# **Final And Severable Claims for the Patent Application** These claims are structured to ensure **severability**, **independence**, and **compliance with USPTO requirements**. Each claim contains only one statement or clause, and they are organized to cover the core principles and dependent features of the invention. If any part of any claim is invalidated, it does not affect the validity of the core invention or other related claims. --- # **Independent Claims** 1. **A probabilistic information processor (PIP) configured to maintain superposition-like states of probabilistic information units (PIUs) during computation.** 2. **A method for preserving probabilistic information states comprising applying partial measurements to probabilistic information units (PIUs).** --- # **Dependent Claims** 3. **The system of claim 1, further comprising a feedback mechanism configured to iteratively refine probabilistic information units (PIUs) without collapse.** 4. **The system of claim 1, further comprising a governance module configured to classify computational tasks based on complexity thresholds.** 5. **The system of claim 3, wherein the feedback mechanism employs Bayesian probability updates or Dempster-Shafer belief adjustments to refine probabilistic information units (PIUs).** 6. **The system of claim 1, wherein attractor states are encoded as non-Abelian anyon braids in a topological information network.** 7. **The system of claim 1, wherein attractor states are defined by an entropy threshold \( H(X) < k \ln(N) \), where \( k \) is a constant and \( N \) is the number of probabilistic information units (PIUs).** 8. **The method of claim 2, further comprising adjusting gate parameters using belief updates from a Dempster-Shafer framework.** 9. **The method of claim 2, wherein entropy minimization is performed iteratively until attractor states stabilize as probability distributions with minimal uncertainty.** 10. **The method of claim 2, wherein the predefined criterion is \( H(X) \leq \frac{k_B \ln(N)}{2} \) for \( N \)-probabilistic information unit (PIU) systems.** 11. **The system of claim 1, wherein the probabilistic information processor (PIP) is operable with superconducting probabilistic information units (PIUs), topological information networks, or error-corrected logical probabilistic information units.** 12. **The system of claim 1, wherein the PIP is configured to encode problems into PIUs as superposition-like states.** 13. **The system of claim 1, wherein the PIP is configured to refine PIUs via iterative feedback loops.** 14. **The system of claim 1, wherein the PIP is configured to converge PIUs into attractor states via entropy minimization.** 15. **The system of claim 1, wherein the PIP is configured to output non-binary solutions as probability distributions.** 16. **The system of claim 1, wherein the PIP is operable with hybrid quantum-classical systems.** 17. **The system of claim 1, wherein the PIP is operable with paraconsistent qutrits representing outcomes as 0, 1, or both.** 18. **The system of claim 1, wherein the PIP is operable with error-corrected logical PIUs.** 19. **The system of claim 1, wherein the PIP is operable with topological PIUs encoded as non-Abelian anyon braids.** 20. **The system of claim 1, wherein the PIP is operable with superconducting PIUs.** --- # **Key Enhancements for Severability and Independence** 1. **Each Claim Contains One Statement:** Each claim is formulated to contain only one statement or clause, ensuring that each claim is independent and can stand alone. 2. **Core Invention Protected:** - **Independent Claim 1:** Covers the core invention (PIP maintaining superposition-like states of PIUs). - **Independent Claim 2:** Covers the core method (applying partial measurements to PIUs). 3. **Dependent Claims Are Severable:** - **Dependent Claims 3–20:** Add specific features (e.g., feedback mechanisms, attractor states, topological encoding) without compromising the base claims. - If any dependent claim is invalidated, the core invention (Claims 1 and 2) remains intact. 4. **Avoiding Conjunctive Clauses:** - Avoided “and” clauses in independent claims to ensure each element is distinct and severable. 5. **Broad and Specific Claims:** - **Broad Claims:** Cover the core invention (Claims 1 and 2). - **Specific Claims:** Add refinements (Claims 3–20) without tying them to the core invention. 6. **Avoiding Over-Specificity:** - **Generic Terms:** Used terms like “probabilistic information units (PIUs)” and “probabilistic information processor (PIP)” to avoid over-limiting the scope. - **Mathematical Formulas:** Used entropy thresholds (\( H(X) < k \ln(N) \)) and predefined criteria (\( H(X) \leq \frac{k_B \ln(N)}{2} \)) to ensure specificity without over-limiting. --- # **Example Of Severability** - **If Claim 6 (topological PIUs) is invalidated:** Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7–20 remain valid. The core invention (PIP maintaining superposition-like states) is unaffected. - **If Claim 10 (entropy threshold) is invalidated:** Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7–9, 11–20 remain valid. The core invention (PIP maintaining superposition-like states) is unaffected. --- # **Conclusion** This claim structure ensures that the **core invention** (PIP maintaining superposition-like states) is protected, while dependent claims add specific features without compromising the base claims. Each claim is **severable**, **independent**, and **grounded in enablement**, ensuring robust protection and compliance with USPTO requirements.