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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 15 are presented for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2024 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is a single sentence that appears to be a recitation of claim 1. The abstract of the disclosure is not in a narrative form and fails to provide a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 – 15 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “d” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of the variable “d”.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “Gv” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of Gv.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “v” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of the variable “v”.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “preparing with in the code” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “preparing” Specifically, the language “preparing” is so broad, one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, would be unclear what is not disclosed by the action “preparing”.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “making corrections necessary to ensure that” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “corrections”. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, would be unclear what corrections would achieve the disclosed “necessary to ensure that”.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “preparing a desired initial state” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “preparing” Specifically, the language “preparing” is so broad, one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, would be unclear what is not disclosed by the action “preparing”.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “running an evolution of the fermionic system” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “running an evolution”. Specifically, the specification discloses “running an evolution” using simulations (page 2), but fail to disclose the scope of the actions performed.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “Wf” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of Wf.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “f” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of the variable “f”.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “tending to move a state of the face towards the desired initial state” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “tending” and “toward”.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “using analog quantum simulation” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “analog quantum simulation”. Specifically, the specification discloses analog circuitry (page 32, 33), but fails to disclose the scope of “analog quantum simulation”.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “using digital quantum simulation” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “digital quantum simulation”. Specifically, the specification discloses digital circuitry (page 32, 33), but fails to disclose the scope of “digital quantum simulation”.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “measuring desired observables” is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “desired observables”. Specifically, the specification discloses local observables (page 7), but one of ordinary skill in the art would be unclear the scope of “desired”.
Any claim not addressed above is rejected due to its dependency on a rejected claim
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Independent claim 1 is directed to a mathematical relationship or algorithm that have been identified as abstract by numerous courts.
In analyzing claim 1 of the instant application, the limitations “choosing a desired distance d of a code”, “preparing within the code Hilbert space by measuring stabilizers Gv for each vertex, v, of a 2D lattice and making corrections necessary to ensure that, after rotations are applied, Gv = 1 for each v”, preparing a desired initial state of the encoded fermions”, and “converting a Hamiltonian of the fermionic system into a qubit Hamiltonian” are directed to a mathematical algorithm, thus, abstract.
Furthermore, limitations such as “then running an evolution of the fermionic system” is merely intended use statement that does not define the method to be anything more than a mathematical algorithm.
Claims 2 – 15 recite no additional limitation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in independent claim 1.
Claim 2
Mathematical algorithm
Claim 3
Intended use
Claim 4
Intended use
Claim 5
Mathematical algorithm
Claim 6
Mathematical algorithm
Claim 7
Mathematical algorithm
Claim 8
Mathematical algorithm
Claim 9
Mathematical algorithm
Claim 10
Mathematical algorithm
Claim 11
Mathematical algorithm
Claim 12
Mathematical algorithm
Claim 13
Mathematical algorithm
Claim 14
Mathematical algorithm
Claim 15
Intended use
Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims 1 – 15 are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticpated by Klassen et al., U.S. Publication 2024/0296364 (herein Klassen).
Regarding claim 1, Klassen discloses: A method of encoding fermions into lattices of qubits for quantum simulation of a fermionic system comprises the steps of: choosing a desired distance d of a code (paragraph 0059, 0233); preparing within the code Hilbert space by measuring stabilizers Gv for each vertex, v, of a 2D lattice and making corrections necessary to ensure that, after rotations are applied, Gv = 1 for each v (paragraph 0233 – 0261); preparing a desired initial state of the encoded fermions (paragraph 0263, 0264); and converting a Hamiltonian of the fermionic system into a qubit Hamiltonian and then running an evolution of the fermionic system (paragraph 0202, 0242 – 0245).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3, 4, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klassen, in view of Bravyi et al., U.S. Patent 10,311,370 (herein Bravyi).
Regarding claim 3, Klassen teaches the limitations of the parent claim. Klassen does not explicitly teach: running an evolution of the fermionic system includes using analog quantum simulation.
Bravyi teaches: running an evolution of the fermionic system includes using analog quantum simulation (column 6, lines 45 – 60).
One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, would find it obvious to combine the teaching of Klassen: encoding fermions into lattices of qubits for quantum simulation; with the teaching of Bravyi: a computer and a simulation application for the purpose of performing the quantum simulation (column 6, lines 45 – 60). Quantum simulations are well-known in the art (column 6, lines 45 – 60). Applications for running simulations are well-known design choice in the art (paragraph 0002). Analog and Digital simulations the two possible modeling techniques for simulations and are well-known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of well-known design choice would yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 4, Klassen teaches the limitations of the parent claim. Klassen does not explicitly teach: running an evolution of the fermionic system includes using digital quantum simulation.
Bravyi teaches: running an evolution of the fermionic system includes using digital quantum simulation (column 6, lines 45 – 60). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 3, the claim is rejected.
Regarding claim 15, Klassen teaches the limitations of the parent claim. Klassen does not explicitly teach: measuring desired observables after the evolution is run.
Bravyi teaches: measuring desired observables after the evolution is run (column 9, lines 35 – 40). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 3, the claim is rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5 – 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
HASTINGS; et al. US 20250165823 A1
Klassen; Joel David et al. US 20230081773 A1
Noh; Kyungjoo et al. US 11599820 B1
Vedaie; Seyed Shakib et al. US 11947506 B2
MONTANARO; Ashley et al. US 20230385681 A1
encoding fermions into lattices of qubits for quantum simulation of a fermionic system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL F MCMAHON whose telephone number is (571)270-3232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am - 5pm EST.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at (571)270-3750. 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.
/Daniel F. McMahon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights