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 .
Priority
Application appears to have the benefit of a prior filed International Application No. PCT/US2020/051115, filed September 16, 2020, that has the benefit of US non-provisional application No. 62/901,045, filed September 16, 2019, which is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/04/2022. These drawings are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 07/11/2023, 12/01/2022, 09/26/2022, 07/15/2022, and 03/04/2022 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments directed to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(a):
Applicant argues that paragraph 0016 of the publish specification (US 20220358393) provides support that for the claim elements directed to time-independent interactions.
The applicant citation further supports the examiners rejection as it state: “[0016] The classical computer decomposes 508 the input time-dependent Hamiltonian 506 into a sequence of Hamiltonian evolutions 510 implementable on the quantum computer with a known parameterization 512 given the decomposition. In some embodiments, this is the Trotterization of the evolution.”
And the applicant arguments, which is not expressed in the original specification provide clarification of how one of ordinary skill in the art would ascertain am adiabatic evolution as time-independent interactions as claimed. The citation clearly refers to the use of a time-dependent Hamilton.
Now with regards to the use of term trotterization of evolution as time-independent interaction, the examiner highlights the cited prior art as what one of ordinary skill in the art would consider trotterization, since the specification lacks written description on the matter, beyond its use in paragraph 0016. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the time-independent segment of an evolutions as applicant alleges as a Trotterization.
Heyl et al. (Quantum localization bounds Trotter errors in digital quantum simulation):
in Abstract: A fundamental challenge in digital quantum simulation (DQS) is the control of an inherent error, which appears when discretizing the time evolution of a quantum many body system as a sequence of quantum gates, called Trotterization.
Pg. 1: This Trotterization comes inherently with an error that can be rigorously upper bounded via the accuracy of the global unitary time evolution operator… In this work, we interpret the Trotterized evolution as a periodically time-dependent quantum many-body system with a period t = t/n (see Fig. 1).
Endo et al. (NPL: Mitigating algorithmic errors in a Hamiltonian simulation):
Sec: Introduction: … Several methods have been proposed to efficiently approximate the time evolution operator U(t) [4–9]… To study such a limitation, we focus on the Trotterization method [10], introduced for quantum simulation by Lloyd [2]. Suppose the system Hamiltonian the Trotterization method approximates the time-evolution unitary operator U(t) = e−i kHkt by decomposing it into a product form, U(t) = e−iHkt/N k N +O(t2/N). (1) Here, N is the number of Trotter steps and O(t2/N) is the algorithmic error due to a finite value of N. As Hk only has local interactions, each term e−iHkt/N can be efficiently realized on a quantum computer. However, as Hk terms generally do not commute with each other, Trotterization only approximates the time-evolution operator U(t). By increasing the number of Trotter steps N, the algorithmic error O(t2/N) can be arbitrarily suppressed. However, the circuit depth increases linearly with the number of Trotter steps. A deep circuit introduces more physical errors, which corrupt quantum simulations in noisy intermediate-scale devices [11]. Consequently, we can only use a small number of Trotter steps for systems without quantum error correction [12]. H can be decomposed into a sum of Hamiltonians, Hk, that only involves few-body interactions, i.e., H = k Hk. Also see image below:
PNG
media_image1.png
756
1492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sec. IV. Error Mitigation for algorithmic errors
PNG
media_image2.png
780
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Babbush (NPL: Chemical basis of Trotter-Suzuki errors in quantum chemistry simulation):
In Abstract: Although the simulation of quantum chemistry is one of the most anticipated applications of quantum computing, the scaling of known upper bounds on the complexity of these algorithms is daunting. Prior work has bounded errors due to discretization of the time evolution (known as “Trotterization”) in terms of the norm of the error operator and analyzed scaling with respect to the number of spin orbitals.
In page 022311-3:
PNG
media_image3.png
294
692
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
258
698
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Trotterization is clearly considered a time-dependent operation. The examiner takes issue with the assertion that the Hamiltonian/and or adiabatic evolutions under time independent interactions. The applicant appears to also agree with the examiner in that the only place in which this term is used does not provide additional definition or support for the claimed inventions. At the time of filing Hamiltonian/and or adiabatic evolutions as considered time dependent operations.
The rejection made in the previous office action has been maintained.
Regarding arguments directed to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b):
Applicant argues the a preferred interpretation of the claim limitation noted that claim should be interpreted as the adiabatic evolutions as discretized into time independent interactions.
Examiner notes that MPEP 2111 requires claim be given broadest reasonable interpretation. The limitation recites “wherein the quantum evolution comprises an adiabatic evolution, and wherein converting the description of the quantum circuit to the description of a parametrized circuit comprises:(B)(1) discretizing the adiabatic evolution into a plurality of segments of evolution under time-independent interactions;” that includes the interpretation that adiabatic evolutions are segmented into evolutions under time-independent interactions. It is unclear how the discrete representation are appropriated to evolutions under time-independent interactions of an adiabatic evolutions which are based on Hamiltonian evolutions. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret that these interactions are very much time-dependent.
The applicant has appeared to be their own lexicographer and the examiner has documented in the rejection under 35 USC 112(a), that the definition of the claim terms have not been expressly noted or inferred in the specification. Thus, the claim limitation and specification fail to provided clarity such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain the intended scope of the claim invention.
The examiner maintains that the requirement of a time dependent process (adiabatic evolutions) to adiabatic evolution segments of evolution under time-independent interactions that can be discretized appear to contradict each other and render the claim incoherent.
The rejection made in the previous office action has been maintained.
Regarding arguments directed to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues the claims are directed to an improvement in technology and similar to the cited court cases at the PTAB and Federal Circuit of filed remarks.
Examiner notes that the claims in the instant case are not similar to the cited case because the claimed inventions not deemed directed to an improvement to a technology field. The MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) discloses the evaluation of claimed improvements in the functioning of a computer or improvement to a technical field in step 2A prong two. The MPEP section discloses “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification…”
Applicants remarks cite the following paragraphs of the specification for noted the problem solved by the claimed invention:
Applicant remarks states “Specification explicitly identifies a technical problem in the art: existing quantum computers suffer from low noise rates and short coherence times, making deep quantum circuits impractical or impossible to execute on near-term hardware (paragraph [0012])”
Paragraph 0012 discloses: “[0012] Embodiments of the present invention are directed to a hybrid classical quantum computer (HQC) with the capability to increase the accuracy of a quantum computation. Many applications of quantum computers require deep quantum circuits, and thus low noise rates in the quantum computer, which may not be realizable for many years. In contrast, embodiments of the present invention do not require deep quantum circuits or low noise rates in the quantum computer. For example, embodiments of the present invention may be implemented on quantum computers using quantum circuits with a circuit depth of at most 4. As another example, embodiments of the present invention may be implemented on quantum computers having noise rates which are greater than 0.001. As a result, embodiments of the present invention may be implemented on near-term quantum computers.”
The disclosure appear to sets forth an improvement in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art).
Additionally, the claims doe not appear to reflects the alleged improvement in applicant remarks as it is unclear how the depth of the parametrized circuits are limited per the claimed invention. The citation appears to indicate that the use of hybrid system as tool for executing the noted abstract idea have a known benefit for processing quantum circuits.
The rejection made in the previous office action has been maintained.
Regarding arguments directed to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103:
Applicant argued that the prior art teaches away from the claim limitation because the primary reference Babbush et al. (US 20210174236, hereinafter ‘Bab’) taches away from the claimed inventions by alleging:
Babbush Operates in a Fundamentally Different Regime and Teaches Away from the Claims
Even if the Examiner were to maintain that Babbush teaches converting a first quantum circuit to a target state description (Step A)-which Applicant disputes-the rejection still fails because Babbush fails to disclose the subsequent steps of "(B) generating a description of a parametrized circuit... and (C) adjusting... to produce a quantum evolution to a state approximating the target state." Furthermore, Babbush expressly teaches away from the claimed use of parameterized circuits.
The Office Action maps Babbush's "analog evolutions" to the claimed "parametrized circuit" [Office Action, Page 25]. This mapping is factually incorrect. Babbush describes a system for "training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls" that operates by tuning "fundamental hardware elements, such as control knobs" to create continuous analog pulses (Babbush 1:17-20). This is a method of direct physical pulse shaping, not the generation and adjustment of a distinct "parametrized circuit" (e.g., a sequence of logical gates with adjustable parameters) as required by the claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that abandoning digital quantum gates is a distinct technological regime from discrete parameterized quantum circuits (ansatzes). Because Babbush lacks the specific structural element of a "parametrized circuit," it fails to teach claim elements (B) and (C).
Moreover, not only does Babbush fail to use parameterized circuits, it explicitly disparages them and teaches away from their use. Babbush states that its system operates "without using a parameterized digital quantum circuit" (Babbush 3:37-40, emphasis added). Babbush explicitly contrasts its approach with circuit-based methods, stating that it "may abandon the concept of digital quantum gates in favour of adjustable analog evolutions" (Babbush 3:42-45, emphasis added). A reference that explicitly "abandons" and operates "without" the claimed element cannot be cited to teach that element. Babbush leads one of ordinary skill in the art away from the claimed invention by advocating for the removal of the very component (the parameterized circuit) that the claims require.
Because Babbush expressly "abandons" the concept of digital quantum gates and
operates "without" a parameterized digital quantum circuit, it cannot teach or suggest generating and adjusting such a circuit as required by Claims 1(B) and 1(C). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that an analog control method that eschews circuit parameterization is in a different technological regime than the claimed method.
Examiner notes that the reference does not reach the level of the allegations of abandoning the concept of using a parameterized quantum circuit. The MPEP 2143.01(I): discloses:
PRIOR ART SUGGESTION OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION NOT NECESSARILY NEGATED BY DESIRABLE ALTERNATIVES
The disclosure of desirable alternatives does not necessarily negate a suggestion for modifying the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. In In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the claims of a utility patent application were directed to a shoe sole with increased traction having hexagonal projections in a "facing orientation." 391 F.3d at 1196-97, 73 USPQ2d at 1142. The Board combined a design patent having hexagonal projections in a facing orientation with a utility patent having other limitations of the independent claim. 391 F.3d at 1199, 73 USPQ2d at 1144. Applicant argued that the combination was improper because (1) the prior art did not suggest having the hexagonal projections in a facing (as opposed to a "pointing") orientation was the "most desirable" configuration for the projections, and (2) the prior art "taught away" by showing desirability of the "pointing orientation." 391 F.3d at 1200-01, 73 USPQ2d at 1145-46. The court stated that "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." Id. In affirming the Board’s obviousness rejection, the court held that the prior art as a whole suggested the desirability of the combination of shoe sole limitations claimed, thus providing a motivation to combine, which need not be supported by a finding that the prior art suggested that the combination claimed by the applicant was the preferred, or most desirable combination over the other alternatives. Id. See also In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1244, 117 USPQ2d 1499, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2016)… (emphasis added)
Bab provides an explanation regarding merely highlights an alternative and more desirable approach to parametrize quantum circuits using a classical processor. Bab teaches a system that parameterized a quantum circuit that is more desirable by highlighting a system training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls that does not require precise knowledge of an effective circuit and performs an overall mapping that is agnostic to systematic errors and robust to many control and calibration problems unlike less desirable parameterized digital quantum circuit , in 3:37-53:
A system training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls adaptively trains quantum evolutions to realize target quantum states with target characteristics without using a parameterized digital quantum circuit, thus reducing the experimental complexity of the system since such quantum circuits may be very complicated to implement. Rather, a system training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls may abandon the concept of digital quantum gates in favour of adjustable analog evolutions defined using control parameters typically reserved for the calibration of individual gates, unlike other quantum evolution training systems. By operating at the level of fundamental hardware elements, a system training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls does not require precise knowledge of an effective circuit and rather performs an overall mapping that is agnostic to systematic errors and robust to many control and calibration problems. (emphasis added)
The examiner poses the question to the applicant: How can Bab abandon all uses/types of parametrized circuits when Bab clearly discloses the system using sublogical controls parametrized the operations, that is considered a parametrized circuit using the natural control parameters of a quantum system, in 3:17-22: “A system training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls parameterizes quantum evolution using the natural control parameters of a quantum system by performing variational minimization procedures by directly adjusting control parameters of control devices included in the system, e.g., by adjusting a voltage on a digital to analog converter.” (emphasis added) And as depicted in Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image5.png
550
712
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that Bah teaches that the classical processor controlling the parameters and operators of the quantum hardware systems to model and observe quantum target states, this hybrid computing framework, like all other depends on the use of parametrized quantum circuits to facilitate the disclosed hybrid computing operations: In 6:55-7:64: FIG. 1 depicts an example quantum evolution training system 100. The example system 100 is an example of a system implemented as classical or quantum computer programs on one or more classical computers or quantum computing devices in one or more locations, in which the systems, components, and techniques described below can be implemented. The quantum evolution training system 100 may include quantum hardware 102 in data communication with a classical processor 104. The quantum evolution training system 100 may receive as input data that may include data specifying one or more quantum system observables and one or more target quantum states, for example quantum states with corresponding target characteristics, e.g., observables and target characteristics 106. The evolution training system 100 may generate as output data specifying one or more target quantum states, e.g., target quantum state 110… The one or more control devices 114 may be configured to operate on the multi-level quantum subsystems 112 through one or more respective control parameters 118, e.g., one or more physical control parameters. For example, in some implementations the multi-level quantum subsystems may be superconducting qubits and the control devices 114 may include one or more digital to analog converter (DACs) with respective voltage physical control parameters. In other implementations the quantum system 112 may include a quantum circuit and the control devices 114 may include one or more quantum logic gates that operate on the quantum system 112 through microwave pulse physical control parameters that are sent through wires included in the quantum hardware 102. Further examples of control devices include arbitrary waveform generators, which may create signals that a DAC controls. The control parameters may include qubit frequencies. The data specifying an ansatz 116 includes a set of parameters 118 and is chosen based on knowledge of the quantum system 112 and the control devices 114 that act on the quantum system 112. For example, the ansatz 116 may be a variational ansatz that uses information about the quantum hardware 102, such as the control devices 114 and their respective control parameters 118, to determine a parameterization for the state of the quantum system 112. In some implementations the quantum hardware 102 is directly used to parameterize the ansatz 116 that is the variational class of parameters that form the variational ansatz 116 may include the sublogical, physical control parameters of the control devices 114… (emphasis added)
Bab, when taken if full context, discloses a more desirable approach to parameterize a quantum circuit as highlighted, thus, the recitation does not rise to level of excludes all parameterized circuits as this is a fundament element in initiating quantum circuits with classical systems/processors.
Applicant has merely relied on the use of the term “without” to prop-up allegations of states taken out of context.
Examiner, further notes that for the record, Bab suggests that systems such as the ones claimed by the applicant, to include any parameterized circuits, include the types that suspectable to noise, in 3:54-4:8 and do not in fact reflect the alleged improvement purported in the remarks made by applicant regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101. Bab suggests that mere use of parameterized circuits without other considerations are not sufficient to address error resulting from noise coupling with the system.
The applicant has failed to establish that the teaches of Bab abandon and teach away from all typed/mechanisms for achieving and using a parametrized quantum circuit.
The Bab reference teaches claimed parameterize circuit as the use of control parameters to update and control operation in the hybrid quantum computing system depicted in Fig.1 where the claims do not expressly excluded the disclosed parameterized circuit disclosed in the primary reference.
The applicant must amend the claims to be appropriate in scope with the alleged scope of the claimed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Thus, the rejection made in the previous rejection is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP 2111 discloses the guidance for claim interpretation during the examination process. Specifically the it notes:
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
… 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-01.2024] …
I. THE WORDS OF A CLAIM MUST BE GIVEN THEIR "PLAIN MEANING" UNLESS SUCH MEANING IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SPECIFICATION
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ("[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’" (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context…
IV. APPLICANT MAY BE OWN LEXICOGRAPHER AND/OR MAY DISAVOW CLAIM SCOPE
The only exceptions to giving the words in a claim their ordinary and customary meaning in the art are (1) when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer; and (2) when the applicant disavows or disclaims the full scope of a claim term in the specification. To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002)…
A. Lexicography
An applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time…
The examiner highlights the following terms that have been given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) and/or plain meaning as customary to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner relies on the Background section of the reference Benchasattabuse (NPL: "Quantum comparator circuit on superconducting quantum computer." (2019)) and Zhu et al. (NPL: Training of quantum circuits on a hybrid quantum computer), that captures the noted customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time
Quantum Circuit:
a framework in computer science that is used to evaluate the computational resources used in a quantum algorithm for modeling the causal relationship in quantum physics as connected qubit registers and quantum gate operators; wherein the qubit registers are represented by wires to model the state of qubit evolution according to a sequence of gates that define the quantum circuit; See Chiribella et al. (NPL: Beyond quantum computers) and the gates model matrix operations as noted below; See Background section of the reference Benchasattabuse NPL: "Quantum comparator circuit on superconducting quantum computer." (2019).
Parameterized circuit: any operational element/object that is controlled/modeled with a corresponding parameter. Or a quantum circuit that incorporates a tunable parameter
adiabatic evolution: is the slow, continuous change of a quantum system such that it remains in its instantaneous eigenstate of the time-dependent Hamiltonian.
Quantum bits (i.e. qbit or qubit):
are considered element that can hold the value 0 and 1 at the same time described using equation
PNG
media_image6.png
36
212
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where the value of the bit when observed (or measured) collapsed to a state of 0 or 1;
can also be interpreted as an element for carrying information associated with a quantum process/system/algorithm that can be observed or measured.
Quantum gate:
not a physical gate line in a classical computer but refers model representation used to describe matrix operations in quantum computed as noted in the following examples:
PNG
media_image7.png
116
666
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
226
796
media_image8.png
Greyscale
A qubit/qbit is considered a wire carrying information in a quantum circuit/system
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.
Claim 10 and 22 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 claims 10 and 22, the claim recites the phrase “time-independent interaction” that renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill will be not be able to ascertain the intended scope of the claimed inventions. The phrase “adiabatic evolution” refers to change over time and the claims appear to recite conflicting requirements by requiring evolutions under time-independent interactions. How does a evolution occur outside of a time change meaning without time as the claim limitations suggests. The specification merely repeats claim language and provides no insight as to what the intended scope of the claim limitations that would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the claims are rendered indefinite.
The examiner interprets any evolution process as within the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specification, the original disclosure fails to provide sufficient recitation to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the invention as claimed (i.e. discretizing the adiabatic evolution into a plurality of segments of evolution under time-independent interactions) was described to provide for example disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or recitations describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention, see MPEP 2163.02.
The claim limitation and specification merely mirror each other without provided sufficient descriptions identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention, also see rejection under 112-b above. Thus the claims are rejected for lacking written description support.
MPEP 2163.02 discloses “…Whenever the issue arises, the fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, inventor was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was "ready for patenting" such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by "whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it"). The subject matter of the claim need not be described literally (i.e., using the same terms or in haec verba) in order for the disclosure to satisfy the description requirement. If a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application was filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application. This conclusion will result in the rejection of the claims affected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, first paragraph - description requirement, or denial of the benefit of the filing date of a previously filed application, as appropriate.”
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: A method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
… , converting a description of a first quantum circuit to a description of a target state of a physical system; … generating a description of a parametrized circuit having a plurality of parameters with a plurality of initial values; … adjusting the plurality of initial values to produce a plurality of adjusted values…, (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making evaluations and judgements of observations for formulating observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed; see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
the hybrid quantum-classical computer comprising a classical computer and a quantum computer, the method comprising: (A) on the classical computer, …; (B) on the classical computer, generating…; (C) on the hybrid quantum-classical computer, adjusting …; … the adjusted quantum circuit being adapted to produce a quantum evolution to a state approximating the target state of the physical system. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
… a description of a first quantum circuit… a description of a target state of a physical system; … a parametrized circuit having a plurality of parameters with a plurality of initial values…; …adjusted values in an adjusted quantum circuit (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
First, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform the claimed process/judicial exception.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: method
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein (C) comprises performing the adjusting on the classical computer. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements that serve as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: method
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein (C) comprises performing the adjusting on the quantum computer. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements that serve as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: method
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
further comprising: (D) on the quantum computer, executing the adjusted quantum circuit to produce the quantum evolution to the state approximating the target state of the physical system. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements that serve as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: method
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the adjusted quantum circuit is adapted to produce a quantum evolution to the target state of the physical system. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements that serve as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: method
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Recites the abstract idea of claim 4.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
further comprising: (E) on the quantum computer, executing the adjusted quantum circuit to produce the quantum evolution to the target state of the physical system. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements that serve as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: method
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein adjusting the initial values of the plurality of parameters to produce a quantum evolution comprises optimizing the plurality of parameters … with respect to an objective function, … (C)(3) estimating the objective function … using the measurement outcomes to produce an objective function estimate; and (C)(4) adjusting the plurality of initial values based on the objective function estimate. (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making evaluations and judgements of observations for formulating observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
… parameters of the parametrized circuit with … measurement outcomes, resulting from executing the parametrized circuit, on the quantum computer; (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
… the optimizing comprising: (C)(1) executing the parametrized circuit on the quantum computer; … measurement outcomes, resulting from executing the parametrized circuit, on the quantum computer; …estimating … on the classical computer …; (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Thus claim limitations amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
(C)(2) collecting measurement outcomes, (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements that serve as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool.
Secondly, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink."
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: method
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Recites the abstract idea of claim 7.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
further comprising repeating (C)(1)-(C)(4) until the adjusted quantum circuit is adapted to produce the quantum evolution to the state approximating the target state of the physical system. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity, e.g. Performing repetitive calculations)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and elements that serve as mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer/computing environment as a tool.
Secondly, the limitations directed to insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to insignificant solution activity for as noted above. The courts have deemed these types of activity as well-known routine and convectional, see evidences noted below:
Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.")
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: method
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Recites the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the physical system comprises interacting spins occupying a two-dimensional lattice. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: method
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
and wherein converting the description of the quantum circuit to the description of a parametrized circuit comprises: (B)(1) discretizing the adiabatic evolution into a plurality of segments of evolution under time-independent interactions; and (B)(2) defining a duration of each of the plurality of segments as a corresponding one of the plurality of parameters, thereby defining the plurality of parameters. (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making evaluations and judgements of observations for formulating observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed)
(B)(1) discretizing the adiabatic evolution into a plurality of segments of evolution under time-independent interactions; (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships as claimed, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I)
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the quantum evolution comprises an adiabatic evolution, …(Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: method
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein adjusting the plurality of initial values comprises: (C)(1) taking a discrete Fourier transform of the plurality of initial values to produce a plurality of Fourier coefficients of the plurality of parameters; and (C)(2) adjusting the plurality of Fourier coefficients of the plurality of parameters to produce the plurality of adjusted values. (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships as claimed, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I)
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes: method
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein generating the description of the parametrized circuit comprises converting the description of the quantum circuit into the description of the parametrized circuit. (Considered directed to a Mental Process: Making evaluations and judgements of observations for formulating observations, evaluations and judgements as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
… description of the quantum circuit into the description of the parametrized circuit.
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
Specifically, the additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 13-24 directed to a computer product, the claims are similar to claims 1-12 and are rejected under similar rationale.
As shown above, claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as "significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
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 1-9, 12, 13-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbush et al. (US 20210174236, hereinafter ‘Bab’) in view of Zeng et al. (US 20180260731, hereinafter ‘Zeng’).
Regarding independent claim 1, Bab teaches a method of executing quantum computation on a hybrid computer, the hybrid quantum-classical computer comprising a classical computer and a quantum computer, the method comprising: (As depicted in Fig. 1:
PNG
media_image9.png
702
912
media_image9.png
Greyscale
)
(A) on the classical computer, converting a description of a first quantum circuit to a description of a target state of a physical system; (As depicted in Fig. 1 and in 7:24-50: The one or more control devices 114 may be configured to operate on the multi-level quantum subsystems 112 through one or more respective control parameters 118, e.g., one or more physical control parameters. For example, in some implementations the multi-level quantum subsystems may be superconducting qubits and the control devices 114 may include one or more digital to analog converter (DACs) [on the classical computer, converting a description of a first quantum circuit to a description of a target state of a physical system] with respective voltage physical control parameters [description of a first quantum circuit to a description of a target state of a physical system]... Further examples of control devices include arbitrary waveform generators, which may create signals that a DAC controls. The control parameters may include qubit frequencies.; And in 8:13-26: The classical processors 104 [on the classical computer, converting a description of a first quantum circuit to a description of a target state of a physical system] may be configured to initialize the quantum system 112 in an initial quantum state, e.g., by sending data to the quantum hardware 102 specifying an initial set of parameters, and to iteratively train analog evolutions of the initial quantum state and subsequent quantum states to realize the target quantum state 100 with the target characteristics 106 [on the classical computer, converting a description of a first quantum circuit to a description of a target state of a physical system]. The classical processors may be configured to iteratively train analog evolutions of the initial quantum state until the occurrence of a completion event, e.g., until received measurement results 108 converge. The classical processors 104 may determine that a completion event has occurred and provide the target quantum state 110 with defined target characteristics 106 for experimental probing, as described above.)
(B) on the classical computer, generating a description of a parametrized circuit having a plurality of parameters with a plurality of initial values; (in 8:12-26: The classical processors 104 may be configured to initialize the quantum system 112 in an initial quantum state, e.g., by sending data to the quantum hardware 102 specifying an initial set of parameters [on the classical computer, generating a description of a parametrized circuit having a plurality of parameters with a plurality of initial values], and to iteratively train analog evolutions of the initial quantum state and subsequent quantum states to realize the target quantum state 100 with the target characteristics 106. The classical processors may be configured to iteratively train analog evolutions of the initial quantum state until the occurrence of a completion event, e.g., until received measurement results 108 converge. The classical processors 104 may determine that a completion event has occurred and provide the target quantum state 110 with defined target characteristics 106 for experimental probing, as described above.)
(C) on the hybrid quantum-classical computer, adjusting the plurality of initial values to produce a plurality of adjusted values in an adjusted quantum circuit, the adjusted quantum circuit being adapted to produce a quantum evolution to a state approximating the target state of the physical system. (in 8:53-9:3: The classical processors 104 may be further configured to calibrate one or more quantum gates that may be included in the quantum hardware 102. For example, the classical processors may be configured to define a correct action of a quantum gate on the quantum system 112, perform or initiate a measurement of the quantum system 112 to determine the action of the quantum gate on the quantum system 112 and in response to determining that the action of the quantum gate on the quantum system is not correct, adjust the corresponding physical control parameters [on the hybrid quantum-classical computer, adjusting the plurality of initial values to produce a plurality of adjusted values in an adjusted quantum circuit] for the quantum gate and provide the adjusted updated physical control parameters 120 to the quantum hardware 102 [the adjusted quantum circuit being adapted to produce a quantum evolution to a state approximating the target state of the physical system]. In some implementations the classical processor may be configured to iteratively train analog evolutions of the a quantum state to realize a target quantum state [the adjusted quantum circuit being adapted to produce a quantum evolution to a state approximating the target state of the physical system] with target characteristics by combining iterative training of analog evolutions of the initial quantum state and subsequent quantum states with gate calibration techniques.)
While one of ordinary skill in the art would ascertain that the system comprising a classical processor and quantum hardware disclosed by Bab as applicants claimed hybrid quantum-classical computer comprising a classical computer and a quantum computer, Bab does not expressly disclose the claimed term hybrid quantum-classical computer.
Zeng does expressly disclose the claimed term hybrid quantum-classical computer, in [0027] The quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA) is an example of a hybrid quantum-classical algorithm. For example, the QAOA may be executed in a quantum computing system or a hybrid quantum-classical computing system [hybrid quantum-classical computer comprising a classical computer and a quantum computer] that includes a quantum processor and one or more classical processors. For instance, the QAOA may be executed in the quantum computing system 100 shown in FIG. 1…
Zeng and Bab are analogous art because both involve developing information retrieval and processing using classical and quantum processing models and techniques.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the prior art for developing information retrieval processing techniques for enabling/performing quantum approximate optimization as disclosed by Zeng with the method of developing systems and techniques to prepare and study the states of physically interesting systems as disclosed by Bab.
One of ordinary skill in the arts would have been motivated to combine the disclosed methods disclosed by Zeng and Bab noted above because doing enables systems that can operate more efficiently for certain problems, for instance, by reducing computational overhead and by providing faster quantum logic operations., (Zeng, 0013).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bab in combination with Zeng further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein (C) comprises performing the adjusting on the classical computer. (in 8:53-9:3: The classical processors 104 [wherein (C) comprises performing the adjusting on the classical computer] may be further configured to calibrate one or more quantum gates that may be included in the quantum hardware 102. For example, the classical processors may be configured to define a correct action of a quantum gate on the quantum system 112, perform or initiate a measurement of the quantum system 112 to determine the action of the quantum gate on the quantum system 112 and in response to determining that the action of the quantum gate on the quantum system is not correct, adjust the corresponding physical control parameters for the quantum gate and provide the adjusted updated physical control parameters 120 to the quantum hardware 102. In some implementations the classical processor [wherein (C) comprises performing the adjusting on the classical computer] may be configured to iteratively train analog evolutions of the a quantum state to realize a target quantum state with target characteristics by combining iterative training of analog evolutions of the initial quantum state and subsequent quantum states with gate calibration techniques. And in 12:23-47: The quantum evolution training system minimizes the value of the cost function to determine updated values of the control parameters (step 304). In some implementations the quantum evolution training system [wherein (C) comprises performing the adjusting on the classical computer] minimizes the value of the cost function to determine updated values of the control parameters by adjusting the control parameters, e.g., adjusting physical control parameters. For example, the parameters that determine a pulse shape that may induce local fields on particular qubits may be adjusted by changing corresponding pixels on a voltage DAC. As another example, when the quantum hardware includes an ion trap the qubits may be controlled using lasers, and the parameters that determine a laser pulse shape or intensity may be adjusted…)
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bab in combination with Zeng further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein (C) comprises performing the adjusting on the quantum computer. (in 8:53-9:3: …For example, the classical processors may be configured to define a correct action of a quantum gate on the quantum system 112, perform or initiate a measurement of the quantum system 112 to determine the action of the quantum gate on the quantum system 112 and in response to determining that the action of the quantum gate on the quantum system is not correct, adjust the corresponding physical control parameters for the quantum gate and provide the adjusted updated physical control parameters 120 to the quantum hardware 102. In some implementations the classical processor may be configured to iteratively train analog evolutions [wherein (C) comprises performing the adjusting on the quantum computer] of the a quantum state to realize a target quantum state with target characteristics by combining iterative training of analog evolutions of the initial quantum state and subsequent quantum states with gate calibration techniques.; And in 12:23-47: The quantum evolution training system minimizes the value of the cost function to determine updated values of the control parameters (step 304). In some implementations the quantum evolution training system [wherein (C) comprises performing the adjusting on the quantum computer] minimizes the value of the cost function to determine updated values of the control parameters by adjusting the control parameters, e.g., adjusting physical control parameters. For example, the parameters that determine a pulse shape that may induce local fields on particular qubits may be adjusted by changing corresponding pixels on a voltage DAC. As another example, when the quantum hardware includes an ion trap the qubits may be controlled using lasers, and the parameters that determine a laser pulse shape or intensity may be adjusted…)
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bab in combination with Zeng further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: (D) on the quantum computer, executing the adjusted quantum circuit to produce the quantum evolution to the state approximating the target state of the physical system. (1:15-22: This specification describes technologies for training quantum evolutions of an initial quantum state to realize a target quantum state with defined target characteristics. The quantum evolutions of the initial quantum state are trained using adjustable analogue evolutions [on the quantum computer, executing the adjusted quantum circuit to produce the quantum evolution to the state approximating the target state of the physical system] defined through the tuning of fundamental hardware elements, such as control knobs that may typically be used to calibrate individual quantum gates. And in 3:37-42: A system training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls adaptively trains quantum evolutions to realize target quantum states with target characteristics without using a parameterized digital quantum circuit,…; 8:53-9:3: The classical processors 104 may be further configured to calibrate one or more quantum gates that may be included in the quantum hardware 102 [on the quantum computer, executing the adjusted quantum circuit to produce the quantum evolution to the state approximating the target state of the physical system]. For example, the classical processors may be configured to define a correct action of a quantum gate on the quantum system 112, perform or initiate a measurement of the quantum system 112 to determine the action of the quantum gate on the quantum system 112 and in response to determining that the action of the quantum gate on the quantum system is not correct, adjust the corresponding physical control parameters for the quantum gate and provide the adjusted updated physical control parameters 120 to the quantum hardware 102 [on the quantum computer, executing the adjusted quantum circuit to produce the quantum evolution to the state approximating the target state of the physical system]. In some implementations the classical processor may be configured to iteratively train analog evolutions of the a quantum state to realize a target quantum state [on the quantum computer, executing the adjusted quantum circuit to produce the quantum evolution to the state approximating the target state of the physical system] with target characteristics by combining iterative training of analog evolutions of the initial quantum state and subsequent quantum states with gate calibration techniques.)
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bab in combination with Zeng further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the adjusted quantum circuit is adapted to produce a quantum evolution to the target state of the physical system. (in 3:17-32: A system training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls parameterizes quantum evolution [wherein the adjusted quantum circuit is adapted to produce a quantum evolution to the target state of the physical system] using the natural control parameters of a quantum system by performing variational minimization procedures by directly adjusting control parameters of control devices included [wherein the adjusted quantum circuit is adapted to produce a quantum evolution to the target state of the physical system] in the system, e.g., by adjusting a voltage on a digital to analog converter. By exploiting low level control to parameterize an ansatz, a system training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls is able to eschew precise knowledge of an effective circuit in exchange for an overall mapping that is agnostic to systematic errors and robust to many control and calibration problems, as opposed to systems that train quantum evolutions using adjustable quantum gates. Furthermore, using low level controls may allow for a fundamentally more accurate representation of a desired state, since an increase in control over the evolution of the state is achieved. )
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and Bab in combination with Zeng further teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising: (E) on the quantum computer, executing the adjusted quantum circuit to produce the quantum evolution to the target state of the physical system. (3:36-48: A system training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls adaptively trains quantum evolutions to realize target quantum states [further comprising: (E) on the quantum computer, executing the adjusted quantum circuit to produce the quantum evolution to the target state of the physical system] with target characteristics without using a parameterized digital quantum circuit, thus reducing the experimental complexity of the system since such quantum circuits may be very complicated to implement. Rather, a system training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls may abandon the concept of digital quantum gates in favour of adjustable analog evolutions [further comprising: (E) on the quantum computer, executing the adjusted quantum circuit to produce the quantum evolution to the target state of the physical system] defined using control parameters typically reserved for the calibration of individual gates, unlike other quantum evolution training systems…)
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bab in combination with Zeng further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the initial values of the plurality of parameters to produce a quantum evolution comprises optimizing the plurality of parameters of the parametrized circuit with respect to an objective function, (in 8:27-41: The classical processors 104 may further be configured to determine a value of a cost function that is based on a quantum state of the quantum system 112 and one or more of the system observables 106 and to minimize the value of the cost function [wherein adjusting the initial values of the plurality of parameters to produce a quantum evolution comprises optimizing the plurality of parameters of the parametrized circuit with respect to an objective function as the cost function] to determine updated values of the physical control parameters 120. For example, the classical processors may be configured to perform minimization methods such as gradient-free minimization methods including Powell's method or Nelder-Mead [wherein adjusting the initial values of the plurality of parameters to produce a quantum evolution comprises optimizing the plurality of parameters of the parametrized circuit with respect to an objective function as the methods including Powell's method or Nelder-Mead]. In some implementations the value of the cost function that is based on the quantum state of the quantum system 112 and one or more of the system observables 106 is an expectation value of the quantum state and the system observables: And in 10:59-11:33: FIG. 3 is a flowchart of an example process 300 for training analog evolutions of a quantum state. For example, the process 300 may describe an iteration of training evolutions of an initial quantum state and subsequent quantum states to realize a target quantum state, as described above at step 208 of FIG. 2. For convenience, the process 300 will be described as being performed by one or more computing devices located in one or more locations. For example, a quantum evolution training system, e.g., the quantum evolution training system 100 of FIG. 1, appropriately programmed in accordance with this specification, can perform the process 300…In some implementations the value of the cost function that is based on a quantum state and one or more system observables may not be an expectation value of the quantum state and a system Hamiltonian but rather a minimum value of an objective function [wherein adjusting the initial values of the plurality of parameters to produce a quantum evolution comprises optimizing the plurality of parameters of the parametrized circuit with respect to an objective function] defined by another observable of the quantum system )
the optimizing comprising: (C)(1) executing the parametrized circuit on the quantum computer; (C)(2) collecting measurement outcomes, resulting from executing the parametrized circuit, on the quantum computer; (C)(3) estimating the objective function on the classical computer using the measurement outcomes to produce an objective function estimate; (in 8:12-26: The classical processors 104 may be configured to initialize the quantum system 112 in an initial quantum state, e.g., by sending data to the quantum hardware 102 specifying an initial set of parameters [the optimizing comprising: (C)(1) executing the parametrized circuit on the quantum computer], and to iteratively train analog evolutions [the optimizing comprising: (C)(1) executing the parametrized circuit on the quantum computer; (C)(2) collecting measurement outcomes, resulting from executing the parametrized circuit, on the quantum computer; ] of the initial quantum state and subsequent quantum states to realize the target quantum state 100 with the target characteristics 106. …; And in 9:26-42: The quantum hardware may include a quantum circuit which, in turn, may include one or more quantum logic gates that operate on the quantum system through one or more respective control parameters [the optimizing comprising: (C)(1) executing the parametrized circuit on the quantum computer]. In some implementations the system may calibrate one or more of the quantum logic gates [[the optimizing comprising: (C)(1) executing the parametrized circuit on the quantum computer] included in the quantum hardware using the control devices. For example, for each quantum gate that is to be calibrated, the system may define a correct action of the quantum gate on the quantum system and perform a measurement [(C)(3) estimating the objective function on the classical computer using the measurement outcomes to produce an objective function estimate] to determine the action of the quantum gate on the quantum system [(C)(2) collecting measurement outcomes, resulting from executing the parametrized circuit, on the quantum computer]. In response to determining that the action of the quantum gate on the quantum system is not correct, the system may adjust the corresponding control parameters for the quantum gate [the optimizing comprising: (C)(1) executing the parametrized circuit on the quantum computer]. In some implementations the system may combine the process 200 with quantum gate calibration techniques, e.g., when the quantum hardware includes advanced architecture.)
and (C)(4) adjusting the plurality of initial values based on the objective function estimate. (in Claim 1: … wherein the one or more physical control parameters form a parameterization that defines states of the quantum system; initializing the quantum system in an initial quantum state, wherein an initial set of values of the physical control parameters specify the initial quantum state; obtaining one or more quantum system observables and one or more target quantum states, wherein the one or more target quantum states are defined by the application of one or more respective parameterized digital quantum circuits to the initial quantum state; and adjusting the physical control parameters to iteratively train [adjusting the plurality of initial values based on the objective function estimate], until an occurrence of a completion event, evolutions of the initial parameterized quantum state and subsequent parameterized quantum states [adjusting the plurality of initial values based on the objective function estimate] to realize the one or more target quantum states, wherein the adjusting is agnostic to parameter values of the respective parameterized digital quantum circuits.; And in in 8:27-41: The classical processors 104 may further be configured to determine a value of a cost function that is based on a quantum state of the quantum system 112 and one or more of the system observables 106 and to minimize the value of the cost function [adjusting the plurality of initial values based on the objective function estimate as the cost function] to determine updated values of the physical control parameters 120. For example, the classical processors may be configured to perform minimization methods such as gradient-free minimization methods including Powell's method or Nelder-Mead [adjusting the plurality of initial values based on the objective function estimate as the methods including Powell's method or Nelder-Mead]… And in 10:59-11:33: FIG. 3 is a flowchart of an example process 300 for training analog evolutions of a quantum state. For example, the process 300 may describe an iteration of training evolutions of an initial quantum state and subsequent quantum states to realize a target quantum state,…In some implementations the value of the cost function that is based on a quantum state and one or more system observables may not be an expectation value of the quantum state and a system Hamiltonian but rather a minimum value of an objective function [adjusting the plurality of initial values based on the objective function estimate] defined by another observable of the quantum system )
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated and Bab in combination with Zeng further teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising repeating (C)(1)-(C)(4) until the adjusted quantum circuit is adapted to produce the quantum evolution to the state approximating the target state of the physical system. (in 11:65-12:13: This optimization may be performed using quantum evolutions [further comprising repeating (C)(1)-(C)(4) until the adjusted quantum circuit is adapted to produce the quantum evolution to the state approximating the target state of the physical system] that are trained with sublogical controls, e.g., using processes 200 and 300. For example, at step 204 of process 200 the corresponding quantum hardware may be initialized in a state that encodes one of the x.sub.i, denoted for example by |ϕ.sub.icustom character, and F may be defined as an observable of the output state U({right arrow over (θ)})|ϕ.sub.icustom character, where U({right arrow over (θ)}) is the training objective which may be computed by using the quantum circuit to classify each of the x.sub.i. The value of the cost function that is to be minimized may therefore be given by custom characterϕ.sub.i|U.sup.†({right arrow over (θ)})FU({right arrow over (θ)})|ϕ.sub.icustom character. The margin, loss and empirical risk may then be computed using standard techniques. Once a cost function is defined, a process for training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls may be used to find a quantum state which minimizes the defined cost function [further comprising repeating (C)(1)-(C)(4) until the adjusted quantum circuit is adapted to produce the quantum evolution to the state approximating the target state of the physical system]; And in 8:53-9:3: The classical processors 104 may be further configured to calibrate one or more quantum gates that may be included in the quantum hardware 102. For example, the classical processors may be configured to define a correct action of a quantum gate on the quantum system 112, perform or initiate a measurement of the quantum system 112 to determine the action of the quantum gate on the quantum system 112 and in response to determining that the action of the quantum gate on the quantum system is not correct, adjust the corresponding physical control parameters for the quantum gate and provide the adjusted updated physical control parameters 120 to the quantum hardware 102. In some implementations the classical processor may be configured to iteratively train analog evolutions of the a quantum state to realize a target quantum state with target characteristics by combining iterative training [further comprising repeating (C)(1)-(C)(4) until the adjusted quantum circuit is adapted to produce the quantum evolution to the state approximating the target state of the physical system] of analog evolutions of the initial quantum state and subsequent quantum states with gate calibration techniques.)
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. While Bad teaches claimed spin as qubits, in 7:17-30: The quantum hardware 102 may include a quantum system 112, control devices 114 and data specifying an ansatz 116. The quantum system 112 may include one or more multi-level quantum subsystems, e.g., qubits or qudits [wherein the physical system comprises interacting spins]. In some implementations the multi-level quantum subsystems may be superconducting qubits, e.g., Gmon qubits. The type of multi-level quantum subsystems that the system 100 utilizes is dependent on the application in which the system 100 is applied to. For example, in some cases it may be convenient to include one or more resonators attached to one or more superconducting qubits, e.g., Gmon or Xmon qubits. In other cases ion traps, photonic devices or superconducting cavities (with which states may be prepared without requiring qubits) may be used…
Zeng further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the physical system comprises interacting spins occupying a two-dimensional lattice. (in [0031] FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing an example quantum information processor 200. The example quantum information processor 200 includes a two-dimensional device array [wherein the physical system comprises interacting spins occupying a two-dimensional lattice], which includes qubit devices 204 arranged in a lattice structure [wherein the physical system comprises interacting spins occupying a two-dimensional lattice]. Sixteen qubit devices are shown in FIG. 2. The example quantum information processor 200 may include additional devices; for example, the lattice structure may include additional rows or columns of qubit devices, coupler devices arranged between neighboring pairs of the qubit devices, readout devices arranged in proximity to the qubit devices, or a combination of these.; And in [0057] At 704, a quantum processor designed to have connections based on the graph structure is provided. The connections in the quantum processor connect respective pairs of qubit devices in the quantum processor, and each connection is configured to provide a coupling between the pair of qubit devices that it connects. In some examples, the quantum processor is or includes a superconducting quantum circuit, the qubit devices in the quantum processor are superconducting qubit devices (e.g., transmon qubit devices, fluxonium qubit devices, or others), and the connections between the pairs of qubit devices are capacitive connections. Or another type of quantum processor may be provided at 704. For example, the quantum processor may include other types of qubit devices (e.g., spin qubits, trapped ion qubits, etc.) having other types of connections (e.g., chemical bonds, optical connections, etc.) [wherein the physical system comprises interacting spins occupying a two-dimensional lattice]…)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Bab and Zeng for the same reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bab in combination with Zeng further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the description of the parametrized circuit comprises converting the description of the quantum circuit into the description of the parametrized circuit. (in 3:54-4:8: Digital quantum circuits may consist of quantum logic gates that execute precise operations on qubits, or in some examples qudits. In many settings quantum logic gate model algorithms [wherein generating the description of the parametrized circuit comprises converting the description of the quantum circuit into the description of the parametrized circuit] specify a quantum circuit and require an experimentalist to execute the specified quantum circuit with minimal error [wherein generating the description of the parametrized circuit comprises converting the description of the quantum circuit into the description of the parametrized circuit]. This may be a challenging task, since the implementation of a quantum logic gate model algorithm may require many quantum logic gates. Scalable computations based on the quantum logic gate model may therefore require costly processes, such as quantum error correction. Furthermore, each gate in the circuit must be calibrated prior to execution. Systems that do not train quantum evolutions using sublogical controls may calibrate quantum gates by carefully adjusting hardware control parameters and performing a classical minimization loop to perfect each individual gate. Thus, a great amount of effort may be required in order to apply a quantum circuit, which in any case will not be error free…;And in 7:34-50: The one or more control devices 114 may be configured to operate on the multi-level quantum subsystems 112 through one or more respective control parameters 118, e.g., one or more physical control parameters. For example, in some implementations the multi-level quantum subsystems may be superconducting qubits and the control devices 114 may include one or more digital to analog converter (DACs) with respective voltage physical control parameters. In other implementations the quantum system 112 may include a quantum circuit [wherein generating the description of the parametrized circuit comprises converting the description of the quantum circuit into the description of the parametrized circuit] and the control devices 114 may include one or more quantum logic gates that operate on the quantum system 112 through microwave pulse physical control parameters that are sent through wires included in the quantum hardware 102. Further examples of control devices include arbitrary waveform generators, which may create signals that a DAC controls. The control parameters may include qubit frequencies.)
Regarding claims 13-21 and 24, the claims are similar to claims 1-9 and 12 are rejected under similar rationale. Additionally, Bab in combination with Zeng teaches a hybrid quantum-classical computer comprising: a classical computer comprising at least one processor and at least one non- transitory computer-readable medium having computer program instructions stored thereon; (As depicted in Fig. 1 and in 12:1-18: Implementations of the digital and/or quantum subject matter described in this specification can be implemented as one or more digital and/or quantum computer programs, i.e., one or more modules of digital and/or quantum computer program instructions encoded on a tangible non-transitory storage medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus…)
Claims 10-11 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbush et al. (US 10275717, hereinafter ‘Bab’) in view of Zeng et al. (US 20180260731, hereinafter ‘Zeng’) and in further view Low et al. (US 11809959, hereinafter ‘Low’).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bab in combination with Zeng further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the quantum evolution comprises an adiabatic evolution, (in 5:49-66: Training quantum evolutions [wherein the quantum evolution comprises an adiabatic evolution] using sublogical controls may be applied to a variety of settings, in particular settings of industrial value. Generally, any physical system that is hard to study due to quantum mechanics may benefit from implementing a system for training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls. For example, training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls may be used to prepare the ground states of the molecular electronic structure Hamiltonian that describes the energetics of molecules—a compelling industrial application of a small quantum computer. Solving such problems on a quantum computer would provide energy surfaces that describe chemical reactions and may be used to predict chemical rates, thus dramatically accelerating, for example, drug discovery, solar cell design and industrial catalyst development. As another example, training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls may be used to study the properties of high temperature superconductors [wherein the quantum evolution comprises an adiabatic evolution], e.g., by studying the Fermi-Hubbard model. )
and wherein converting the description of the quantum circuit to the description of a parametrized circuit comprises: (B)(1) discretizing the adiabatic evolution into a plurality of segments of evolution under time-independent interactions; and (B)(2) defining a duration of each of the plurality of segments as a corresponding one of the plurality of parameters, thereby defining the plurality of parameters. (2:12-24: In some implementations (i) at least one of the quantum system observables comprises a Hamiltonian of the quantum system, (ii) the one or more target quantum states comprise one or more eigenstates of the Hamiltonian, and (iii) experimental probing comprises measuring the energy of one or more of the eigenstates to determine corresponding energy eigenvalues of the eigenstates [and wherein converting the description of the quantum circuit to the description of a parametrized circuit comprises: (B)(1) discretizing the adiabatic evolution into a plurality of segments of evolution under time-independent interactions]. In other implementations (i) the system observable is a molecular electronic structure Hamiltonian, (ii) the one or more target quantum states comprise a ground state of the molecular electronic structure Hamiltonian, and (iii) experimental probing comprises measuring the target quantum state to determine the ground state energy [wherein converting the description of the quantum circuit to the description of a parametrized circuit comprises: (B)(1) discretizing the adiabatic evolution into a plurality of segments of evolution under time-independent interaction]…; in 7:5-16: ) The one or more quantum system observables may include measureable operators, e.g., a Hamiltonian operator, momentum operator or position operator. The target quantum states may include one or more eigenstates of a Hamiltonian operator, e.g., a ground state of a Hamiltonian operator [discretizing the adiabatic evolution into a plurality of segments of evolution under time-independent interaction and (B)(2) defining a duration of each of the plurality of segments as a corresponding one of the plurality of parameters, thereby defining the plurality of parameters.]. In some implementations a solution to an optimization problem may be encoded into the ground state of a Hamiltonian operator. The data specifying target quantum state 110 may be further provided for experimental probing or post processing, e.g., the energy of the target quantum state may be measured to determine a corresponding energy eigenvalue…)
Additionally, Low teaches discretizing the adiabatic evolution into a plurality of segments of evolution under time-independent interactions, in 4:3-: One approach that is tractable and non-perturbative is simulating quantum dynamics on a quantum computer. Given a custom character(poly(n))-sized description of a time-independent Hamiltonian H [discretizing the adiabatic evolution into a plurality of segments of evolution under time-independent interactions], one devises a sequence of custom character(poly(n)) primitive quantum gates that approximates the unitary time-evolution operator e.sup.−iHt with error ϵ [and (B)(2) defining a duration of each of the plurality of segments as a corresponding one of the plurality of parameters, thereby defining the plurality of parameters.]. (Primitive gate costs are defined as the number N of arbitrary single- and two-qubit gates. In fault-tolerant architectures, one multiples by an additional overhead custom character(log (N/ϵ)) for approximating N such gates to total error ϵ using a universal discrete gate set, e.g. CLIFFORD+T.) This is then applied to the system state |φ(0)custom character encoded in custom character(poly(n)) logical quantum bits to obtain the time-evolved state |φ(t)custom character=e.sup.−iHt|φ(0)custom character. Algorithms for Hamiltonian simulation have progressed rapidly culminating recently in schemes with optimal query complexity custom character(nt+log (1/ϵ)) with respect to all parameters for generic sparse Hamiltonians, and algorithms for geometrically-local exponentially-decaying interactions [discretizing the adiabatic evolution into a plurality of segments of evolution under time-independent interactions], with gate complexity custom character(nt polylog(nt/ϵ)) that is optimal up to poly-logarithmic factors.
Low, Zeng and Bab are analogous art because both involve developing information retrieval and processing using classical and quantum processing models and techniques.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the prior art for developing quantum algorithms for simulating Hamiltonian time-evolution in the interaction picture of quantum mechanics on a quantum computer as disclosed by Low with the method of developing systems and techniques to prepare and study the states of physically interesting systems as collectively disclosed by Zeng and Bab.
One of ordinary skill in the arts would have been motivated to combine the disclosed methods disclosed by Low, Zeng and Bab noted above because doing enables techniques to simulate Hamiltonians with arbitrary element-wise slew-rates that reduces the space overhead and have the same query and gate complexity, (Low, 7:53-65).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bab in combination with Zeng further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the plurality of initial values comprises: (C)(1) taking a discrete Fourier transform of the plurality of initial values to produce a plurality of Fourier coefficients of the plurality of parameters; and (C)(2) adjusting the plurality of Fourier coefficients of the plurality of parameters to produce the plurality of adjusted values. (4:36-54: In order to execute a quantum circuit an experimentalist may be required to first calibrate all the quantum gates included in the quantum circuit by sending specific pulses through the wires in the hardware. In the case of superconducting electronics, the pulses may be thought of as being formed from a Fourier series [wherein adjusting the plurality of initial values comprises: (C)(1) taking a discrete Fourier transform of the plurality of initial values to produce a plurality of Fourier coefficients of the plurality of parameters and (C)(2) adjusting the plurality of Fourier coefficients of the plurality of parameters to produce the plurality of adjusted values]—for example, a pulse which induces a local Y field on a qubit q may be given by b.sub.a (t)=custom characterΣ.sub.κ=1.sup.KA.sub.K sin (κω.sub.0t)+custom characterB.sub.K cos κω.sub.0t where ω.sub.0custom characters a fundamental frequency and A.sub.κ, B.sub.κcustom characteretermine the pulse shape. At the hardware level, the pulses Y.sub.1 and Y.sub.2 may be engineered using a digital to analog converter (DAC) which sets the voltage versus time for each line. It may be possible to determine precisely or approximately which pulses are needed in order to perform desired quantum gates, and then Fourier transform the determined pulses and program the pulses into appropriate DACs [wherein adjusting the plurality of initial values comprises: (C)(1) taking a discrete Fourier transform of the plurality of initial values to produce a plurality of Fourier coefficients of the plurality of parameters and (C)(2) adjusting the plurality of Fourier coefficients of the plurality of parameters to produce the plurality of adjusted values]. However, the exact mapping between settings of a DAC and the actual pulses seen by the system on which the pulses act is not precise for real experimental systems in a laboratory.)
Bab and Zeng do not expressly teach the limitation …discrete Fourier transform…
Low teaches the limitation …discrete Fourier transform…, in 21:55-22:28: Further simplification of Eq. (43) is possible as the kinetic energy operator is diagonal in the plane-wave basis. This basis related to the dual basis by a unitary rotation FFFT, an acronym for ‘Fast-Fermionic-Fourier-Transform’ that implements a Fourier transform over the lattice site indices, resulting in Fermionic creation and annihilation operators c.sub.{right arrow over (p)}σ.sup.554, c.sub.{right arrow over (p)}σ… A simulation of this Hamiltonian on a qubit quantum computer requires a map from its Fermionic operators to spin operators. One possibility is the Jordan-Wigner transformation, which requires some map from Fermionic indices to spin indices, such as
And in 23:53-24:44: Compared to Eq. (50), one can already see an improvement by a factor custom character(N) in cases where the kinetic energy is extensive, that is α.sub.T=custom character(N), so C.sub.TDS=custom character(N.sup.2α.sub.Ttpolylog(N, α.sub.T, t, ϵ))… is possible by a more creative evaluation of the gate complexity of e.sup.i(U+V)t to reduce its cost from custom character(N.sup.2) to custom character(N log (N)). Clearly, C.sub.e.sub.iUt=custom character(N) with N commuting terms poses no problem. The difficulty lies in constructing time-evolution by the two-body term e.sup.iVt such that C.sub.e.sub.iVt=custom character(N log N). As V is a sum of custom character(N.sup.2) commuting terms, a gate cost custom character(N.sup.2) appear unavoidable. However, this may be reduced by exploiting the translation symmetry of its coefficients with a discrete Fourier transform [wherein adjusting the plurality of initial values comprises: (C)(1) taking a discrete Fourier transform of the plurality of initial values to produce a plurality of Fourier coefficients of the plurality of parameters and (C)(2) adjusting the plurality of Fourier coefficients of the plurality of parameters to produce the plurality of adjusted values]. As V({right arrow over (x)})=V(−{right arrow over (x)}) is real and symmetric, its discrete Fourier transform {tilde over (V)}({right arrow over (k)})=Σ.sub.{right arrow over (x)}V({right arrow over (x)})e.sup.i2π{right arrow over (x)}.Math.{right arrow over (k)}/N.sup.1/d only has real coefficients [wherein adjusting the plurality of initial values comprises: (C)(1) taking a discrete Fourier transform of the plurality of initial values to produce a plurality of Fourier coefficients of the plurality of parameters and (C)(2) adjusting the plurality of Fourier coefficients of the plurality of parameters to produce the plurality of adjusted values]. Let one re-write V from Eq. (43) as … The strategy for implementing e.sup.−iVt is based on the following observation: Suppose one had a unitary oracle O.sub.{right arrow over (A)}|jcustom character|0custom character.sub.o|0custom character.sub.garb=|jcustom character|A.sub.jcustom character.sub.o|g(j)custom character.sub.garbage that on input |jcustom character ∈custom character.sup.dim[{right arrow over (A)}], outputs on the l quoit o register, the value of the j.sup.th element of some complex vector {right arrow over (A)}, together with some garbage state |g(j)custom character.sub.garb of lesser interest required to make the operation reversible…)
Low, Zeng and Bab are analogous art because both involve developing information retrieval and processing using classical and quantum processing models and techniques.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the prior art for developing quantum algorithms for simulating Hamiltonian time-evolution in the interaction picture of quantum mechanics on a quantum computer as disclosed by Low with the method of developing systems and techniques to prepare and study the states of physically interesting systems as collectively disclosed by Zeng and Bab.
One of ordinary skill in the arts would have been motivated to combine the disclosed methods disclosed by Low, Zeng and Bab noted above because doing enables techniques to simulate Hamiltonians with arbitrary element-wise slew-rates that reduces the space overhead and have the same query and gate complexity, (Low, 7:53-65).
Regarding claims 22-23, the claims are similar to claims 10-11 and are rejected under similar rationale. Additionally, Bab in combination with Zeng teaches a hybrid quantum-classical computer comprising: a classical computer comprising at least one processor and at least one non- transitory computer-readable medium having computer program instructions stored thereon; (As depicted in Fig. 1 and in 12:1-18: Implementations of the digital and/or quantum subject matter described in this specification can be implemented as one or more digital and/or quantum computer programs, i.e., one or more modules of digital and/or quantum computer program instructions encoded on a tangible non-transitory storage medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus…)
Alternatively, claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbush et al. (US 10275717, hereinafter ‘Bab’) in view of Zeng et al. (US 20180260731, hereinafter ‘Zeng’) and in further view Babbush et al. (US 20210174236, hereinafter ‘Bab2’).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Bab in combination with Zeng further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the quantum evolution comprises an adiabatic evolution, (in 5:49-66: Training quantum evolutions [wherein the quantum evolution comprises an adiabatic evolution] using sublogical controls may be applied to a variety of settings, in particular settings of industrial value. Generally, any physical system that is hard to study due to quantum mechanics may benefit from implementing a system for training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls. For example, training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls may be used to prepare the ground states of the molecular electronic structure Hamiltonian that describes the energetics of molecules—a compelling industrial application of a small quantum computer. Solving such problems on a quantum computer would provide energy surfaces that describe chemical reactions and may be used to predict chemical rates, thus dramatically accelerating, for example, drug discovery, solar cell design and industrial catalyst development. As another example, training quantum evolutions using sublogical controls may be used to study the properties of high temperature superconductors [wherein the quantum evolution comprises an adiabatic evolution], e.g., by studying the Fermi-Hubbard model. )
and wherein converting the description of the quantum circuit to the description of a parametrized circuit comprises: (B)(1) discretizing the adiabatic evolution into a plurality of segments of evolution under time-independent interactions; and (B)(2) defining a duration of each of the plurality of segments as a corresponding one of the plurality of parameters, thereby defining the plurality of parameters. (2:12-24: In some implementations (i) at least one of the quantum system observables comprises a Hamiltonian of the quantum system, (ii) the one or more target quantum states comprise one or more eigenstates of the Hamiltonian, and (iii) experimental probing comprises measuring the energy of one or more of the eigenstates to determine corresponding energy eigenvalues of the eigenstates [and wherein converting the description of the quantum circuit to the description of a parametrized circuit comprises: (B)(1) discretizing the adiabatic evolution into a plurality of segments of evolution under time-independent interactions]. In other implementations (i) the system observable is a molecular electronic structure Hamiltonian, (ii) the one or more target quantum states comprise a ground state of the molecular electronic structure Hamiltonian, and (iii) experimental probing comprises measuring the target quantum state to determine the ground state energy [wherein converting the description of the quantum circuit to the description of a parametrized circuit comprises: (B)(1) discretizing the adiabatic evolution into a plurality of segments of evolution under time-independent interaction]…; in 7:5-16: ) The one or more quantum system observables may include measureable operators, e.g., a Hamiltonian operator, momentum operator or position operator. The target quantum states may include one or more eigenstates of a Hamiltonian operator, e.g., a ground state of a Hamiltonian operator [discretizing the adiabatic evolution into a plurality of segments of evolution under time-independent interaction and (B)(2) defining a duration of each of the plurality of segments as a corresponding one of the plurality of parameters, thereby defining the plurality of parameters.]. In some implementations a solution to an optimization problem may be encoded into the ground state of a Hamiltonian operator. The data specifying target quantum state 110 may be further provided for experimental probing or post processing, e.g., the energy of the target quantum state may be measured to determine a corresponding energy eigenvalue…)
Additionally, Bab2 teaches (B)(2) defining a duration of each of the plurality of segments as a corresponding one of the plurality of parameters, thereby defining the plurality of parameters, in [0019] In some implementations the disclosed systems and methods for preparing quantum states of respective quantum systems may be computationally more efficient compared to other systems and methods for preparing quantum states of respective quantum systems. In particular, by defining a variational ansatz using linear combinations of unitaries simulations of time evolution, e.g., a Taylor series strategy of time-evolution, the number of time steps [(B)(2) defining a duration of each of the plurality of segments as a corresponding one of the plurality of parameters, thereby defining the plurality of parameters] performed during time evolution of the quantum system for a given target precision may be reduced. For example, compared to systems and methods that prepare quantum states through Trotterization of adiabatic state preparation, the disclosed systems and methods may require exponentially fewer steps in terms of the target precision, scaling sub-logarithmically in the inverse precision. Fewer time steps may therefore be taken, improving the computational efficiency. [0020] In addition, in some implementations quantum states prepared using the disclosed systems and methods may be more accurate compared to quantum states prepared using other systems and methods for quantum state preparation. For example, compared to systems and methods that prepare quantum states through Trotterization of adiabatic state preparation the disclosed systems and methods may achieve greater precision using a same number of time steps.
Bab2, Zeng and Bab are analogous art because both involve developing information retrieval and processing using classical and quantum processing models and techniques.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the prior art for developing quantum computing devices that use quantum-mechanical phenomena such as superposition and entanglement to perform operations on data, as disclosed by Low with the method of developing systems and techniques to prepare and study the states of physically interesting systems as collectively disclosed by Zeng and Bab.
One of ordinary skill in the arts would have been motivated to combine the disclosed methods disclosed by Bab2, Zeng and Bab noted above because doing enables techniques to develop and implement a circuit model for quantum computation that performs quantum computations by applying sequences of quantum logic gates on an n-qubit register., (Bab2, Abstract and 0002); and enable the devolving information processing techniques that use of truncated Taylor series or other linear combinations of unitaries to help decrease the number of Toffoli quantum logic gates required to perform quantum state preparation compared to other methods for quantum state preparation, e.g., those that use Trotterization, (Bab2, 0021)
Regarding claim 22, the claims are similar to claim 10 limitations and are rejected under similar rationale. Additionally, Bab in combination with Zeng teaches a hybrid quantum-classical computer comprising: a classical computer comprising at least one processor and at least one non- transitory computer-readable medium having computer program instructions stored thereon; (As depicted in Fig. 1 and in 12:1-18: Implementations of the digital and/or quantum subject matter described in this specification can be implemented as one or more digital and/or quantum computer programs, i.e., one or more modules of digital and/or quantum computer program instructions encoded on a tangible non-transitory storage medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus…)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Zhu et al. (NPL: Training of quantum circuits on a hybrid quantum computer): teaches that a parameterized circuits is merely a model of the qubits and operations that model quantum computing operations as logical operations, as noted in the introduction section and depicted in Fig. 1: Data-driven quantum circuit learning(DDQCL)is a hybrid frame work for generative modeling of classical data where the model consists of a parameterized quantum circuit (16). The model is trained by sampling the output of a quantum computer and updating the circuit parameters using a classical optimizer. After convergence, the optimal circuit produces a quantum state that captures the correlations in the training datasets. Hence, the trained circuit serves as a generative model for the training data. Theoretical results suggest that such generative models have more expressive power than widely used classical neural networks (17,18). This is because instantaneous quantum polynomial circuits—special cases of the parameterized quantum circuits used for generative modeling—cannot be efficiently simulated by classical means… The training pipeline is illustrated in Fig. 1. The quantum circuits are structured as layers of parameterized gates. We use two types of layers, involving single-qubit rotations and two-qubit entangling gates:
PNG
media_image10.png
714
720
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(NPL: A generative modeling approach for benchmarking and training shallow quantum circuits): teaches a hybrid quantum-classical approach for generative modeling on gate-based NISQ devices which heavily relies on sampling… By employing the quantum circuit itself as a model for the data set, we also differentiate from quantum algorithms that target specific probability distributions… a general circuit parametrized using qubit entangling rotations and parameter operators.
Hastings (US 20190266213): teaches a quantum algorithm that, taking a state ψ as input with overlap P.sub.ov=|custom-characterψ|ψ.sub.0,1custom-character.sup.2 will succeed, with probability at least P.sub.ovP.sub.succ for P.sub.succ close to 1, in giving an output state which is equal to ψ.sub.0,0 up to some error ∈, with ∈ exponentially small. A few different ways to do this are considered, before describing measurement evolution. A natural way to do this is to follow adiabatic evolution of the Hamiltonians (to simulate a time-dependent Hamiltonian which slowly changes from H.sub.1 to H.sub.0, taking ψ as input to the evolution and ψ as output)…, in 0067-0068.
Farhi et. al. (NPL: “Quantum Computation by Adiabatic Evolution”) teaches e evolution of the quantum state is governed by a time-dependent Hamiltonian that interpolates between an initial Hamiltonian, whose ground state is easy to construct, and a final Hamiltonian, whose ground state encodes the satisfying assignment, in abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN ALABI whose telephone number is (571)272-0516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/OLUWATOSIN ALABI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129