DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-16, and 18 are presented for examination. Claims 3, 11, 17, 19, and 20 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn in view of applicant's amendments/remarks.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/03/2026 & 04/14/2026 have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO- 1449 is signed and attached hereto.
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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In regards to claim 1:
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes. MPEP 2106.04. The claims recites the limitations of “wherein: said at least one characterization sequence S is configured for reducing predefined coherent error generator terms in said targeted set of qubits; said at least one target error parameter is a Pauli generator term Pt; said at least one characterization sequence S is configured to eliminate predefined Pauli generator terms of said implementation errors distinct from the at least one target error parameter; and said at least one refocusing sequence commutes with said Pauli generator term; and wherein any one of the following:(a)said Pauli generator term Pt is distinct from an over-rotation term, wherein said at least one characterization sequence S comprises at least one subsequence G4= PgDgDP, and wherein :i) said P being a randomly sampled Pauli operator; and ii) said D being a refocusing sequence commuting with said Pauli generator term Pt, and anti-commuting with a corresponding Pauli generator term of an ideal version of said quantum logic operation g; or (b) said Pauli generator term Pt is an over-rotation term, wherein said at least one characterization sequence S comprises at least one subsequence G (5)=PgP, wherein said P being a randomly sampled Pauli operator commuting with said Pauli generator term Pe,” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation , covers a mathematical relationship of the mathematical concept grouping. The terms of the claims are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls into the mathematical relationship as part of the mathematical grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitations of “characterizing single target error parameter of implementation errors in a quantum logic operation g acting on a targeted set of qubits---, the method comprising:(a) generating at least one characterization sequence S configured for amplifying said single target error parameter, said at least one characterization sequence S comprises at least one refocusing sequence, wherein the at least one refocusing sequence is configured so that the characterization sequence reduces predefined generator terms including crosstalk between said targeted set of qubits and another set of qubits of the quantum processor;(b) characterizing said single target error parameter using said at least one characterization sequence in a characterization protocol” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim recites insignificant extra-solution activity as mere pre-solution outputting of data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO. See MPEP 2106.05. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element/s “a quantum processor” is generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. See the prior arts Kanazawa et al. US 20220253737 A1 in paragraph [0032] and Bhalgamiya et al. US 20250283725 A1 in paragraph [0086] teach well known elements. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
In regards to claim 16:
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, See MPEP 2106.03. The claim is directed to a system for characterizing implementation errors in a quantum logic operation, therefore is a machine and/or manufacture, and thus directed to a statutory category.
At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes. MPEP 2106.04. The claim recites the limitations of “wherein: said at least one characterization sequence S is configured for reducing predefined coherent error generator terms in said targeted set of qubits; said single target error parameter is a Pauli generator term Pt; said at least one characterization sequence S is configured to eliminate predefined Pauli generator terms of said implementation errors distinct from the single target error parameter; Reply to Office Action dated February 17, 2026 said at least one refocusing sequence commutes with said Pauli generator term Pr; and wherein any one of the following: "said Pauli generator term Pt is distinct from an over-rotation term, wherein said at least one characterization sequence S comprises at least one subsequence G4= PgDgDP, and wherein : said P being a randomly sampled Pauli operator; and said D being a refocusing sequence commuting with said Pauli generator term Pt, and anti-commuting with a corresponding Pauli generator term of an ideal version of said quantum logic operation g; "said Pauli generator term Pt is an over-rotation term, wherein said at least one characterization sequence S comprises at least one subsequence G(=PgP, wherein said P being a randomly sampled Pauli operator commuting with said Pauli generator term Pt,” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation , covers a mathematical relationship of the mathematical concept grouping. The terms of the claims are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls into the mathematical relationship as part of the mathematical grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The additional limitations of “---characterizing implementation errors in a quantum logic operation g operating on a targeted set of qubits---, wherein the computer-executable components comprise:(a) a sequence component, configured for generating at least one characterization sequence, said at least one characterization sequence S including at least one refocusing sequence and said quantum logic operation g, the at least one characterization sequence is configured for amplifying at least one target error parameter, and the at least one refocusing sequence is configured for reducing predefined crosstalk Pauli terms between said targeted set of qubits and another set of qubits of the quantum processor; and(b) a characterization component, configured for characterizing errors in said quantum logic operation g, using said sequence” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are generic components for performing the abstract idea and does not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea. do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim recites insignificant extra-solution activity as mere pre-solution outputting of data as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application. At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO. See MPEP 2106.05. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element/s “a system,” “a quantum processor,” “processor” “a memory” are generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. See the prior arts Kanazawa et al. US 20220253737 A1 in paragraphs [0026] [0030], and Bhalgamiya et al. US 20250283725 A1 in paragraphs [ 0081], [0086], [0118] teach well known elements.
Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12-15, and 18 are extended elements of the abstract idea of the independent claims and the claims are abstract in nature falling withing the mathematical concept grouping. The dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application rather they are mere instructions for performing the mathematical relationship of the mathematical concept grouping. The dependent claims do not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea to improve the technology or the computer component and fails to add significantly more than the abstracts idea. Therefore, the dependent claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-16, and 18 are not patent eligible.
Examiner Notes
6. When amending the claims, applicants are respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Prior Art
7. The prior art of record, considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
8. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSMAN ALSHACK whose telephone number is (571)272-2069.
The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:30 AM-5:00 PM EST, also please fax interview request to (571) 273- 2069.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALBERT DECADY can be reached on 5712723819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/OSMAN ALSHACK/
Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights