in time, which expressed as quadratic constraints yields…The set Am is defined so that the constraint forbids operation Oj from starting at t if there is another operation Oi still running, which happens if Oi started at time t and t−t is less than pi (p. 2-3 ¶ 0008-9, 0001).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for determining a scheduling problem and solving the identified scheduling problem using a quantum computer as disclosed by You to incorporate formulating the scheduling problem with penalty terms as taught by Venturelli. This modification would create a system capable of providing a quantum computing approach to solving combinatorial optimization problems (see Venturelli, abstract).
You, Fauzzi, and Venturelli do not teach the following limitations met by Syrichas:
(a) determine one or more constraints for the scheduling based on the tasks and/or based on laboratory equipment information indicative of technical data of the laboratory equipment: (Syrichas teaches determining, by the process optimization computing device, a hard constraint indicator value for each of a plurality of hard constraint data entries based on whether at least one of a plurality of hard constraints has been violated by the allocation of the first set of recorded tasks to one or more of the plurality of identifier data names in one or more of the first set of time periods in accordance with the first schedule data to generate hard constraint portion data; [0122].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for determining a scheduling problem and solving the identified scheduling problem using a quantum computer as disclosed by You to incorporate the determination of constraints based on the tasks as taught by Syrichas. This modification would create a system capable of yielding optimizing the scheduling of complex schedule problems (see Syrichas, ¶ 0002-5).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over You, Fauzzi, Venturelli, and Syrichas in view of Holmes et al. (US 20220374264 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, You, Fauzzi, Venturelli, and Syrichas teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 6 above. You, Fauzzi, Venturelli, and Syrichas do not teach the following limitations met by Holmes:
the laboratory equipment information indicates on whether one or more operations on one or more probes are performable at the same time or sequentially, (Holmes teaches the user interface may display information relating to the operation of the device and/or data collected from the device. The user interface may display information relating to a protocol that may run on the device. The user interface may include information relating to a protocol provided from a source external to the device, or provided from the device [0074].)
and wherein the one or more constraints are further determined based on this information. (Holmes teaches determining specified constraints selected from the group consisting of subtask resource requirements, the duration of time required, and subtask ordering requirements [0016]. Systems described herein is the definition of test specifications (which may alternatively be called constraints). Each test may be defined with respect to a set of required subtasks and their interdependencies… Another constraint is that certain assay steps (or subtask) must be performed after other steps (or subtasks) [0069]. The subtasks being performed sequentially is interpreted as operations performed on the probe sequentially.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for determining a scheduling problem and solving the identified scheduling problem using a quantum computer as disclosed by You to incorporate the laboratory equipment information including information of operations being performed sequentially and this information being a constraint as taught by Holmes. This modification would create a system capable of providing laboratory testing that is reliable, safe, efficient, performed according to prescribed testing parameters to assure the proper output of the test is provided (see Holmes, ¶ 0002).
Relevant Art Not Currently Being Applied Made of Record
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure but are not currently being applied:
Itoh et al. ("Optimal Scheduling for Laboratory Automation of Life Science Experiments with Time Constraints", SLAS Technology, Vol. 26, Issue 6, 2021, (Year: 2021)) teaches a system for automating experimental procedures by using scheduling algorithms by using time constraints to find optimal schedules of procedures.
Matsuo et al. (US 20200302306 A1) teaches a quantum computing system which determines a solution to an optimization problem to an identified optimization problem.
Neukart et al. (Neukart, Florian, et al. "Traffic flow optimization using a quantum annealer." Frontiers in ICT 4 (2017).) teaches the use of quantum annealing technologies for solving a traffic flow optimization problem which includes preparing/formulating the problem and solving a QUBO formulation.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 112(f) interpretations applied to Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 11, Applicant’s amendments have been considered, and the 112(f) interpretation has been withdrawn.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 101 to Claims 1-20, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of the amendments above.
Applicant argues independent claim 1, as currently amended, is directed to a statutory computer-implemented laboratory automation control workflow that ties real-world laboratory inputs to machine-actionable equipment control, not an abstract “organizing” concept.
Claim 1 recites: (i) obtaining a probe list identifying probes and associated timed tasks to be performed by laboratory equipment; (ii) formulating a scheduling problem by incorporating dependency constraints and capacity constraints as penalty terms such that the problem is a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem; (iii) preparing at least a part of the scheduling problem for quantum computation by determining control operations for controlling a quantum computer to perform the quantum computation; (iv) sending that part to the quantum computer and receiving a quantum-computed result; (v) determining, based on that result, an equipment-resolved schedule specifying which laboratory equipment performs which operation on which probe in which time slot; and (vi) determining a control signal for controlling the laboratory equipment based on that schedule (see Applicant’s Remarks, p. 9-10).
Regarding (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are not considered when evaluating whether there is a judicial exception present. Instead, the additional elements are omitted, and the limitations that remain are evaluated for the presence of a judicial exception, and in this case, the limitations are steps that could be reasonably carried out by a person behind a generic computer. It is important to note that the text within the parentheses stating social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions are provided as examples and not an exclusive listing and that the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility on p. 5 states certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping.
Applicant argues assuming arguendo that "scheduling" could be characterized at a high level as an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 is not directed to such an idea. The claim integrates any alleged exception into a practical application by reciting generation of an equipment/time-slot schedule and a corresponding control signal that controls automated laboratory equipment in accordance with the computed schedule. The Office Action's "neurologist" analogy does not reflect the claim as a whole, which includes QUBO penalty-term formulation, quantum-control operations, and generation of equipment/time-slot schedules and control signals for automated laboratory equipment. Thus, the claim is directed to an integrated laboratory-control solution that drives physical- world automation, not merely a recommendation, display, or "organizing" of information (p. 10).
Regarding (b), Examiner respectfully disagrees. In this case, the example of “a mental process a that neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” is a court case (In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 791-93, 215 USPQ 193, 194-96 (CCPA 1982)) which was also grouped into the certain methods of organizing human activity abstract ideas grouping. The examples are not an exclusive listing of certain method of organizing human activity and are just that, examples. Further, Examiner notes that the quantum control operations are not identified as being a part of the abstract idea. The laboratory equipment is never positively recited and is never utilized in the claim. Rather, the claim merely recites that the control signal for controlling the laboratory equipment is determined.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that the control signal is never positively recited in the claims – that is, the control signal is merely determined, and it is never generated or applied to actually control the laboratory equipment as it is currently recited.
Claim 10 further reinforces the practical application by expressly reciting laboratory equipment that performs the operations automatically based on the control signals provided by the apparatus. Thus, the claim is directed to an integrated laboratory-control solution that drives physical- world automation, not merely a recommendation, display, or "organizing" of information (p. 10).
Regarding (c), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The control signal does not change anything about how the laboratory equipment is operated or what the equipment does.
Efficiency as a result of computing/automating is not enough to amount to a practical application via an improvement to computer or technology under Step 2A Prong 2 (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: ii. accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (also see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) stating “"claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”), and, thus, the combination of the generic computer components do not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces; note this is applied to Step 2B as well as Step 2A Prong 2).
Furthermore, the laboratory equipment being argued is recited at a high level of generality and is simply used as a mechanism to carry out the operations, which is akin to “apply it” and/or generally linking the device to the abstract idea. There is no indication in Claim 10 of what kind of control signal is being provided to the device or what the operation is. Because there is no explanation for how the operations are carried out, and carrying out operations in accordance with a schedule can be completed manually, this limitation is analogous to “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
Applicant argues the Office Action's "generic computer components" rationale does not account for the claim's non-generic operative features which characterize implementation, particularly (a) the QUBO formulation achieved by encoding dependency and capacity constraints as penalty terms, and (b) the preparation for quantum computation via determining (and in claim 3, sending) quantum control operations that control the quantum computer to execute the computation. These features characterize a specific computational technique and execution pathway (constraint-to-penalty encoding -> QUBO -> quantum execution via control operations -> equipment-resolved schedule -> equipment control signal), not a result-oriented instruction to "optimize scheduling" (p. 10).
Even if the Office maintains that claim 1 recites a judicial exception, claim 1 nonetheless recites an inventive concept when considered as an ordered combination. The combination of (i) QUBO penalty-term encoding of dependency/capacity constraints, (ii) preparing for quantum computation by determining quantum control operations, and (iii) generating an equipment/time- slot schedule and control signal that controls laboratory equipment, is not "apply it" using a generic processor. Rather, claim 1 recites a specific technological solution for quantum-assisted automated laboratory scheduling control (p. 10-11).
Regarding (d), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that page 25 of the instant specification explains that the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization is taught in the following two articles:
"Job Shop Scheduling Solver based on Quantum Annealing" by D. Venturelli et al., Proc. of ICAPS-16 Workshop on Constraint Satisfaction Techniques for Planning and Scheduling (COPLAS), pages 25 to 34 (2016)
"Traffic Flow Optimization Using a20 Qutum Annealer" by F. Neukart et al., Frontiers in ICT, vol. 4, page 29 (2017).
Because the utilization of a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization in the manner that is claimed in the instant application is well-understood in the technological field, the recited steps of applying QUBO, determining a control signal, and generating a time slot do not provide any unconventional steps. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the control signal is never claimed as being generated or applied to actually control the laboratory equipment, in the claims, the control signal is merely determined.
The claims do not provide any details regarding how what the control signal means and how it is carried out. MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states when determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The claims merely recite the outcome of the solution (i.e., generating a determined control signal) with no indication how this is accomplished.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC 103 to Claims 1-20, Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection has been made, rejecting the independent claims over You in view of Fauzzi and Venturelli.
Applicant argues the rejection does not identify, and You and Fauzzi do not disclose, the recited QUBO penalty-term formulation. Claim 1 recites "formulating the scheduling problem comprises incorporating dependency constraints and capacity constraints as penalty terms in the objective such that the scheduling problem comprises a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization(QUBO) problem (p. 12).
Regarding (e), Examiner agrees these limitations are not disclosed entirely by You or Fauzzi and the rejection has been updated in light of the amendments to include Venturelli.
Applicant argues the Office Action's mapping of "control operations" to a convergence criterion is not supported. Claim 1 recites preparing at least part of the scheduling problem by "determining control operations for controlling a quantum computer to perform the quantum computation." The rejection interprets You's "preset convergence criteria" as the recited "control operations" (OA X103 (Claim 3), citing You [0008]). A convergence criterion is a stopping/termination condition for an iterative method, which is not a control operation "for controlling a quantum computer to perform the quantum computation," as recited.
Regarding (f), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s specification states “the control operations refer to signals that cause a quantum computer to follow predetermined rules or algorithms to perform a respective calculation” (see Applicant’s specification, p. 10). The Examiner interprets a predetermined convergence criteria as falling within this definition. Furthermore, Applicant has not argued what control operations means in contrast to this, nor has any detail been added to the claims to provide a different definition.
Applicant argues Fauzzi's instrument-control "commands" do not cure the quantum control- operations deficiency. To address "send[ing]...the control operations," the Office Action citesFauzzi's host processor/control board communications (OA 103 (Claim 3), citing Fauzzi [0299]and [0384]). Those disclosures concern commands/communications for laboratory instrumentation and control boards, and not quantum control operations sent to a quantum computer to execute the recited quantum computation.
Regarding (g), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection above, the office action does not rely on Fauzzi to teach quantum control operations, and the quantum computing for quantum computation limitations are disclosed by You.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA R GEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Peter H Choi can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/OLIVIA R. GEDRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights