DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Applicant’s submission filed 05-March 2026 [hereinafter Response], where:
Claims 1, 8, 17, 19, and 30 have been amended.
Claims 7, 20-29 and 31-32 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8-19 and 30 are pending.
Claims 1-6, 8-19 and 30 are rejected.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 30, line16, recites “observable of interest
〈
O
〉
f
〈
O
〉
f
”, but appears should instead read --observable of interest
〈
O
〉
f
--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-6, 8-19 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a quantum computing system, which is an article of manufacture, and thus one of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter. (35 U.S.C. § 101).
However, under Step 2A Prong One, the claim recites the limitation of “[(c.1)] determining an average value of an observable of interest
〈
O
〉
f
for the quantum circuits based at least in part on the plurality of measurements.” The activity of “[(c.1)] determining” is a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, is a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). Thus, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim as a whole is not integrated into a practical application, because the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception include a “[(a)] quantum system comprising one or more quantum system qubits . . . to implement a plurality of quantum circuits,” a “[(b)] quantum measurement circuit,” and “[(c)] one or more processors operable to perform operations,” which are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element of “[(a)] quantum system,” where “[(a.1)] each quantum circuit comprising a plurality of quantum gates,” “[(a.2)] each of the plurality of quantum circuits further comprising an equivalent logical operation as each of the other quantum circuits in the plurality,” and “[(a.3)] each of the plurality of quantum circuits implemented by a different sequence of quantum gates as compared to each of the other quantum circuits in the plurality to thereby implement one or more circuit gauges,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element. The claim also recites more details or specifics of the additional element of “[(b)] a quantum measurement circuit,” where “[(b.1)] the quantum measurement circuit operable to perform a plurality of measurements on the quantum circuits,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The claim also recites “[(c.2)] implementing an error mitigation scheme for the quantum computing system based at least in part on the average value of the observable of interest
〈
O
〉
f
,” which is a post-processing insignificant extra-solution activity of implementing or putting the error mitigation scheme into action, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element of “[(c.2)] implementing the error mitigation scheme,” “[(c.2.1)] wherein implementing the error mechanism scheme includes implementing a single-point full depolarizing error mitigation scheme and correcting an error using a quantum error correction code, and wherein the error is a qubit error.,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. Thus, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Finally, under Step 2B, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements include “[(a)] quantum system comprising one or more quantum system qubits . . . to implement a plurality of quantum circuits,” a “[(b)] quantum measurement circuit,” and “[(c)] one or more processors operable to perform operations,” which are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element of “[(a)] quantum system,” where “[(a.1)] each quantum circuit comprising a plurality of quantum gates,” “[(a.2)] each of the plurality of quantum circuits further comprising an equivalent logical operation as each of the other quantum circuits in the plurality,” and “[(a.3)] each of the plurality of quantum circuits implemented by a different sequence of quantum gates as compared to each of the other quantum circuits in the plurality to thereby implement one or more circuit gauges,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element. The claim also recites more details or specifics of the additional element of “[(b)] a quantum measurement circuit,” where “[(b.1)] the quantum measurement circuit operable to perform a plurality of measurements on the quantum circuits,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The claim also recites “[(c.2)] implementing an error mitigation scheme for the quantum computing system based at least in part on the average value of the observable of interest
〈
O
〉
f
,” where the plain meaning of “implementing” is “putting into action. Accordingly, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term “implementing” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of implementing or putting the error mitigation scheme into action, such as by delivery of the scheme, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element of “[(c.2)] implementing the error mitigation scheme,” by “[(c.2.1)] “[(c.2.1)] wherein implementing the error mechanism scheme includes implementing a single-point full depolarizing error mitigation scheme and correcting an error using a quantum error correction code, and wherein the error is a qubit error,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. Therefore, claim 1 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “[(a.3)] circuit gauges,” “[(a.3)] wherein the one or more circuit gauges comprise [(a.3.1)] one or more randomized circuit gauges,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does the claim amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claims recite no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 2 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 3 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element of “[(a.3)] circuit gauges,” “[(a.3.1)] wherein the one or more randomized circuit gauges are [(a.3.1.1)] implemented by injecting one or more random pairs of Pauli operators into the one or more quantum circuits,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does the claim amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claims recite no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 3 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claims 4 and 5 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element of “[(a.3)] circuit gauges,” (claim 4: [(a.3.1.1)] wherein injecting one or more random pairs of Pauli operators comprises [(a.3.1.1.1)] incorporating one or more Clifford gates into the quantum circuits”; claim 5: [(a.3.1.1)] wherein injecting one or more random pairs of Pauli operators comprises [(a.3.1.1.1)] incorporating one or more non-Clifford gates into the quantum circuits”), and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element. The abstract idea of the claims are not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor do they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claims recite no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 4 and 5 are subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 6 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element of “[(a.3)] circuit gauges,” “[(a.3)] wherein the one or more circuit gauges comprise [(a.3.1)] a circuit gauge configured to implement a preferred error direction for error mitigation,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 6 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 8 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites that “[(c.2.1)] wherein implementing the single-point full depolarizing error mitigation scheme comprises [(c.2.1.1)] determining an approximation of a circuit fidelity
f
for the one or more circuit gauges,” where “determining an approximation of a circuit fidelity
f
” is related to the fidelity between ideal and actual outputs, and accordingly, is a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, is a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). Also, such a limitation of “determining an approximation” is a mathematical concept, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub I), which is also one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). Further, the claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element of “[(c.2)] implementing the error mitigation scheme,” by “[(c.2.1)] wherein implementing the single-point full depolarizing error mitigation scheme comprises [(c.2.1.1)] determining an approximation of a circuit fidelity
f
for the one or more circuit gauges,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 8 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claims 9 and 10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claims recite more details of the abstract idea of “[(c.2.1.1)] approximation of the circuit fidelity
f
” (claim 9: “[(c.2.1.1)] wherein the approximation of the circuit fidelity
f
for the one or more circuit gauges comprises [(c.2.1.1.1)] a component cross entropy benchmarking for a similar circuit structure”; claim 10: [(c.2.1.1)] wherein determining the approximation of the circuit fidelity f for the one or more circuit gauges comprises [(c.2.1.1.1)] counting a number of single and two qubit gates”), and accordingly, are merely more specific to the abstract idea. Further, the claims recite more details or specifics of the additional element of “[(c.2)] implementing the error mitigation scheme,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 9 and 10 are subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 11 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites that “[(c.2.1)] wherein implementing the single-point full depolarizing error mitigation scheme comprises [(c.2.1.1)] determining an inferred average value of the observable
〈
O
〉
ψ
based at least in part on the average value of the observable of interest and the approximation of the circuit fidelity,” which is a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, is a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). Also, such a limitation of “determining an inferred average value” is a mathematical concept, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub I), which is also one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). Further, the claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element of “[(c.2)] implementing the error mitigation scheme,” “[(c.2.1)] wherein implementing the single-point full depolarizing error mitigation scheme comprises [(c.2.1.1)] determining an inferred average value of the observable,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 11 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 12 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics to the abstract idea of “[(c.2.1.1)] determining the inferred average value of the observable
O
ψ
” by “[(c.2.1.1.1)] determining the inferred average value of the observable
O
ψ
according to the formula
O
ƒ
=
ƒ
O
ψ
+
1
-
ƒ
2
n
T
r
O
where O is a desired observable,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the abstract idea. Further, the claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element of “[(c.2)] implementing the error mitigation scheme,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 12 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 13 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “[(c.2)] implementing the error mitigation scheme,” by “[(c.2.1)] implementing a multi-point extrapolation scheme,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 13 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 14 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “[(c.2.1)] wherein implementing the multi-point extrapolation scheme,” which comprises “[(c.2.1.1)] selecting a noise injection method and a plurality of extrapolation points,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 14 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 15 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “[(c.2.1)] wherein implementing the multi-point extrapolation scheme,” “[(c.2.1.1)] wherein the noise injection method comprises [(c.2.1.1.1)] implementing one or more additional Clifford gates and [(c.2.1.1.2)] one or more corresponding inverses of the one or more additional Clifford gates during each of the one or more circuit gauges,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 15 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 16 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “[(c.2.1)] implementing a multi-point extrapolation scheme,” by “[(c.2.1.1)] analyzing each of the plurality of extrapolation points with a different random circuit gauge of the one or more circuit gauges,” and “[(c.2.1.2)] extrapolating an inferred value of the observable of interest O based at least in part on the analysis of the plurality of extrapolation points,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 16 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 17 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “[(c.2)] implementing the error mitigation scheme,” that “[(c.2.1)] comprises biasing an error in a preferred direction during at least one of the one or more circuit gauges and correcting the error using an error correction code,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 17 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 18 depends directly or indirectly from claim 1. The claim recites more details or specifics to the additional element of “[(c.2)] implementing the error mitigation scheme,” that “[(c.2.1)] determining an error corrected observable of interest O by correcting for a noise component of the plurality of measurements,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. The abstract idea of the claim is not integrated into a practical application, (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)), nor does it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05 sub I; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a) – (h)), because the claim recites no more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 18 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 19 recites a method, which is a process, and thus one of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter. (35 U.S.C. § 101).
However, under Step 2A Prong One, the claim recites the limitation of “[(d)] determining, by the quantum computing system, an estimated average value of an observable of interest for the quantum circuits based at least in part on the plurality of measurements,” “[(e)] determining, by the computing system, an estimated noiseless value of an observable of interest based at least in part on the estimated average value of the observable of interest using a single-point full depolarizing error model,” and “[(f)] correcting, by the quantum computing system, an error using a quantum error code, wherein correcting the error is based on the estimated noiseless value of the observable of interest and the error is a qubit error,.” These activities of “[(d), (e)] determining” and “[(f)] correcting . . . an error,” are limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, is a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim also recited more details or specifics of the abstract idea of “[(f)] correcting . . . an error,” “[(f.1)] wherein correcting the error is based on the estimated noiseless value of the observable of interest and the error is a qubit error,” and accordingly, is merely more specific Thus, claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim as a whole is not integrated into a practical application, because the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception include “a computing system,” which is a generic computer component used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Also, the claim recites [(b)] implementing, by the computer system, a plurality of quantum circuits,” which is the use of the generic computer component (a computing system) to simulate quantum circuits, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The claim recites more details or specifics of [(b)] implementing, by the computer system, a plurality of quantum circuits,” where “each quantum circuit comprising a plurality of quantum gates, each of the plurality of quantum circuits further comprising an equivalent logical operation as each of the other quantum circuits in the plurality, each of the plurality of quantum circuits implemented by a different sequence of quantum gates as compared to each of the other quantum circuits in the plurality to thereby implement one or more circuit gauges,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional limitation.
Further, the claim recites “[(a)] accessing, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a quantum system comprising one or more qubits and one or more quantum measurement devices,” and “[(c)] obtaining, by the computing system via the one or more quantum measurement devices, a plurality of measurements performed for each of the quantum circuits” which are insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering, (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 19 recites an abstract idea.
Finally, under Step 2B, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements include “a computing system,” which is a generic computer component used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, the claim recites [(b)] implementing, by the computer system, a plurality of quantum circuits,” which is the use of the generic computer component (a computing system) to simulate quantum circuits, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The claim recites more details or specifics of [(b)] implementing, by the computer system, a plurality of quantum circuits,” where “each quantum circuit comprising a plurality of quantum gates, each of the plurality of quantum circuits further comprising an equivalent logical operation as each of the other quantum circuits in the plurality, each of the plurality of quantum circuits implemented by a different sequence of quantum gates as compared to each of the other quantum circuits in the plurality to thereby implement one or more circuit gauges,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional limitation.
Further, the claim recites “[(a)] accessing, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a quantum system comprising one or more qubits and one or more quantum measurement devices,” and “[(c)] obtaining, by the computing system via the one or more quantum measurement devices, a plurality of measurements performed for each of the quantum circuits,” which are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of retrieving information in memory, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.iv), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 19 is subject-matter ineligible.
Claim 30 recites a method, which is a process, and thus one of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter. (35 U.S.C. § 101).
However, under Step 2A Prong One, the claim recites the limitation of “[(d)] determining, by the computing system, an estimated average value of an observable of interest for the quantum circuits based at least in part on the plurality of measurements.” The activity of “[(d)] determining” are limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, is a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III), which is one of the groupings of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)). Thus, claim 30 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim as a whole is not integrated into a practical application, because the additional elements recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception include “a quantum computing system,” which is a generic computer component used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Also, the claim recites [(b)] implementing, by the quantum computer system, a plurality of quantum circuits,” which is the use of the generic computer component (a computing system) to simulate quantum circuits, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The claim recites more details or specifics of [(b)] implementing, by the quantum computer system, a plurality of quantum circuits,” where “each quantum circuit comprising a plurality of quantum gates, each of the plurality of quantum circuits further comprising an equivalent logical operation as each of the other quantum circuits in the plurality, each of the plurality of quantum circuits implemented by a different sequence of quantum gates as compared to each of the other quantum circuits in the plurality to thereby implement one or more circuit gauges,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional limitation.
Further, the claim recites “[(a)] accessing, by a quantum computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a quantum system comprising one or more qubits and one or more quantum measurement devices,” “[(c)] obtaining, by the quantum computing system via the one or more quantum measurement devices, a plurality of measurements performed for each of the quantum circuits,” and “[(e)] implementing, by the computing system, an error mitigation scheme for the quantum system based at least in part on the average value of the observable of interest,” which are insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and outputting (to implement) the scheme , (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), that do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element of “[(e)] implementing, by quantum the computing system, an error mitigation scheme,” “[(e.1)] wherein implementing the error mechanism scheme includes implementing a single-point full depolarizing error mitigation scheme and correcting an error using a quantum error correction code, and wherein the error is a qubit error,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. Therefore, claim 30 recites an abstract idea.
Finally, under Step 2B, the additional elements, taken alone or in combination, do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements include “a computing system,” which is a generic computer component used to implement the abstract idea, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, the claim recites [(b)] implementing, by the computer system, a plurality of quantum circuits,” which is the use of the generic computer component (a computing system) to simulate quantum circuits, (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites more details or specifics of [(b)] implementing, by the computer system, a plurality of quantum circuits,” where “each quantum circuit comprising a plurality of quantum gates, each of the plurality of quantum circuits further comprising an equivalent logical operation as each of the other quantum circuits in the plurality, each of the plurality of quantum circuits implemented by a different sequence of quantum gates as compared to each of the other quantum circuits in the plurality to thereby implement one or more circuit gauges,” and accordingly, are merely more specific to the additional element.
Further, the claim recites “[(a)] accessing, by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, a quantum system comprising one or more qubits and one or more quantum measurement devices,” “[(c)] obtaining, by the computing system via the one or more quantum measurement devices, a plurality of measurements performed for each of the quantum circuits,” which are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of storing and retrieving information in memory, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.iv), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. . The claim also recites “[(e)] implementing an error mitigation scheme for the quantum computing system based at least in part on the average value of the observable of interest,” where the plain meaning of “implementing” is “putting into action.” Accordingly, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term “implementing” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of implementing or putting the error mitigation scheme into action, such as by delivery of the scheme, (MPEP § 2106.05(d) sub II.i), that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites more details or specifics of the additional element of “[(e)] implementing, by quantum the computing system, an error mitigation scheme,” “[(e.1)] wherein implementing the error mechanism scheme includes implementing a single-point full depolarizing error mitigation scheme and correcting an error using a quantum error correction code, and wherein the error is a qubit error,” and accordingly, is merely more specific to the additional element. Therefore, claim 30 is subject-matter ineligible.
Response to Argument
6. Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, and responds below accordingly.
Section 101
7. Applicant submits that “[o]n page 2 of the Action, the Office posits that claims 1-19 and 30 are rejected for allegedly being directed towards an abstract idea. Without conceding to the merits of the allegations of the claims being directed to an abstract idea, each of independent claims 1, 19, and 30 have been amended to recite ‘correcting an error using a quantum correction code, wherein the error is a qubit error.’ Support for this amendment may be found at least in dependent claim 17 as originally filed.
Dependent claim 17 has been amended in view of incorporating a portion of claim 17 into independent claim 1. Applicant respectfully submits that correcting a qubit error is not an abstract idea. A qubit error is an error of a quantum state of a qubit. Correcting quantum states is not an abstract idea.
Accordingly, each amended independent claim 1, 19, and 30 and each dependent claim 2-6 and 8-19 is now not directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the section 101 rejections of claims 1-19 and 39 are now moot and should be withdrawn.” (Response at p. 7).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees because under Step 2A Prong Two, the rejections identify any additional elements by specifically pointing to claim limitations recited in the claim beyond the identified abstract idea (that is, judicial exception); and evaluates the integration of the judicial exception into a practical application by explaining that the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application using the considerations set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)- (c) and (e)- (h). (MPEP § 2106.07(a)).
Referring to exemplar claim 1, the claim recites, inter alia:
A quantum computing system, comprising:
* * *
[(c)] one or more processors operable to perform operations, the operations comprising:
[(c.1)] determining an average value of an observable of interest
〈
O
〉
f
, f or the quantum circuits based at least in part on the plurality of measurements; and
[(c.2)] implementing an error mitigation scheme for the quantum computing system based at least in part on the average value of the observable of interest
〈
O
〉
f
,
[(c.2.1)] wherein implementing the error mechanism scheme includes implementing a single-point full depolarizing error mitigation scheme and correcting an error using a quantum error correction code, and wherein the error is a qubit error.
(Claim 1, lines 1 & 15-19 (emphasis added by Examiner to amended language)).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “quantum computing system” covers quantum simulations, as well as hybrid quantum computers that include a classical computer having a processor coupled to a memory, which is not inconsistent with the Applicant’s specification. (MPEP § 2111; see, e.g., Specification ¶ 0089).
Accordingly, in a quantum simulation or a hybrid quantum computer, the activity of “implementing the error mechanism scheme” is applied to a qubit environment, where is a qubit is the quantum equivalent of a classical bit. The plain meaning of “implementing” is putting into effect, which is an additional element.
Though the claim is directed to the additional element, “implementing,” Examiner notes that “correcting an error” is a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, including, for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and accordingly, is a mental process, (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub III). Still further, such a limitation may be also a mathematical concept. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) sub I).
Thus, claims 1-6, 8-19 and 30 are subject-matter ineligible, as set out above in detail.
Section 103
8. Applicant submits that “[i]t is noted that dependent claims 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, as well as independent claim 19 are not rejected in view of any prior art.” (Response at p. 8).
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner notes the limitations of dependent claim 7 has been incorporated into independent claims 1 and 30. Accordingly, Examiner WITHDRAWS the rejections under Section 103 to claims 1-6, 13-18, and 30.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
(US Published Application 10755193 to Kandala et al.) teaches determining a mitigated estimate for the expectation values based upon an extrapolation of the expectation values determined for each stretch factor. Thus, the embodiment provides for the implementation of error mitigation of short-depth quantum computing circuits to significantly enhance the power of near-term quantum computers for computations based upon expectation values.
(Endo et al., “Hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quantum error mitigation,” arXiv (2020)) teaches the most basic ideas of hybrid quantum-classical algorithms and quantum error mitigation techniques.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEVIN L. SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-5964. Normally, the Examiner is available on Monday-Thursday 0730-1730.
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, KAKALI CHAKI can be reached on 571-272-3719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.L.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights