DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response, filed 16 March 2026, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 .
Claim status
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein.
Claims 16-20 are newly added.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claim 6 and 8 are objected to.
Priority
Claims 1-20 are granted the claim to the benefit of priority to foreign application EP19209818.4 filed 18 November 2019. Thus, the effective filling date of claims 1-20 is 18 November 2019.
Drawings
The replacement drawings received 16 March 2026 are accepted.
Claim Objections
The objection claim 1 in Office action mailed 16 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendment of “which is restricted to electron singlet state configurations” received 16 March 2026.
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “which are computed based on of information” but should read “which are computed based on information”.
Claim 8 recites “a qubit readout representing a measured expectation values of the Hamiltonian” but should “a qubit readout representing a measure expectation value of the Hamiltonian”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection on the ground of 112/b of claims 1-14 for reciting “a classical computer” in Office action mailed 16 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendment “a computer system comprising a processor connected to a quantum computer comprising a plurality of qubits” received 16 March 2026.
The rejection on the ground of 112/b of claims 1-15 for reciting “the sequence of gate operations to qubits of the quantum computer” in Office action mailed 16 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendment “the quantum circuit representing a sequence of gate operations… the executing including applying the sequence of gate operations to the plurality of qubits” received 16 March 2026.
The rejection on the ground of 112/b of claims 7 and 8 for claim 7 reciting “an application of a gate causing the pair of qubits” in Office action mailed 16 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendment “sequentially applying gate operations of the quantum circuit to pairs of qubits of the plurality of qubits, an application of a gate operation to a pair of qubits causing the pair of qubits to interact with each other” received 16 March 2026.
The rejection on the ground of 112/b of claim 9 for reciting the phrase “(errors)” in Office action mailed 16 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendment which removes this phrase received 16 March 2026.
The rejection on the ground of 112/b of claim 9 for reciting “wherein, the trial state is error-mitigated using a diagonalize-and-post-selection procedure, filtering out non-physical measurement results (errors)” in Office action mailed 16 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendment of “wherein the trial stat is error-mitigated using a diagonalize-and-post-selection procedure to filter out non-physical measurement results” received 16 March 2026.
The rejection on the ground of 112/b of claims 10 and 11 for reciting “the gate operation is a singlet-state simulation gate operation” in Office action mailed 16 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendment “wherein the gate operations include a singlet-state simulation (SSS) gate operation” received 16 March 2026.
The rejection on the ground of 112/b of claims 2-11 and 14 for reciting “preferably a quibit includes…” (in claims 2 and 14), “preferably according to the following equation…” (in claims 3 and 4), “preferably a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) scheme” (in claim 5), and “preferably coupled cluster amplitudes” (in claim 6) in Office action mailed 16 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the amendment which removes the phrase “preferably” received 16 March 2026.
112/a
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 13, 14, 17, and 18 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.
Claim 13 recites “wherein responsive to executing the computer readable program code, the processor is configured to perform executable operations comprising… controlling the quantum computer to execute the quantum circuit, the controlling including applying the sequence of gate operations to the plurality of qubits”. There is an inadequate written description for the processor controlling the quantum computer to execute the quantum circuit. The instant disclosure provides that “the controller system include a microwave system for generating microwave pulses which are used to manipulate qubits” (instant disclosure page 13). The instant disclosure does not provide an adequate written description of the classical processor controlling the quantum computer to execute the quantum circuit. Thus, the processor controlling the quantum computer to execute the quantum circuit constitutes as new matter. Dependent claim 14 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on a rejected claim without alleviating the rejection.
Claim 17 recites “The method according to claim 3, wherein the Hamiltonian describing the quantum chemistry system is defined in terms of Pauli spin operators” and claim 18 recites “The method according to claim 4, wherein the paired-electron unitary coupled cluster with double excitations (pUCCD) ansatz is defined in terms of Pauli spin operators”. There is an inadequate written description for the Hamiltonian being defined in terms of Pauli spin operators and being defined in terms of hard-core bosonic annihilation operators (which is set out in claim 3 from which claim 17 depends) in combination. Further, there is an inadequate written description for the paired-electron unitary coupled cluster with double excitations (pUCCD) ansatz being defined in terms of Pauli spin operators and being defined in terms of annihilation operators (which is set out in claim 4 from which claim 18 depends) in combination. The instant disclosure provides that defining the Hamiltonian in terms of hard-core bosonic annihilation operators and in terms of Pauli spin operators are alternative embodiments (instant disclosure page 5-6). The instant disclosure does not provide defining the Hamiltonian with a combination of hard-core bosonic annihilation operators and Pauli spin operators. The instant disclosure provides that defining the pUCCD ansatz in terms of hard-core bosonic annihilation operators and defining in terms of Pauli spin operators are alternative embodiments (instant disclosure page 6). The instant disclosure does not provide defining the pUCCD ansatz with a combination of hard-core bosonic annihilation operators and Pauli spin operators. Thus, defining the Hamiltonian (and pUCCD ansatz) with a combination of hard-core bosonic annihilation operators and Pauli spin operators constitutes as new matter.
112/b
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.
Claims 13-15 are 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.
The rejection below was previously recited.
Claim 13 recites “preferably a microprocessor” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. The indefiniteness arises because it is unclear if the limitations including “preferably” are required by the claims or if they are optional. The specification does not provide a clear and precise definition of the limitation, nor would one skilled in the art recognize the metes and bounds of said limitation. Dependent claim 14 is rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected claim without alleviating the indefiniteness. For the sake of furthering examination these limitations will be interpreted as optional.
The rejection below was previously recited.
Claim 15 recites “a classical computer” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. The indefiniteness arises because it is unclear what constitutes as “a classical computer” and what computer hardware is encompassed by “a classical computer”. The specification does not provide a clear and precise definition of the limitation, nor would one skilled in the art recognize the metes and bounds of said limitation. For the sake of furthering examination, this limitation will be interpreted as a computer system comprising a processor.
Examiners Comment
It is noted that no argument was presented for the above previously recited rejections. Further, the amendment received 16 March 2026 does not alleviate the issue of indefiniteness as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection on the ground of 101 of claims 1-15 in Office action mailed 16 December 2025 is withdrawn in view of the arguments of the claimed invention overcomes the inability of current noisy, intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ) devices to perform complex chemistry simulations due to prohibitive circuit depth and measurement complexity through uniquely combining a hard-core bosonic Hamiltonian model restricted to electron singlet state configurations with a corresponding paired-electron unitary coupled cluster with double excitations (pUCCD) ansatz received 16 March 2026. After further consideration, the additional elements of transforming the pUCCD ansatz into a quantum circuit, the quantum circuit representing a sequence of gate operations and executing, by the quantum computer, the quantum circuit, the executing including applying the sequence of gate operations to the plurality of qubits go beyond generally linking the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment or utilizing the quantum computer as a tool to perform judicial exceptions because the implementation of the ansatz on a quantum computer requires configuring a quantum circuit with a certain series of gate operations to operate on qubits and executing the certain series of gate operations on qubits. Further, the argued improvement which addresses a technological problem of prohibitive circuit depth through the use of the pUCCD ansatz is provided by the additional elements of “transforming the pUCCD ansatz into a quantum circuit, the quantum circuit representing a sequence of gate operations” and “executing, by the quantum computer, the quantum circuit, the executing including applying the sequence of gate operations to the plurality of qubits” because the ansatz is implemented as a series of gate operations on a quantum circuit and is responsible for the for the depth of the quantum circuit itself. Thus, the claimed invention provides an improvement in quantum computing technology.
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 rejection below has been modified necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1-10, 13-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hempel et al. (Physical Review X 8.3 (2018): 031022; previously cited) in view of Slagle et al. (Cornell University Library, 14 May 2018, 24 pages; previously cited) in view of Stein et al. (J. Chem. Phys. 7 June 2014; 140 (21): 214113; previously cited).
Claim 1 (a method), claim 13 (a system), and claim 15 (a computer program product) for simulating a quantum chemistry system using a data processing system comprising a computer system comprising a processor connected to a quantum computer comprising a plurality of qubits, the method comprising: receiving or determining, by the processor, information on a Hamiltonian describing the quantum chemistry system, the Hamiltonian being a hard-core bosonic Hamiltonian, which is restricted to electron singlet state configurations,
Hempel et al. shows a method for simulating a quantum chemistry system using a processing system comprising a classical computer connected to a quantum computer (Hempel et al. page 3 figure 1). Hempel et al. shows utilizing the classical computer to determine information on a Hamiltonian describing a quantum system such as a classical approximation to the ground state the Hamiltonian (Hempel et al. page 3 left col. and figure 1).
receiving or determining, by the processor, information on a paired-electron unitary coupled cluster with double excitations (pUCCD) ansatz, the pUCCD ansatz being restricted to electron singlet state configurations,
Hempel et al. shows determining information on an ansatz (shown as Unitary coupled cluster) (Hempel et al. page 3 figure 1 and page 4 left col.).
transforming, by the processor, the pUCCD ansatz into a quantum circuit, the quantum circuit representing a sequence of gate operations, executing, by the quantum computer, the quantum circuit, the execution including applying the sequence of gate operations to the plurality of qubits,
Hempel et al. shows the ansatz essentially suggests a series of operators that one should evolve under in order to prepare the electronic ground state (Hempel et al. page 3 left col. and page 4 left col.). Hempel et al further shows quantum circuits implementing operators with respect to an ansatz state (Hempel et al. page 3 left col and page 6 figure 2).
receiving, by the processor, a trial state, the trial state including measured qubit states representing expectation values of the Hamiltonian,
Hempel et al. shows a classical computer receives the measured expectation values of the energy of the prepared ansatz state (the state produced by the operators implemented on the quantum circuit) (Hempel et al. page 3 right col. and figure 1).
and determining an energy of the quantum chemistry system based on the trial state.
Hempel et al. shows determining a full potential energy surface of the quantum chemistry system from the numerical data produced from the process the produces the trial states (Hempel et al. page 3 figure 1).
Hempel et al. does not show the Hamiltonian being a hard-core bosonic Hamiltonian, which restricted to electron singlet state configurations or utilizing a paired-electron unitary coupled cluster with double excitations (pUCCD) ansatz.
Like Hempel et al., Slagle et al. shows modeling a quantum chemistry system. Slagle et al. shows modeling a quantum system with an effective Hamiltonian which is written in the form of a hard-core boson model (Slagle et al. page 6 para. 2-3 and equation 8). Slagle et al. shows physically the boson is a Cooper pair of fermions (which encompass electrons) (Slagle et al. page 6 para. 3). It is interpreted since the hard-core boson model treats fermions as pairs then this Hamiltonian is restricted to electron singlet state configurations.
Hempel et al. in view of Slagle et al. does not show utilizing a paired-electron unitary coupled cluster with double excitations (pUCCD) ansatz.
Like Hempel et al. in view of Slagle et al., Stein et al. shows modeling a quantum chemistry system. Stein et al. shows an orbital optimized paired coupled cluster doubles scheme which is limited to pair excitations for modeling the systems energy (Stein et al. page 1 abstract and page 2 right col. - page 3 left col.). Stein et al. shows that variations in the orbitals are expressed via the unitary exponential operator ek where k is an equation with annihilation operators (Stein et al. page 2 right col.).
Claims 2 and 14 are directed wherein the electron singlet state configurations only include molecular orbitals that are either occupied or not occupied by electron pairs. Claim 16 is directed to wherein the plurality of qubits includes a qubit comprising a first qubit state representing a molecular orbital that is occupied with an electron pair and a second qubit state representing a molecular orbital that is not occupied with an electron pair.
Hempel et al. does not show wherein the electron singlet state configurations only include molecular orbitals that are either occupied or not occupied by electron pairs and wherein the plurality of qubits includes a qubit comprising a first qubit state representing a molecular orbital that is occupied with an electron pair and a second qubit state representing a molecular orbital that is not occupied with an electron pair.
Stein et al. shows an orbital optimized paired coupled cluster doubles scheme which is limited to pair excitations for modeling the systems energy (Stein et al. page 1 abstract and page 2 right col. - page 3 left col.). This scheme is adapted for modeling configuration states of paired electrons which will only include molecular orbitals that are either occupied or not occupied by electron pairs (Stein et al. page 1 abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this scheme adapted for modeling paired electron states that only include occupied or not occupied by electron pairs would result in qubits being in two states (i.e., a state for molecular orbitals being occupied or not occupied).
Claim 3 is directed wherein the Hamiltonian describing the quantum chemistry system is defined in terms of hard-core bosonic annihilation operators.
Hempel et al. does not show wherein the Hamiltonian describing the quantum chemistry system is defined in terms of hard-core bosonic annihilation operators.
Slagle et al. shows modeling a quantum system with an effective Hamiltonian which is written in the form of a hard-core boson model in terms of hard-core bosonic annihilation operators (Slagle et al. page 6 para. 2-3 and equation 8).
Claim 4 is directed to wherein a paired-electron unitary coupled cluster with double excitations (pUCCD) ansatz is defined in terms of annihilation operators.
Hempel et al. does not show wherein a paired-electron unitary coupled cluster with double excitations (pUCCD) ansatz is defined in terms of annihilation operators.
Stein et al. shows that variations in the orbitals are expressed via the unitary exponential operator ek where k is an equation with annihilation operators (Stein et al. page 2 right col.).
Claim 5 is directed to wherein, the trial state and the energy are determined based on a variational scheme. Claim 19 is directed to wherein the variational scheme is a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) scheme.
Hempel et al. shows the trial state and the energy are determined based on a variational scheme (Hempel et al. page (Hempel et al. page 3 figure 1). Hempel et al. shows the variational scheme is a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) scheme (Hempel et al. page 3 figure 1).
Claim 6 is directed to wherein determining a trial state includes: initializing the qubits of the quantum computer based on parameters which are computed based on information of the quantum chemistry system. Claim 20 is directed to wherein the parameters include coupled cluster amplitudes.
Hempel et al. shows the quantum processor receives a parameter vector from the classical computer and the quantum processor is parameterized which is interpreted as an initialization the qubits of the quantum computer based on parameters (Hempel et al. page 3 figure 1). Hempel et al. shows that the parameters include coupled cluster amplitudes (Hempel et al. page 4 left col. – right col.).
Claim 7 is directed to wherein determining a trial state includes: sequentially applying gate operations of the quantum circuit to pairs of qubits of the plurality of qubits, an application of a gate operation to a pair of qubits causing the pair of qubits to interact with each other.
Hempel et al. shows a sequential application of gate operations of quantum circuits including multiqubit entangling operations which causes pairs of qubits to interact with each other (Hempel et al. page 5 left col., page 6 figure 2(b), and page 8 figure 4(c)).
Claim 8 is directed to wherein determining a trial state further includes: applying a basis rotation to each of the pairs of qubits; and, performing one or more qubit readouts, a qubit readout representing a measured expectation value of the Hamiltonian.
Hempel et al. shows qubit rotation operations show as z(pi), z(α), and z(β) (Hempel et al. page 5 left col.). Hempel et al. shows performing one or more qubit readout representing measured expectation values of the Hamiltonian as projective measurements in the quantum circuit (Hempel et al. page 3 right col. and page 6 figure 2(c)).
Claim 9 is directed to wherein the trial state is error-mitigated using a diagonalize- and post-selection procedure to filter out non-physical measurement results.
Hempel et al. shows that there is quantum control techniques tailored to experimental errors allow for the suppression of certain types of gate errors (Hempel et al. page 11 left col.). Hempel et al. further shows that error suppression techniques at the physical gate level promises improved fidelities of the practically implemented operations (Hempel et al. page 11 right col.).
Claim 10 is directed to wherein the gate operations include a singlet-state simulation (SSS) gate operation comprising a partial-swap gate operation, the partial-swap gate operation defining an entangling operation which simulates partially distributing an electron pair among two molecular orbitals.
Hempel et al. shows the use of MS gate operations which performs an entangling operation which each realize the ansatz operator for simulating the distributions of an electron pair among orbitals (Hempel et al. page 5 left col., page 6 figure 2, and page 8 figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have substituted the Hamiltonian of the quantum chemistry system of Hempel et al. with the effective Hamiltonian which is written in the form of a hard-core boson model describing a particular quantum chemistry system of Slagle et al. because they both are Hamiltonians for quantum chemistry systems and would lead to predictable results of performing a hybrid classical quantum simulation approach for a particular system that is represented as a hard-core boson model. It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have modified the unitary coupled cluster ansatz of Hempel et al. in view of Slagle et al. with the orbital optimized paired coupled clustered scheme in which variations in orbitals are expressed via the unitary exponential operator ek where k is an equation with annihilation operators of Stein et al. because this would allow for utilizing an ansatz which is adapted for configuration states of paired electrons which provides a high quality approximation of the paired space configurations of a system that is computationally efficient (Stein et al. page 1 abstract). One would have a reasonable expectation of success because Hempel et al. in view of Slagle et al. perform quantum simulations utilizing a hard-core boson model which groups electrons in pairs while Stein et al. shows an adapted ansatz for configuration states of paired electrons in a quantum chemistry system.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hempel et al. in view of Slagle et al. in view of Stein et al. as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of O'Gorman et al. (arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.05118 (2019); previously cited).
Claim 11 is directed to wherein the gate operations include a singlet-state simulation (SSS) gate operation comprising a full- swap gate, which swaps qubit labels in order to bring every qubit which was occupied next to every other qubit which was not occupied.
Hempel et al. in view of Slagle et al. in view of Stein et al. does not show a gate operation including a full-swap gate, which swaps qubit labels in order to bring every qubit which was occupied next to every other qubit which was not occupied.
Like Hempel et al. in view of Slagle et al. in view of Stein et al., O’Gorman et al. shows quantum computing for a quantum chemistry system. O’Gorman et al. shows full swap gates in order bringing every occupied orbital and ever virtual orbital adjacent to each other at some point in the quantum circuit (O’Gorman et al. page 9 right col.).
An invention would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art if some motivation in the prior art would have led that person to modify reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have modified the quantum circuit of Hempel et al. in view of Slagle et al. in view of Stein et al. to include swap gates of O’Gorman et al. because this would allow for bringing every occupied orbital and ever virtual orbital adjacent to each other in the quantum circuit which improved connectivity of a quantum circuit by allowing the circuit to perform logical operations on physically adjacent qubits (O’Gorman et al. page 1 abstract). One would have a reasonable expectation of success because Hempel et al. in view of Slagle et al. in view of Stein et al. shows utilizing quantum circuit operations on qubits while O’Gorman et al. shows a quantum circuit implementation which swaps qubits for increasing connectivity of the circuit.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hempel et al. in view of Slagle et al. in view of Stein et al. as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Cao et al. (Chemical Reviews, 30 August 2019, pp. 10856-10915, Vol. 119, No. 19; previously cited).
Claim 12 is directed to wherein the trial state and the energy are determined based on a quantum phase estimation.
Hempel et al. in view of Slagle et al. in view of Stein et al. does not show wherein the trial state and the energy are determined based on a quantum phase estimation.
Like Hempel et al. in view of Slagle et al. in view of Stein et al., Like Hempel et al. in view of Slagle et al. in view of Stein et al., Cao et al. shows quantum computing for a quantum chemistry system.
Cao et al. shows using a quantum phase estimation for determining trial state and the energy of a quantum chemistry system (Cao et al. page “R”- “S”). Cao et al. shows that there are two approaches for estimating ground state energies with one being the quantum phase estimation algorithm (Cao et al. page “AO”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have substituted the use of a variational quantum eigensolver for determining the trial state and the energy of the quantum chemistry system of Hempel et al. in view of Slagle et al. in view of Stein et al. with a quantum phase estimation algorithm in Cao et al. because both of these algorithms are used for estimating ground state energies in quantum chemistry systems and would lead to predictable results of determining trial states and energies of a quantum chemistry system utilizing a Hamiltonian restricted to electron singlet state configurations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant provides arguments based on O’Gorman being relied upon for showing a “hard-core boson model” (Reply p. 27-31). It is noted that Slagle et al. was relied upon to show the hard-core boson model (see page 16 of previous office action mailed 16 December 2025). Further, the arguments provided by applicant are not persuasive because they do not address Slagle et al. or the combination of Hempel et al., Slagle et al., and Stein et al. as set out in the previous office action. Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (i.e., Hempel et al. and Stein et al.), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues the entire body of prior art cited is rooted in the standard fermionic paradigm for quantum chemistry and that a PHOSITA starting from this collection of prior art would be motived to find further improvements for simulating fermionic systems. Applicant argues the art consistently directs the skilled person towards managing the complexity of fermionic operators and their mapping to qubits. Applicant further argues that Applicant’s solution is to abandon the fermionic model entirely in favor of a simpler bosonic one by restricting the Hilbert space which runs counter to the established teachings in the cited art (Reply p. 28-29).
This argument has been fully considered but found to be not persuasive. Hempel et al. is relied upon to show the quantum computing and classical computing hybrid framework which determines an ansatz, transforms the ansatz into a quantum circuit, executes the quantum circuit to receiving in the classical processor a trail state to determine an energy. Although Hempel et al. utilizes a fermionic Hamiltonian, there is no teaching in Hempel et al. that this quantum computing and classical computing hybrid framework would not work using different Hamiltonians or ansatzes. As stated above, Slagle et al. is relied upon to show representing a fermionic system as an effective Hamiltonian which treats pairs of fermions as a boson and the Hamiltonian is written as a hard-core boson model which simplifies the Hamiltonian. Further, Stein et al. is relied upon to show an ansatz which utilizes pair excitation operators and pair de-excitation operators which is adapted for configuration states of paired electrons which provides a high-quality approximation of the paired space configurations of a system. Although Stein et al. shows applying this in a fermionic system, this ansatz which models the paired space configurations of a system is adapted to be applied to the effective Hamiltonian written as a hard-core boson model because the effective Hamiltonian models fermion pairs and this ansatz is adapted to model a paired space (excitations and de-excitations of fermion pairs). It is noted O’Gorman et al. was relied upon to show a particular gate operation not a particular Hamiltonian.
Applicant argues the claimed invention achieves a surprising and unexpected technical effect by restricting the simulation to a bosonic model, the claimed method achieves an enormous reduction in runtime on a quantum computer, reduction in measurement complexity and reduction in circuit depth (Reply p. 29-30). Applicant argues these benefits are not mere predictable improvements but surprising technical advantages stemming directly from the non-obvious insight to restrict the problem to the electron singlet state subspace (Reply p. 30).
This argument has been fully considered but found to be not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the claimed method achieves an enormous reduction in runtime on a quantum computer, a reduction in measurement complexity, and a reduction in circuit depth, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Claims 17 and 18 are free of the prior art of record. The prior art of record does not show or render obvious defining the Hamiltonian (and pUCCD ansatz) with a combination of hard-core bosonic annihilation operators and Pauli spin operators. Thus, claims 17 and 18 are free of the prior art of record.
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 JONATHAN EDWARD HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-6165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached at 571-272-2249. 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.
/J.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights