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 .
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “[a]n method for transmitting a quantum state, performed by a computing device, comprising: generating a second quantum state using a first quantum state and a dummy state; encoding the second quantum state; generating a third quantum state by injecting an uncorrectable error into the encoded second quantum state; and transmitting the third quantum state to a receiving node.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “generating a second quantum state using a first quantum state and a dummy state,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “encoding the second quantum state,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “generating a third quantum state by injecting an uncorrectable error into the encoded second quantum state,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the device language, “generating… [and] encoding” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper generating and encoding data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “transmitting the third quantum state to a receiving node.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a device to enact the generating and encoding steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the second quantum state comprises: obtaining a dummy state associated with mutually unbiased bases; and generating the second quantum state by randomly mixing the obtained dummy state into the first quantum state.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “obtaining a dummy state associated with mutually unbiased bases,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “generating the second quantum state by randomly mixing the obtained dummy state into the first quantum state.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the third quantum state comprises: encoding the second quantum state based on one or more Quantum Error Correction Code (QECC)-related parameters; obtaining the uncorrectable error; and injecting the obtained uncorrectable error into the encoded second quantum state based on the QECC-related parameters.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “encoding the second quantum state based on one or more Quantum Error Correction Code (QECC)-related parameters; obtaining the uncorrectable error,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “injecting the obtained uncorrectable error into the encoded second quantum state based on the QECC-related parameters,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the uncorrectable error includes a Pauli error operator.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “uncorrectable error includes a Pauli error operator,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining a syndrome of the uncorrectable error; and transmitting the syndrome to the receiving node.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “obtaining a syndrome of the uncorrectable error,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “transmitting the syndrome to the receiving node.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “[t]he method of claim 5, wherein the computing device transmits the syndrome to the receiving node via a classical channel and transmits the third quantum state to the receiving node via a quantum channel.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “method of claim 5,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “wherein the computing device transmits the syndrome to the receiving node via a classical channel and transmits the third quantum state to the receiving node via a quantum channel.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising: after the transmitting of the third quantum state to the receiving node, transmitting the uncorrectable error to the receiving node in response to receiving, from the receiving node, a first acknowledgment message related to a successful reception of the third quantum state.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “method of claim 1,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “after the transmitting of the third quantum state to the receiving node, transmitting the uncorrectable error to the receiving node in response to receiving, from the receiving node, a first acknowledgment message related to a successful reception of the third quantum state.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites “[t]he method of claim 7, wherein the computing device transmits the uncorrectable error to the receiving node via a classical channel.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “method of claim 7,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “wherein the computing device transmits the uncorrectable error to the receiving node via a classical channel.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites “[t]he method of claim 7, further comprising: after the transmitting of the uncorrectable error to the receiving node, transmitting a permutation operator and an encoding operator for encoding zero auxiliary states into mutually unbiased states to the receiving node in response to receiving, from the receiving node, a second acknowledgment message related to a successful verification of the third quantum state.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “method of claim 7,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “after the transmitting of the uncorrectable error to the receiving node, transmitting a permutation operator and an encoding operator for encoding zero auxiliary states into mutually unbiased states to the receiving node in response to receiving, from the receiving node, a second acknowledgment message related to a successful verification of the third quantum state.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites “[t]he method of claim 9, wherein the permutation operator and the encoding operator are transmitted to the receiving node via a classical channel.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “method of claim 9,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “wherein the permutation operator and the encoding operator are transmitted to the receiving node via a classical channel.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites “[t]he method for verifying a quantum state, performed by a computing device, comprising: receiving a quantum state from a transmitting node; receiving an uncorrectable error from the transmitting node; obtaining a first syndrome by applying the uncorrectable error to the quantum state; and performing a first verification process on the quantum state by determining whether the obtained first syndrome matches a predetermined second syndrome.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “the log entries are generated by a unified logging component communicatively coupled to a plurality of different processes executing on the information handling system,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “the log entries are generated by a unified logging component communicatively coupled to a plurality of different processes executing on the information handling system,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “receiving a quantum state from a transmitting node.” Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitation of “receiving an uncorrectable error from the transmitting node.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites “[t]he method of claim 11, wherein the predetermined second syndrome is an all-zero syndrome including zero bits, and the performing of the first verification process on the quantum state comprises determining that the first verification has succeeded when the obtained first syndrome is the all- zero syndrome.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “wherein the predetermined second syndrome is an all-zero syndrome including zero bits, and the performing of the first verification process on the quantum state comprises determining that the first verification has succeeded when the obtained first syndrome is the all- zero syndrome,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites “[t]he method of claim 11, further comprising: before the receiving of the uncorrectable error, receiving a syndrome from the transmitting node; and verifying the quantum channel based on whether a syndrome extracted from the quantum state matches the received syndrome.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “verifying the quantum channel based on whether a syndrome extracted from the quantum state matches the received syndrome,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “before the receiving of the uncorrectable error, receiving a syndrome from the transmitting node.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites “[t]he method of claim 13, wherein the receiving of the uncorrectable error comprises: in response to a successful verification of the quantum channel, transmitting, to the transmitting node, a first acknowledgment message indicating that the quantum state has been successfully received; and receiving the uncorrectable error from the transmitting node in response to the transmission of the first acknowledgment message.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “in response to a successful verification of the quantum channel,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “transmitting, to the transmitting node, a first acknowledgment message indicating that the quantum state has been successfully received.” Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitation of “receiving the uncorrectable error from the transmitting node in response to the transmission of the first acknowledgment message.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites “[t]he method of claim 13, wherein the computing device receives the syndrome via a classical channel and receives the quantum state via a quantum channel.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “method of claim 13,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “receives the syndrome via a classical channel and receives the quantum state via a quantum channel.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recites “[t]he method of claim 13, wherein the uncorrectable error includes a Pauli error operator.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “wherein the uncorrectable error includes a Pauli error operator,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites “[t]he method of claim 11, further comprising: in response to a successful first verification process, receiving, from the transmitting node, a permutation operator and an encoding operator for encoding zero auxiliary states into mutually unbiased states; and performing a second verification process on a dummy state included in the quantum state based on the permutation operator and the encoding operator.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “performing a second verification process on a dummy state included in the quantum state based on the permutation operator and the encoding operator,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “, receiving, from the transmitting node, a permutation operator and an encoding operator for encoding zero auxiliary states into mutually unbiased states.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recites “[t]he method of claim 17, wherein the computing device receives the permutation operator and the encoding operator via a classical channel.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “method of claim 17,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “receives the permutation operator and the encoding operator via a classical channel.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 recites “[t]he method of claim 11, wherein the quantum state is transmitted from the transmitting node to the computing device via one or more relay nodes.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “method of claim 11,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “wherein the quantum state is transmitted from the transmitting node to the computing device via one or more relay nodes.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is rejected based on similar rationale given to claim 1.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ganguly et al. US 2024/0073010 (abstract, background, and summary)
Malaney US 2016/0191173 (abstract, background, and summary)
Meyers et al. US 2015/0055961 (abstract, background, and summary)
Examiner’s Comments
No prior art rejections were given in this Office action. Generally, the prior arts teach methods for transmitting and verifying a quantum state. The prior arts do not teach nor suggest the limitations of claim 1, recited in part, “generating a third quantum state by injecting an uncorrectable error into the encoded second quantum state.” Independent claim 20 recites similarly.
Additionally, the prior arts do not teach nor suggest the limitations of claim 11, recited in part, “obtaining a first syndrome by applying the uncorrectable error to the quantum state; and performing a first verification process on the quantum state by determining whether the obtained first syndrome matches a predetermined second syndrome.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)431-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M..
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, BRYCE P BONZO can be reached at (571)-272-3655. 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.
/JONATHAN D GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights