DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to communications: Amendment filed on 9/02/2025.
Claims 1-24 are pending. Claims 1, 13, 23 and 24 are independent.
The previous rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 USC § 101 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The previous rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weibe et al. ("Quantum arithmetic and numerical analysis using Repeat-Until-Success circuits") as made of reference in IDS dated 7/2/2021 in view of Shim et al. (US2017/0116542).
In regards to claim 13, Weibe et al. discloses a method implementable on a classical computer to compile a quantum circuit arrangement with at least one quantum circuit that carries out a computation on a quantum computer, the method comprising:
precomputing a set of values of a defined function based on a variable represented by a set of qubits for selected values of the variable (Weibe IV.C.3 para1, store precomputed values of Boolean function as a lookup table); and
generating at least one quantum circuit configured to execute a controlled rotation by every value of the set of the precomputed values (Weibe pg9 IV para1, generate quantum circuits to directly output arithmetic values as the desired rotation).
Weibe et al. does not explicitly disclose executing the controlled rotation by every value of the set of the precomputed values.
However Shim et al. substantially discloses executing the controlled rotation by every value of the set of the precomputed values (Shim et al. para[0037], The physical superconducting qubits 104a, 104b can be selectively coupled to each other, for example, via coupling 106. As used herein, selectively coupled refers to a coupling that can be varied between a first value (e.g., zero or relatively lower coupling) and a second value (e.g., non-zero or relatively higher coupling)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the algorithm of Weibe et al. with the tunable frequency of Shim et al. in order to match to a state of a qubit to associated bins (Shim et al. para[0007]).
Claims 23 recite substantially similar limitations to claim 13. Thus claims 23 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 13.
Claims 24 recite substantially similar limitations to claim 13. Thus claims 24 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 13.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weibe et al. in view of Shim et al. and Zadeh (US 8,311,973 B1).
In regards to claim 1, Weibe et al. discloses a quantum circuit arrangement with at least one quantum circuit that carries out a computation on a quantum computer, the quantum circuit arrangement comprising:
a lookup structure that determines a value of a defined function based on a variable represented by a set of qubits (Wiebe et al. pg16 section V para1, determines value of function f(x) = e-iX/a based on set of qubits representing 1/a);
wherein the lookup structure is adapted to determine the value of the defined function [based on the bin](Wiebe et al. pg20 section V.C.3 para1, use table lookups to compute reciprocals).
Wiebe et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the binning multiple values allows reduction of a number of needed rotations by the lookup structure and are carried out within the at least one quantum circuit.
However Whim et al. discloses wherein the binning multiple values allows reduction of a number of needed rotations by the lookup structure and are carried out within the at least one quantum circuit (Shim et al. para[0039], the capacitive coupling can also be made tunable and completely turned off, giving a very large on/off ratio. Such a tunable capacitive coupling may remove, or at least reduce, the need to detune each qubit to avoid unwanted resonances, thereby significantly simplifying the qubit frequency controls during operation (e.g., the CPHASE operation described below). This also allows rotating the encoded qubit around any axis in the full xz plane, reducing the necessary rotation steps to two for any single qubit logical gates.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the algorithm of Weibe et al. with the tunable frequency of Shim et al. in order to match to a state of a qubit to associated bins (Shim et al. para[0007]).
Wiebe et al. does not explicitly disclose a binning structure that identifies a determined bin based on the variable, based on the bin,
However a binning structure that identifies a determined bin based on the variable, based on the bin, (Zadeh Col28 ln20-31, values of F(x) fall into the same bin)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the algorithm of Weibe et al. with the fuzzy logic of Zadeh in order to make determinations based on uncertain information (Zadeh col2 ln23-28).
In regards to claim 2 Weibe et al. as modified by Shim et al. and Zadeh discloses the quantum circuit arrangement according to claim 1, the defined function having a negative derivative with monotonically decreasing absolute value (Weibe et al. pg16 section V para1, f(x) = e-iX/a has a negative derivative with a monotonically decreasing absolute value).
In regards to claim 3, Weibe et al. as modified by Shim et al. and Zadeh discloses the quantum circuit arrangement according to claim 1, wherein a size of the bin increases for increasing values of the variable (Zadeh col30 ln49-56, selects various size of bins for various values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the algorithm of Weibe et al. with the fuzzy logic of Zadeh in order to make determinations based on uncertain information (Zadeh col2 ln23-28).
In regards to claim 4, Weibe et al. as modified by Shim et al. and Zadeh discloses the quantum circuit arrangement according to claim 1, wherein a variable is made up of a series qubits (Weibe section IV para1, implementing multiplication requires a number of qubits that scales logarithmically in the number of bits of precision needed).
Weibe does not explicitly disclose wherein a size of the bin is based on the position of a first digit within the variable, wherein the size of the bin is defined by the number of one’s following the first one digit.
Zadeh discloses wherein a size of the bin is based on the position of a first digit within the variable, wherein the size of the bin is defined by the number of one’s following the first one qubit (Zadeh col30 ln7-67, the number/size of bins based on the size of variables and number of bits)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the algorithm of Weibe et al. with the fuzzy logic of Zadeh in order to make determinations based on uncertain information (Zadeh col2 ln23-28).
In regards to claim 5, Weibe et al. as modified by Shim et al. and Zadeh discloses the quantum circuit arrangement according to claim 1, wherein a size of the bin is based on the position of a last one qubit within the variable, wherein the size of the bin is defined by the number of one's preceding the first one qubit within the variable (Zadeh col30 ln57-67, size of bin is determined by the membership function, membership function could be adjusted to take into account number ones in a variable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the algorithm of Weibe et al. with the fuzzy logic of Zadeh in order to make determinations based on uncertain information (Zadeh col2 ln23-28).
In regards to claim 6, Weibe et al. as modified by Shim et al. and Zadeh discloses the quantum circuit arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the lookup structure comprises at least one quantum gate arrangement that performs a controlled rotation of a further set of qubits (Weibe pg15 section IV.C.2 para3, gate arrangement for performing controlled rotations of a carry-ripple adder).
In regards to claim 7, Weibe et al. as modified by Shim et al. and Zadeh discloses the quantum circuit arrangement according to claim 1, further comprising:
a quantum phase estimation structure that performs a quantum phase estimation; and
an inverse quantum phase estimation structure that performs an inverse quantum phase estimation; and wherein the lookup structure performs a controlled rotation of a further set of qubits (Weibe pg.16 section V para1, using HHL algorithm for solving linear systems, pg21 section VI para1, performs phase estimation to cache results, pg20 sectionV.C.3 para1, implements lookup tables to identify reciprocal values).
In regards to claim 8, Weibe et al. as modified by Shim et al. and Zadeh discloses the quantum circuit arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the defined function comprises an arcsin(1/λ) function (Weibe pg7 section III para1, function comprises an arcsin(1/a)).
In regards to claim 9, Weibe et al. as modified by Shim et al. and Zadeh discloses the quantum circuit arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the quantum circuit performing iterations over the variable through at least one sub qubit pattern of a pattern of a maximum size of the bin minus one (Zadeh col44 ln23-33, iterates variable over range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the algorithm of Weibe et al. with the fuzzy logic of Zadeh in order to make determinations based on uncertain information (Zadeh col2 ln23-28).
In regards to claim 10, Weibe et al. as modified by Shim et al. and Zadeh discloses the quantum circuit arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the quantum circuit arrangement is configured to be compiled on a classical computer (Weibe pg13 Section IV.C.3, implementation based on classical circuits).
In regards to claim 11, Weibe et al. as modified by Shim et al. and Zadeh discloses the quantum circuit arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the quantum circuit is configured with a negated control on a first qubit and a control on a second qubit, and wherein the quantum circuit is further configured to:
entangle an ancilla qubit that is in its ground state with the controls (Weibe et al.pg24 section VIII par1, feed Qubits into gearbox to be entangled with another register); and
uncompute the ancilla qubit (Weibe et al. pg25 section VIII para5, sets up gearbox function to invoke opposite rotations upon success).
In regards to claim 12, Weibe et al. as modified by Shim et al. and Zadeh discloses the quantum circuit arrangement according to claim 11, the quantum circuit is configured to:
use a second ancilla qubit (Weibe et al. pg5 section II.A para2, generalized PAR gates are applied to a second (fresh) ancilla);
entangle with a multiple-controlled NOT operation being dependent on a sub qubit pattern comprising the two ancilla qubits (Weibe et al. pg3 section II para3-4, rotation of ancilia qubits used to control the CNOT gates); and
perform controlled rotations conditional on the ancilla qubits and remaining combinations (Weibe et al. pg4 section II para5, circuit implements desired rotation).
In regards to claim 14, Weibe et al. as modified by Shim et al. and Zadeh discloses the method according to claim 13. Weibe does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises predefining a set of bins, each value of the set of precomputed values corresponding to a bin of the defined set of bins.
However Zadeh substantially disclose wherein the method comprises predefining a set of bins, each value of the set of precomputed values corresponding to a bin of the defined set of bins (Zadeh col28 ln20-31, divides Y domain into equal size bins) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the algorithm of Weibe et al. with the fuzzy logic of Zadeh in order to make determinations based on uncertain information (Zadeh col2 ln23-28).
Claims 15-17 recite substantially similar limitations to claim 7-9. Thus claims 15-17 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 7-9.
In regards to claim 18, Weibe et al. as modified by Shim et al. and Zadeh discloses the method of the claim 13. Weibe et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the values of the variable are selected according to the defined set of bins.
Zadeh substantially discloses wherein the values of the variable are selected according to a defined set of bins (Zadeh col28 ln20-31, variable x’s are attributed to the set of bins).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have combined the algorithm of Weibe et al. with the fuzzy logic of Zadeh in order to make determinations based on uncertain information (Zadeh col2 ln23-28).
Claims 19-20 recite substantially similar limitations to claim 4-5. Thus claims 19-20 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 4-5.
Claims 21-22 recite substantially similar limitations to claim 11-12. Thus claims 21-22 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 11-12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 4, Applicant argues on page 19 that Zadeh does not teach “wherein a size of the bin is based on a position of a first one qubit within the variable” and “wherein a size of the bin is based on a position of a last one qubit within the variable, and wherein the size of the bin is defined by the number of qubits preceding the first one qubit within the variable”.
However Weibe et al. as modified by Shim et al. and Zadeh discloses wherein a size of the bin is based on a position of a first one qubit within the variable and wherein a size of the bin is based on a position of a last one qubit within the variable, and wherein the size of the bin is defined by the number of qubits preceding the first one qubit within the variable (Weibe section IV para1, teaches using qubits as bit in a variable, Zadeh col30 ln7-67, teaches the size of bins be based on size of variable therefor the number of bits in the value.)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-24 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply the current rejection.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS HASTY whose telephone number is (571)270-7775. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Matt Ell can be reached at (571)270-3264. 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.
/N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2141
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights