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 .
This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 09/17/2025
Claims 1-28 were cancelled.
Claims 29-56 are new.
Specification
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Page 11, filed 09/17/2025, with respect to objections to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Page 11, filed 09/17/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 7 and 18 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Page 12, filed 09/17/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C 101 double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Page 12, filed 09/17/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn. Examiner notes, both a clean copy and a marked-up copy submitted on 07/06/2022 had claims 1-20, therefore claims 1-20 were examined accordingly. New claims 29-56 are presented for examination thus new grounds of rejection is necessitated by new claims, as stated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 29-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janusz JACAK, US 2023/0205490 A1, (hereafter JACAK), in views of Pednault et al. US 2019/0095561 A1 (hereafter Pednault).
Regarding claim 29. JACAK teaches a method comprising:
obtaining a representation of a quantum circuit, wherein the quantum circuit manipulates a plurality of qubits over a plurality of cycles (Fig 1-3, having quantum circuits, inputs and multiple cycles)(Par 24-25, 1 initial state, 2, after Hadamard gate, 3, after cnot, thus 1, 2, 3, time frame for input and output completing a cycle);
obtaining one or more auxiliary qubit indications indicating one or more unverified qubits within the plurality of qubits of the quantum circuit (Fig 3, X qubit)(Par 47, auxiliary qubit X);
verifying the one or more auxiliary qubit indications, wherein said verifying is configured to test whether the one or more unverified qubits comply with an auxiliary property (Par 47, measurement on an auxiliary qubit X, in a correlation type)(Par 82, X and Y are auxiliary qubits, having setup before the measurement to a state as indicated in equation 6),
wherein the auxiliary property is complied with by an unverified qubit of the one or more unverified qubits only if each of the unverified qubit is provided to the quantum circuit in a certain state, and is outputted from the quantum circuit in the certain state (Fig 6, )(Par 89, entangled qubits, X, Y, Z are auxiliary qubits for setting random state of 4 qubits A, B, C, and D),
wherein said verifying comprises:
generating a testing quantum circuit (Par 68, VC, performs randomness testing)(Par 71, perform own initial randomness testing),
wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises the quantum circuit (Par 48, entanglement quantum random number generator with publicly verifiable randomness),
wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises the plurality of qubits (Fig 3,)(Par 55-57, Alice performs measurements, plurality of qubit),
wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises one or more quantum state setters (Par 53, Alice initiate quantum setup),
wherein the one or more quantum state setters are configured to set one or more initial states to the plurality of qubits (Fig 3, par 53, state 000, ABC),
inspecting states of the plurality of qubits (Fig 6, M1, M2, measuring the state).
JACAK does not teach simulating, by a simulator, the testing quantum circuit, and inspecting from said simulating.
Pednault teaches simulating, by a simulator, the testing quantum circuit (Par 4, simulating a quantum circuit, produce simulation results), and inspecting from said simulating (Par 87, simulation results arrays initialized using the simulation results of the preceding input sub circuit).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JACAK to incorporate the teachings of Pednault to simulate the testing quantum circuit and inspect said simulation because building a quantum circuit is expensive and suffer from various issues such as scaling and quantum de-coherence. Also comparing an ideal behavior predicted by the simulation with actual outputs of a quantum computing device to assess the fidelity (Pednault, Par 3)
Regarding claim 30. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises one or more inverse quantum state setters (JACAK, Par 91, XYZ) (JACAK, Fig 6, XYZ, qubits, before the circuit)(JACAK, Par 82, 5-qubits system, initialized by state, XY are auxiliary qubit, thus having a quantum state setters)(JACAK, Par 84, after measurement, of any qubits, the other qubits will attain their respective values depending on the type of entanglement, formula 6, XY states, influence the overall state of the ABC, thus auxiliary qubits XY influence setting the state ABC, being the inverse as previously perform in formula 5, which was dependent on its own state; Note: The auxiliary qubits are setting the qubits having a dependency on their state for entanglement, being the opposite as before with only depended on its own state.),
wherein the one or more quantum state setters are operatively coupled to the plurality of qubits before being manipulated by the quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 6, 0,0,0, qubits, before the circuit),
wherein the one or more inverse quantum state setters are operatively coupled to the plurality of qubits after being manipulated by the quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 6, XYZ, qubits, coupled to the circuit after being manipulated),
wherein the one or more inverse quantum state setters are configured to reverse the one or more initial states (JACAK, Par 89, 4-qubits entangled state, XYZ, for setting ABCD).
Regarding claim 31. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 30, wherein said inspecting comprises inspecting final states of the plurality of qubits that are outputted from the one or more inverse quantum state setters (JACAK, Par 92, Final measurement, C and D qubits).
Regarding claim 32. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 30, wherein an inverse setter of the one or more inverse quantum state setters is associated to a setter of the one or more quantum state setters (JACAK, Par 89, 4-qubits entangled state, XYZ, for setting ABCD), wherein the inverse setter is configured to reverse an initial state set by the setter (JACAK, Par 89, 4-qubits entangled state, XYZ, for setting ABCD).
Regarding claim 33. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises one or more additional qubits that are external to the quantum circuit (JACAK, Par 47, qubit X was measured), wherein the plurality of qubits excludes the one or more additional qubits (JACAK, Par 47, qubit X, separate from qubit A and B).
Regarding claim 34. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 33, wherein the one or more quantum state setters comprise a setter that is operatively coupled to one or more target qubits (JACAK, Fig 6, X, Y, Z, M1, M2, M3) (JACAK, Par 89, 4-qubits entangled state, XYZ, for setting ABCD), wherein the one or more target qubits are manipulated by the testing quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 6, M1, M2), wherein the setter is configured to set maximally-entangled states to qubit pairs (JACAK, Par 93, maximally entangled qubit)( JACAK, Par 116, maximally entangled qubit), wherein the qubit pairs comprise disjoint pairs of a first target qubit and a second target qubit of the one or more target qubits (JACAK, Par 89, X, Y and Z, are auxiliary for setting A, B, C and D)(JACAK, Par 89, formula 7, XYZ qubits are paired with ABCD qubits with different states, thus having paired qubits states from XYZ paired with ABCD, and separate states of the qubits from XYZ paired with different states of ABCD qubits, therefore having paired qubits that are disjoint from other paired qubits; Note: Formula 6 and 7 illustrate how states from auxiliary qubits are paired with state of ABCD qubits, and how different states of auxiliary qubits are paired with different states of ABCD qubits, thus having paired qubits that are disjoint from other paired qubits), wherein the first target qubit is comprised by the plurality of qubits and the second target qubit is comprised by the one or more additional qubits (JACAK, Par 89, XYZ qubits are paired with ABCD).
Regarding claim 35. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 33,
wherein the one or more quantum state setters are configured to set maximally-entangled states to qubit pairs (JACAK, Par 93, maximally entangle 2 qubit bell states), wherein the qubit pairs comprise disjoint pairs of a first target qubit and a second target qubit (JACAK, Par 89, XYZ and ABCD are two sets of qubits individuals), wherein the first target qubit is comprised by the plurality of qubits and the second target qubit is comprised by the one or more additional qubits (JACAK, Par 89, XYZ and ABCD are two sets of qubits )(JACAK, Fig 6, multiple sets of qubits), wherein the first target qubit comprises a dirty auxiliary qubit of the one or more unverified qubits or an argument qubit of the plurality of qubits (JACAK, Par 89, XYZ auxiliary qubits), wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises an inverse circuit subsequently to the quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 6, M1, M2, measuring the quantum qubit), wherein the inverse circuit is an inverse of the quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 4, correlation and anti-correlation)( JACAK, Par 40, states are correlated in a specific way ), wherein said simulating comprises simulating the quantum circuit using a quantum simulator (Pednault, Par 35, quantum circuit simulation method), and wherein said inspecting comprises performing measurements of the states of the unverified qubits after being manipulated by the quantum circuit and by the inverse circuit (JACAK, Par 98, schematic elements , generation of random correlations, correlations types, and measured outcomes).
Regarding claim 36. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, wherein the one or more quantum state setters comprise a setter that is operatively coupled to one or more target qubits (JACAK, Par 89, XYZ qubits are paired with ABCD), wherein the one or more target qubits are manipulated by the testing quantum circuit (JACAK, Par 89, auxiliary qubits for setting states of A, B, C and D), wherein the setter is configured to set to each of the one or more target qubits one of: computational bases states, and highly-entangled states (JACAK, Par 89, setting random state of 4 qubits, thus setting the bases for the computation).
Regarding claim 37. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 36, wherein the one or more target qubits of the plurality of qubits comprise one or more dirty auxiliary qubits of the one or more unverified qubits, or one or more argument qubits of the plurality of qubits (JACAK, Par 93, correlated or anticorrelated based on the qubit measurement outcome).
Regarding claim 38. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, wherein the one or more quantum state setters comprise a loop setter that is operatively coupled to one or more target qubits (JACAK, Par 95, qubits, braid group are closed loops)(JACAK, Par 14, entangled rings, chain loops), wherein the one or more target qubits are manipulated by the testing quantum circuit (JACAK, Par 89, auxiliary qubits for setting states of A, B, C and D), wherein the loop setter comprises a loop contraction between the one or more target qubits before and after being manipulated by the quantum circuit or by an inverse quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 6, 0,0,0, qubits, before the circuit)(JACAK, Fig 6, XYZ, qubits, coupled to the circuit after being manipulated).
Regarding claim 39. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, wherein the one or more quantum state setters comprise a setter that is operatively coupled to one or more target qubits (JACAK, Par 89, XYZ qubits are paired with ABCD), wherein the one or more target qubits are manipulated by the testing quantum circuit (JACAK, Par 89, auxiliary qubits for setting states of A, B, C and D), wherein the setter is configured to set maximally-mixed states to each of the one or more target qubits (JACAK, Par 93, maximally entangled qubit)( JACAK, Par 116, maximally entangled qubit).
Regarding claim 40. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, wherein the one or more quantum state setters are configured to set proper states to expected input of the plurality of qubits and to clean auxiliary qubits of the one or more unverified qubits (JACAK, Par 93, correlated qubits based on the qubit measurement outcome), wherein the proper states comprise known states for the clean auxiliary qubits and expected states for the expected input (JACAK, Par 89, ABCD are set random states).
Regarding claim 41. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, wherein the simulator is one of: a state vector simulator, a density matrix simulator, a tensor network simulator, and a quantum simulator (Pednault, Par 35, quantum circuit simulation method)
(Pednault, Par 32, uses matrix, tensor and vector to represent quantum states in the simulation).
Regarding claim 42. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, wherein said inspecting is performed by one or more inspectors of the testing quantum circuit based on at least one of: measurements and a reduced density matrix (JACAK, Fig, 6, M1, M2, measured)(JACAK, Par 5, each qubit being the reduced density matrices of the complex system).
Regarding claim 43. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, wherein said inspecting is performed by a contraction of a tensor network (JACAK, Par 7, decoherence of the entangled n qubits, leaving the n-1 qubits state), wherein the tensor network implements the testing quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 6, M1, M2, measuring the state).
Regarding claim 44. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, wherein the one or more quantum state setters are configured to set highly-entangled states to dirty auxiliary qubits of the one or more unverified qubits and to argument qubits of the plurality of qubits (JACAK, Par 89, entangled state, XYZABCD= qubits are part of the argument), wherein said simulating comprises simulating the quantum circuit using a state vector simulator (Pednault, Par 32, uses matrix, tensor and vector to represent quantum states in the simulation), wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises an inverse circuit subsequently to the quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 6, M1, M2, measuring the state), wherein the inverse circuit is an inverse of the quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 4, correlation and anti-correlation)(JACAK, Par 40, states are correlated in a specific way ), wherein said inspecting comprises inspecting final states of the one or more unverified qubits that are outputted from said simulating using reduced density-matrices (JACAK, Fig, 6, M1, M2, measured)(JACAK, Par 5, each qubit being the reduced density matrices of the complex system).
Regarding claim 45. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, wherein the one or more quantum state setters are configured to set highly-entangled states to dirty auxiliary qubits of the one or more unverified qubits (JACAK, Par 89, setting random state of 4 qubits, thus setting the bases for the computation), wherein the one or more quantum state setters are configured to set maximally-mixed states to argument qubits of the plurality of qubits (JACAK, Par 93, maximally entangled qubit)(JACAK, Par 116, maximally entangled qubit), wherein said simulating comprises simulating the quantum circuit using a density matrix simulator (JACAK, Par 5, each qubit being the reduced density matrices of the complex system), wherein said inspecting comprises inspecting final states of the one or more unverified qubits that are outputted from said simulating using reduced density-matrices (JACAK, Par 92, Final measurement, C and D qubits).
Regarding claim 46. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, wherein the one or more quantum state setters comprise one or more loop contractions between dirty auxiliary qubits of the one or more unverified qubits before and after being manipulated by the quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 6, 0,0,0, qubits, before the circuit) (JACAK, Fig 6, XYZ, qubits, coupled to the circuit after being manipulated), wherein the one or more quantum state setters comprise one or more loop contractions between argument qubits of the plurality of qubits before and after being manipulated (JACAK, Par 95, qubits, braid group are closed loops)(JACAK, Par 14, entangled rings, chain loops), wherein said simulating comprises simulating the quantum circuit using a tensor network simulator (Pednault, Par 32, uses matrix, tensor and vector to represent quantum states in the simulation), wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises an inverse circuit subsequently to the quantum circuit, wherein the inverse circuit is an inverse of the quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 4, correlation and anti-correlation)(JACAK, Par 40, states are correlated in a specific way ), wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises a tensor network (JACAK, Par 77, M times tensor product of states), wherein said inspecting comprises contracting the tensor network and verifying that it contracts to a value of
2
A
R
G
+
2
∙
A
U
X
, wherein ARG is a number of the argument qubits and AUX is a number of the dirty auxiliary qubits (Pednault, Par 54, 7x7 array of qubits, 49 possible states, for a 8 byte floating point, qubit state information).
Regarding claim 47. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, comprising iteratively performing said generating, said simulating and said inspecting, until a confidence threshold is complied with (Pednault, Par 149, iterate over each measured outcome)(Pednault, Par 156, iteratively performing a search optimization, therefore a determination of what is optimum has to be made, thus a limit to determine if it optimum).
Regarding claim 48. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, comprising performing said generating once, and performing said inspecting multiple times, until a confidence threshold of the final states is complied with (Pednault, Par 156, iteratively performing a search optimization, therefore a determination of what is optimum has to be made, thus a limit to determine if it optimum).
Regarding claim 49. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises an inverse circuit subsequently to the quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 6, M1, M2, M3 after the quantum circuit), wherein the inverse circuit is an inverse of the quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 4, correlation and anti-correlation)(JACAK, Par 40, states are correlated in a specific way ).
Regarding claim 50. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, comprising determining whether the one or more unverified qubits comply with the auxiliary property based on said inspecting (JACAK, Par 73, Alice randomly performing verification of entanglement existence).
Regarding claim 51. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, further comprising compiling the representation of the quantum circuit based on said verifying (JACAK, Par 89, equation 7, representing the quantum circuit), wherein said compiling comprises utilizing the one or more unverified qubits as auxiliary qubits in case that said verifying indicates that the one or more unverified qubits comply with the auxiliary property (JACAK, Par 89, X, Y, Z are auxiliary qubits for setting random state of A, B, C and D qubits).
Regarding claim 52. JACAK and Pednault teach the method of Claim 29, wherein the auxiliary property is complied with by the unverified qubit if, for each proper initial state of the plurality of qubits, the unverified qubit is outputted from the quantum circuit in its initial state (JACAK, Fig 5a, X, Y)(JACAK, Fig 6a, X, Y, Z, exit the circuit without any operation thus without any change in its initial state).
Regarding claim 53. JACAK teaches an apparatus comprising a processor and coupled memory (Par 4, processing devices, computers or chips, thus having a processor and memory coupled), said processor being adapted to:
obtain a representation of a quantum circuit, wherein the quantum circuit manipulates a plurality of qubits over a plurality of cycles (Fig 1-3, having quantum circuits, inputs and multiple cycles)(Par 24-25, 1 initial state, 2, after Hadamard gate, 3, after cnot, thus 1, 2, 3, time frame for input and output completing a cycle);
obtain one or more auxiliary qubit indications indicating one or more unverified qubits within the plurality of qubits of the quantum circuit (Fig 3, X qubit)(Par 47, auxiliary qubit X);
verify the one or more auxiliary qubit indications, wherein said verifying is configured to test whether the one or more unverified qubits comply with an auxiliary property (Par 47, measurement on an auxiliary qubit X, in a correlation type)(Par 82, X and Y are auxiliary qubits, having setup before the measurement to a state as indicated in equation 6),
wherein the auxiliary property is complied with by an unverified qubit of the one or more unverified qubits only if each of the unverified qubit is provided to the quantum circuit in a certain state, and is outputted from the quantum circuit in the certain state (Fig 6)(Par 89, entangled qubits, X, Y, Z are auxiliary qubits for setting random state of 4 qubits A, B, C, and D),
wherein said verifying comprises:
generating a testing quantum circuit (Par 68, VC, performs randomness testing)(Par 71, perform own initial randomness testing),
wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises the quantum circuit (Par 48, entanglement quantum random number generator with publicly verifiable randomness),
wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises the plurality of qubits (Fig 3,)(Par 55-57, Alice performs measurements, plurality of qubit),
wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises one or more quantum state setters (Par 53, Alice initiate quantum setup),
wherein the one or more quantum state setters are configured to set one or more initial states to the plurality of qubits (Fig 3, par 53, state 000, ABC),
inspecting states of the plurality of qubits (Fig 6, M1, M2, measuring the state).
JACAK does not teach simulating, by a simulator, the testing quantum circuit, and inspecting from said simulating.
Pednault teaches simulating, by a simulator, the testing quantum circuit (Par 4, simulating a quantum circuit, produce simulation results), and inspecting from said simulating (Par 87, simulation results arrays initialized using the simulation results of the preceding input sub circuit).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JACAK to incorporate the teachings of Pednault to simulate the testing quantum circuit and inspect said simulation because building a quantum circuit is expensive and suffer from various issues such as scaling and quantum de-coherence. Also comparing an ideal behavior predicted by the simulation with actual outputs of a quantum computing device to assess the fidelity (Pednault, Par 3)
Regarding claim 54. JACAK and Pednault teach the apparatus of Claim 53, wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises one or more inverse quantum state setters (JACAK, Par 91, XYZ) (JACAK, Fig 6, XYZ, qubits, before the circuit)(JACAK, Par 82, 5-qubits system, initialized by state, XY are auxiliary qubit, thus having a quantum state setters)(JACAK, Par 84, after measurement, of any qubits, the other qubits will attain their respective values depending on the type of entanglement, formula 6, XY states, influence the overall state of the ABC, thus auxiliary qubits XY influence setting the state ABC, being the inverse as previously perform in formula 5, which was dependent on its own state; Note: The auxiliary qubits are setting the qubits having a dependency on their state for entanglement, being the opposite as before with only depended on its own state.), wherein the one or more quantum state setters are operatively coupled to the plurality of qubits before being manipulated by the quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 6, 0,0,0, qubits, before the circuit),
wherein the one or more inverse quantum state setters are operatively coupled to the plurality of qubits after being manipulated by the quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 6, XYZ, qubits, coupled to the circuit after being manipulated),
wherein the one or more inverse quantum state setters are configured to reverse the one or more initial states (JACAK, Par 89, 4-qubits entangled state, XYZ, for setting ABCD).
Regarding claim 55. JACAK and Pednault teach the apparatus of Claim 53, wherein the one or more quantum state setters comprise one or more loop contractions between dirty auxiliary qubits of the one or more unverified qubits before and after being manipulated by the quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 6, 0,0,0, qubits, before the circuit) (JACAK, Fig 6, XYZ, qubits, coupled to the circuit after being manipulated), wherein the one or more quantum state setters comprise one or more loop contractions between argument qubits of the plurality of qubits before and after being manipulated (JACAK, Par 95, qubits, braid group are closed loops)(JACAK, Par 14, entangled rings, chain loops), wherein said simulating comprises simulating the quantum circuit using a tensor network simulator (Pednault, Par 32, uses matrix, tensor and vector to represent quantum states in the simulation), wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises an inverse circuit subsequently to the quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 4, correlation and anti-correlation)(JACAK, Par 40, states are correlated in a specific way ), wherein the inverse circuit is an inverse of the quantum circuit (JACAK, Fig 4, correlation and anti-correlation)(Par 40, states are correlated in a specific way ), wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises a tensor network (JACAK, Par 77, M times tensor product of states)
, wherein said inspecting comprises contracting the tensor network and verifying that it contracts to a value of
2
A
R
G
+
2
∙
A
U
X
, wherein ARG is a number of the argument qubits and AUX is a number of the dirty auxiliary qubits (Pednault, Par 54, 7x7 array of qubits, 49 possible states, for a 8 byte floating point, qubit state information).
Regarding claim 56. JACAK teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium retaining program instructions, which program instructions when read by a processor (Par 4, processing devices, computers or chips, thus having a processor and memory executing to perform the circuit), cause the processor to:
obtain a representation of a quantum circuit, wherein the quantum circuit manipulates a plurality of qubits over a plurality of cycles (Fig 1-3, having quantum circuits, inputs and multiple cycles)(Par 24-25, 1 initial state, 2, after Hadamard gate, 3, after cnot, thus 1, 2, 3, time frame for input and output completing a cycle);
obtain one or more auxiliary qubit indications indicating one or more unverified qubits within the plurality of qubits of the quantum circuit (Fig 3, X qubit)(Par 47, auxiliary qubit X);
verify the one or more auxiliary qubit indications, wherein said verifying is configured to test whether the one or more unverified qubits comply with an auxiliary property (Par 47, measurement on an auxiliary qubit X, in a correlation type)(Par 82, X and Y are auxiliary qubits, having setup before the measurement to a state as indicated in equation 6) , wherein the auxiliary property is complied with by an unverified qubit of the one or more unverified qubits only if each of the unverified qubit is provided to the quantum circuit in a certain state, and is outputted from the quantum circuit in the certain state (Fig 6)(Par 89, entangled qubits, X, Y, Z are auxiliary qubits for setting random state of 4 qubits A, B, C, and D),
wherein said verifying comprises: generating a testing quantum circuit (Par 68, VC, performs randomness testing)(Par 71, perform own initial randomness testing), wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises the quantum circuit (Par 48, entanglement quantum random number generator with publicly verifiable randomness), wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises the plurality of qubits (Fig 3,)(Par 55-57, Alice performs measurements, plurality of qubit), wherein the testing quantum circuit comprises one or more quantum state setters (Par 53, Alice initiate quantum setup), wherein the one or more quantum state setters are configured to set one or more initial states to the plurality of qubits (Fig 3, par 53, state 000, ABC),
inspecting states of the plurality of qubits (Fig 6, M1, M2, measuring the state).
JACAK does not teach simulating, by a simulator, the testing quantum circuit, and inspecting from said simulating.
Pednault teaches simulating, by a simulator, the testing quantum circuit (Par 4, simulating a quantum circuit, produce simulation results), and inspecting from said simulating (Par 87, simulation results arrays initialized using the simulation results of the preceding input sub circuit).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JACAK to incorporate the teachings of Pednault to simulate the testing quantum circuit and inspect said simulation because building a quantum circuit is expensive and suffer from various issues such as scaling and quantum de-coherence. Also comparing an ideal behavior predicted by the simulation with actual outputs of a quantum computing device to assess the fidelity (Pednault, Par 3)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL JAVIER CALLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571)-272-3676. 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.
/A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights