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 .
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 10/8/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite taking a model represented by a Hamiltonian and rewrite (cl. 1 and 8) and/or optimize (cl. 7) the model to generate a rewritten model. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because nothing is done with the rewritten model. The additional claim limitations do not make the claim limitations integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims, as currently written, just represent an abstract manipulation of data with nothing more.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claims 1, 7, and 8 the phrase "such that" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
As to claims 1-6 and 8, the claims are deemed indefinite because the preambles of the claims are directed to an encryption device and an encryption method, but there is no mention of encryption in the body of the claims.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. No. 2008/0065573 to Macready in view of US PG Pub. No. 2025/0181950 to Elfving et al. (hereinafter Elfving).
As to claims 1 and 8, Macready teaches:
a. Memory storing instructions (Macready, [0150]).
b. One or more processors configured to execute the instructions (Macready, [0148]) to:
i. Receive input of a model represented by a Hamiltonian (Hamiltonian embedded into the quantum computer for processing) (Macready, [0039]).
Macready does not explicitly recite generating a rewritten model. However, in an analogous art, Elfving teaches:
ii. Generate a rewritten model by rewriting one variable selected from variables included in the model into multiple dummy variables subject to a same value constraint (using the kernel trick to rewrite the Hamiltonian into an optimized form) (Elfving, [0022, 0055, 0113, 0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the instant application to implement the discrete optimization of Hamiltonians with the rewriting of the model of Elfving in order to solve regression problems that reduces the drawbacks of the prior art as suggested by Elfving (Elfving, [0010]).
Macready as modified further teaches:
iii. Generate the rewritten model such that sum of coefficients of the dummy variables equals a coefficient of the one variable (dummy variables are introduced subject to variable constraints) (Elfving, [0116]).
As to claim 2, Macready as modified teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the rewritten model that includes a constraint preventing signs of the dummy variables from changing from the sign of the one variable (dummy variables are subject to variable constraints) (Elfving, [0116]).
As to claim 3, Macready as modified teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to generate the rewritten model by adding a term representing a constraint that variables indicated by nodes connected by edges take the same value if a graph formed by treating each dummy variable as a node and connecting nodes with interactions by edges is a connected graph (graph is constructed with edges linking the nodes to each other to come to the particular solution) (Macready, [0121-0127]) (Elfving, [0116]).
As to claim 4, Macready as modified teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to set values of the coefficients of the dummy variables within a predefined range (one of the inequality constraints describe by a range of values) (Macready, [009-0093]).
As to claim 5, Macready as modified teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to assign variables, among variables included in the rewritten model, with a larger number of rewritten dummy variables to less reliable qubits and have an Ising machine execute optimization processing of the rewritten model (Chebyshev algorithm is used to process the Hamiltonian) (Elfving, 0131-0134]).
As to claim 6, Macready as modified teaches the processor is configured to execute the instructions to convert indexes of the variables by mutually replacing the indexes of the variables included in the input model (Elfving, [0152]).
As to claim 7, Macready teaches:
a. An Ising machine that executes optimization processing of a model represented by a Hamiltonian (processing involves using a Hamiltonian and implementing an Ising process) (Macready, [0137-0139]).
b. An encryption device that sends the model to the Ising machine and has the Ising machine execute optimization processing (optimization device is used with the Ising Hamiltonian as input) (Macready, [0037 and 0137-0139]).
i. Receive input of a model represented by a Hamiltonian (Hamiltonian embedded into the quantum computer for processing) (Macready, [0039]).
Macready does not explicitly recite generating a rewritten model. However, in an analogous art, Elfving teaches:
ii. Generate a rewritten model by rewriting one variable selected from variables included in the model into multiple dummy variables subject to a same value constraint (using the kernel trick to rewrite the Hamiltonian into an optimized form) (Elfving, [0022, 0055, 0113, 0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the instant application to implement the discrete optimization of Hamiltonians with the rewriting of the model of Elfving in order to solve regression problems that reduces the drawbacks of the prior art as suggested by Elfving (Elfving, [0010]).
Macready as modified further teaches:
iii. Generate the rewritten model such that sum of coefficients of the dummy variables equals a coefficient of the one variable (dummy variables are introduced subject to variable constraints) (Elfving, [0116]).
iv. Have the Ising machine execute optimization processing of the rewritten model (processing involves using a Hamiltonian and implementing an Ising process) (Macready, [0137-0139]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S POWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8573. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:30.
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, Jorge L Ortiz-Criado can be reached at (571) 272-7624. 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.
/WILLIAM S POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2496
Prosecution Insights