DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant claims the benefit of U.S. Application No. 16/705,727, filed December 6, 2019, which is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/04/2022. These drawings are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on the following date(s):
10/15/2025
09/18/2025
02/11/2025
02/04/2025
10/02/2024
08/20/2024
04/18/2024
03/18/2024
12/01/2023
11/0/2023
06/09/2023
04/18/2023
have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP 2111 discloses the guidance for claim interpretation during the examination process. Specifically the it notes:
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
… 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-01.2024] …
I. THE WORDS OF A CLAIM MUST BE GIVEN THEIR "PLAIN MEANING" UNLESS SUCH MEANING IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SPECIFICATION
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ("[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’" (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context…
IV. APPLICANT MAY BE OWN LEXICOGRAPHER AND/OR MAY DISAVOW CLAIM SCOPE
The only exceptions to giving the words in a claim their ordinary and customary meaning in the art are (1) when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer; and (2) when the applicant disavows or disclaims the full scope of a claim term in the specification. To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002)…
A. Lexicography
An applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time…
The examiner highlights the following terms that have been given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) and/or plain meaning as customary to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner relies on the Background section of the reference Benchasattabuse NPL: "Quantum comparator circuit on superconducting quantum computer." (2019) that captures the noted customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time
Quantum Circuit:
a framework in computer science that is used to evaluate the computational resources used in a quantum algorithm for modeling the causal relationship in quantum physics as connected qubit registers and quantum gate operators; wherein the qubit registers are represented by wires to model the state of qubit evolution according to a sequence of gates that define the quantum circuit; See Chiribella et al. (NPL: Beyond quantum computers) and the gates model matrix operations as noted below; See Background section of the reference Benchasattabuse NPL: "Quantum comparator circuit on superconducting quantum computer." (2019)
Quantum bits (i.e. qbit or qubit):
are considered element that can hold the value 0 and 1 at the same time described using equation
PNG
media_image1.png
36
212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where the value of the bit when observed (or measured) collapsed to a state of 0 or 1;
can also be interpreted as an element for carrying information associated with a quantum process/system/algorithm that can be observed or measured.
Quantum gate:
not a physical gate lime in a classical computer but refers model representation used to describe matrix operations in quantum computed as noted in the following examples:
PNG
media_image2.png
116
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
226
796
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Qubit wire/qubit wire: as noted above a qubit/qbit for carrying quantum information; not considered a physical wire but that model by physical phenomenon including the bit states and their information characterized as modeled qubit/qbit information between gates observed in a quantum circuit
A qubit/qbit is considered a wire carrying information in a quantum circuit/system
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claims 13-20 the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim as the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) appears to included elements directed to signal per se. Specifically, the system stored in computer memory, not excluding transitory signals and the process and circuit amount to data/information stored in the a transitory memory. When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves). See MPEP 2106.03.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
defining a plurality of system qubit wires and interactions therebetween … ; identifying a past causal cone of a first system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; defining a first slice containing the past causal cone of the first system qubit wire; identifying a second causal cone of a second system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; and defining a second slice containing a portion of the second causal cone that is not within the first slice ((Abstract idea: considered elements directed to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations; Mathematical relationships, As quantum state and matrix operators and casual relationships; (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I); Alternatively Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) for defining a system and making observations through evaluations and judgements for forming opinions relating identified components as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
… a plurality of system qubit wires and interactions therebetween configured for performing a quantum algorithm; … first system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; … the first system qubit wire; … a second system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; … (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea from claim 1 incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the quantum circuit is configured such that each gate of the first slice is performed prior to beginning to perform the second slice (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea from claim 1 incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the quantum circuit is configured such that executing an i-th slice of the quantum circuit comprises executing all gates for which incoming and outgoing wires lie within the i-th slice to propagate the system qubits forward in a dimension. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea from claim 3 incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the quantum circuit comprises at least one ancilla wire and the quantum circuit is configured such that an i-th slice of the quantum circuit comprises interacting one or more system qubits at a bottom of the i-th slice with at least one ancilla qubit via unitary gates in order to introduce initial correlations between the one or more system qubits at the bottom of the i-th slice and system qubits at the bottom of one or more other slices. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5:: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions. ((Abstract idea: considered elements directed to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations; Mathematical relationships, As quantum state and matrix operators as claimed mathematical operator; (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I))
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein each system qubit wire corresponds to a degree of freedom associated with a section of a physical domain … ((Abstract idea: considered elements directed to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations; Mathematical relationships, as claimed; (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I))
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
… a section of a physical domain being simulated.. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein an i-th slice of the quantum circuit is configured to, upon execution by a quantum processor, evolve the degree of freedom in accordance with an operator. ((Abstract idea: considered elements directed to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations; Mathematical relationships, as claimed; (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I))
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein an i-th slice of the quantum circuit is configured to, upon execution by a quantum processor,… (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
wherein the operator is a Hamiltonian. (Abstract idea: considered elements directed to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations; Mathematical relationships, as claimed; (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I))
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea from claim 6 incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the physical domain is one of a one dimensional, two dimensional, or three dimensional physical domain.. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea from claim 6 incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein the quantum circuit simulates the dynamics of the evolution of quantum states defined on a lattice representing the physical domain.. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
further comprising causing the quantum circuit to be configured to cause measurement of at least one physical qubit of the plurality of qubits to determine a value corresponding to at least one degree of freedom within the physical domain. (Abstract idea: considered elements directed to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations; Mathematical relationships, as claimed; (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I))
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Abstract idea from claim 1 incorporated.
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
wherein at least one system qubit wire of the quantum circuit extends through multiple slices of quantum circuit. (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13: Does claim fall within a statutory category? Yes.
Step 2A Prong 1: Evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
generate a quantum circuit divided into slices by :defining a plurality of system qubit wires and interactions therebetween configured for performing a quantum algorithm; identifying a past causal cone of a first system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; defining a first slice containing the past causal cone of the first system qubit wire; identifying a second causal cone of a second system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; and defining a second slice containing a portion of the second causal cone that is not within the first slice ((Abstract idea: considered elements directed to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations; Mathematical relationships, As quantum state and matrix operators and casual relationships; (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I); Alternatively Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) for defining a system and making observations through evaluations and judgements for forming opinions relating identified components as claimed)
Step 2A Prong 2: Evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The preamble is deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the preamble generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
… a plurality of system qubit wires and interactions therebetween configured for performing a quantum algorithm; …first system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; … the first system qubit wire; ... a second system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; … (Deemed insufficient to transform the judicial exception to a patentable invention because the recitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2106.05(h).)
The additional elements do not appear to be sufficient to transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A as analyzed above.
Step 2B: Evaluates whether the claim as a whole/in combination integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception and fail to integrate the abstract into practical application.
The additional limitations are directed to elements that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
These types of claimed elements cannot transform the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Thus, considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 14-20, the limitations are similar to the limitations in claims 2-7 and 10 and are rejected under the same rationale.
In considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception and does not recite, when claim elements are examined individually and as a whole, elements that the courts have identified as "significantly more”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “causal cone” and “slice” as claimed in the limitations “defining a first slice containing the past causal cone of the first system qubit wire; identifying a second causal cone of a second system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; and defining a second slice containing a portion of the second causal cone that is not within the first slice” that renders the claim indefinite as one of ordinary skill would be unable to ascertain the intended scope of the claimed invention. A qubit wire, in light of the applicant’s specification, is considered a model of quantum information, see specification 0022: … each system qubit wire may represent, model, simulate, and/or correspond to the evolution (e.g., in time) of a quantum degree of freedom, physical location, and/or particle within the system and/or domain… For example, a system qubit wire of the quantum circuit may simulate the evolution (e.g., in time) of one or more properties of a corresponding section within the system and/or domain. For example, the quantum circuit may simulate the dynamics of the evolution of quantum states of particles within a physical domain. In various embodiments, the domain may not be a physical domain and the domain may be more than 3-dimensional. For example, the domain may correspond to the spread of disease through a geographical area, logistics operations in a geographical area, financial indices, and/or other one or multi-dimensional domains. (emphasis added).
How does one ascertain or measure what a slice containing a causal cone of system qubit wire is unclear and undefined by the claimed invention. What is a casual cone of modeled information, at best it would be any model associated with the modeled information but how than does one of ordinary skill takes a slice of a model? The applicant can be their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. However it is unclear what a causal cone is and how a slice is taken as claimed.
The examiner interprets any quantum system modeled as having two or more qubits as within the scope of the noted claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding the dependent claims that depend on claims 1 and 13, the claim limitations do not resolve the deficiency noted above and in some cases recite the same problematic terms noted above; and thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagg (US 20220366289, hereinafter ‘Tag’) in view of Routt (US 20040078421, hereinafter ‘Rou’).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tag teaches a method for generating a quantum circuit, the method comprising: defining a plurality of system qubit wires and interactions therebetween configured for performing a quantum algorithm; (in [0117] FIG. 17 Illustrates a layout for the QGC implementation. A series of quantum gravity gates (QGG)—somewhat equivalent to neural network nodes—are deposited onto a substrate which is organized into a series of interlocking fingers or a snaking paths [defining a plurality of system qubit wires and interactions therebetween configured for performing a quantum algorithm]. The QGG elements are formed of graphene tuned to a particular wavelength and spaced along the finger so that they coherently transport energy along a finger. Portions of graphene compound move with respect to the substrate when excited. At the end of each finger a connecting element transports energy from one finger to the next and computation occurs in the other direction along an adjacent finger, Quantum resonant gravity gates (nodes) are laid out along the snaking paths 1701, 1702, 1703. The nodes are able to communicate most readily with each other along the main pathways but are entangled 1704 and gravitationally effective laterally 1705 [defining a plurality of system qubit wires and interactions therebetween configured for performing a quantum algorithm]. The nodes of the quantum gravity computer are not wired as a conventional computer might be, rather the gates are simply placed at the correct interval and computation occurs because of quantum resonant coupling between gates [defining a plurality of system qubit wires and interactions therebetween configured for performing a quantum algorithm]. Such coupling is inspired by the mechanism in photosynthesis...; And in [0004] Quantum computers have emerged as a new computational resource and operate on qubits rather than bits, Qubits can represent 0 and 1, and any mixture of the two simultaneously and multiple qubits can be entangled to form a quantum register called a qubyte. Operations on quantum registers allow the implementation of algorithms [a method for generating a quantum circuit, the method comprising: defining a plurality of system qubit wires and interactions therebetween configured for performing a quantum algorithm] such as Sher's and Grover's that use quantum parallelism to search solutions in parallel rather than sequentially… )
identifying a past causal cone of a first system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; defining a first slice containing the past causal cone of the first system qubit wire; identifying a second causal cone of a second system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; and defining a second slice containing a portion of the second causal cone that is not within the first slice. (in [0103] FIG. 5 Illustrates the general arrangement of a quantum gravity computer using optical switches such as graphene dots or tryptophan molecules. The upward direction 503 represents time while x 501 and y 502 represent two spatial dimensions and the slices represent equal time slices. (Note this is a convenience and there is no such thing as an equal time slice in a quantum gravity computer due to uncertainty in the metric.) A z dimension is not illustrated and for this diagram is not necessary as we imagine that the processing system is similar to a two-dimensional silicon chip. At each slice the first two labelled 504, 505 in our illustration the quantum dot—gates 506 have an element in a superposition—507 labels the left element of the two possible states. These superposed elements each cause a different metric distortion. The future light cones 508 [identifying a past causal cone of a first system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; defining a first slice containing the past causal cone of the first system qubit wire] and 509 [identifying a second causal cone of a second system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires] are therefore defined by whether element 507 is in the left or right position. Since this is uncertain the future light cones from this gate can affect different groupings of dots in future time periods in an uncertain basis, Cone 508 only affects the bottom left quantum dot on the chip substrate while cone 509 affects two dots [and defining a second slice containing a portion of the second causal cone that is not within the first slice]… Each graphene dot is influenced by an electrical circuit allowing the strength of optical coupling to other elements to be adjusted.;
And alternatively as depicted regions depicted in Fig. 2, in [0095] FIG. 2 Illustrates schematically a block of spacetime in a general relativistic framework with two light cones centered on points in the grid, the first labelled 204. We should immediately say that blocks of spacetime do not exist in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (RQM) but they are a useful notion to setup our understanding: The grid should be imagined as fuzzy and in flux. In FIG. 2 the dimensions x 201, y 202 and t 203 of space-time are illustrated while z must be imagined. A grid of processing elements is arranged in this space. The light cones from those elements indicate the degree to which different areas of spacetime are ‘time-like’ and ‘space-like’ separated [identifying a past causal cone of a first system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; defining a first slice containing the past causal cone of the first system qubit wire; identifying a second causal cone of a second system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; and defining a second slice containing a portion of the second causal cone that is not within the first slice] and therefore the causal connection between computational elements. (Space-like and time-like regions of a light cone are illustrated at 401 of FIG. 4). The center of the cone 204 represents some arbitrary small region in space-time at which we have placed a processing element. The elements can communicate along light cones using encoded light pulses. Each processing element might be imagined as a small microprocessor of around the size of a grain of sand, able to receive and send encoded light pulses, through polarization, time bucket or other quantum optical encoding scheme. These microprocessors would also need the ability to maintain quantum coherence and entanglement of the photonic inputs and outputs they process... We will describe methods to make such processing units later, and such units can be as simple as a single logic gate or as complex as a commercial microchip without loss of generality to the design. [0096] Elements that are time-like separated 205, 206, 207 & 208 are causally connected to element 204 as they fall within the past or future light cone of 204. In the case of 205 & 206 [identifying a past causal cone of a first system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; defining a first slice containing the past causal cone of the first system qubit wire] this is a cause relationship and 207 and 208 is an effect relationship [identifying a second causal cone of a second system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; and defining a second slice containing a portion of the second causal cone that is not within the first slice]. Thus 205 & 206 may form inputs to the operation performed by 204 and the output of this operation may form an input to elements 207 and 208…)
While Tag teaches the quantum circuit elements as gates that resonate information as claimed qubit wire(s).
Additionally, Rou teaches that quantum circuit elements comprise quantum gates and wires for propagating quantum information, in [0023] FIG. 2 represents a qubit both in terms of electronic states within an atom 14, and as points on a unit three-dimensional sphere called a Bloch sphere 16. Quantum computers are built from quantum circuits containing wires and elementary quantum gates that propagate and manipulate quantum information. Changes that occur to a quantum state can be described using the language of quantum computation... [0031] Hadamard gate properties for quantum computation can be understood fundamentally as an arbitrary qubit unitary gate that can be decomposed as a product of rotations and reflections of a Bloch sphere, where the Hadamard operation is a rotation of the sphere about the y axis by 90.degree., followed by a reflection through the x-y plane… [0034] Suitable state space; quantum computational circuits operate on some number, n, of qubits,…
Rou and Tag are analogous art because both involve developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the prior art for developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems using quantum circuits, as disclosed by Rou with the method of developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems using quantum computer and device elements, as disclosed by Tag.
One of ordinary skill in the arts would have been motivated to combine the disclosed methods disclosed by Rou and Tag as noted above; Doing so allowing for building and implementing quantum computing and related components, and more particularly to improved quantum computing gates, quantum computing memory registers, quantum computing switches and quantum computing routers, (Rou, 0003).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Tag in combination with Rou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the quantum circuit is configured such that each gate of the first slice is performed prior to beginning to perform the second slice. (in [0103] FIG. 5 Illustrates the general arrangement of a quantum gravity computer using optical switches such as graphene dots or tryptophan molecules. The upward direction 503 represents time while x 501 and y 502 represent two spatial dimensions and the slices represent equal time slices. (Note this is a convenience and there is no such thing as an equal time slice in a quantum gravity computer due to uncertainty in the metric.) A z dimension is not illustrated and for this diagram is not necessary as we imagine that the processing system is similar to a two-dimensional silicon chip. At each slice the first two labelled 504, 505 [wherein the quantum circuit is configured such that each gate of the first slice is performed prior to beginning to perform the second slice] in our illustration the quantum dot—gates 506 have an element in a superposition—507 labels the left element of the two possible states. These superposed elements each cause a different metric distortion. The future light cones 508 and 509 [the second slice] are therefore defined by whether element 507 is in the left or right position. Since this is uncertain the future light cones from this gate can affect different groupings of dots in future time periods in an uncertain basis, Cone 508 [wherein the quantum circuit is configured such that each gate of the first slice is performed prior to beginning to perform the second slice] only affects the bottom left quantum dot on the chip substrate while cone 509 affects two dots. The metric distortions are exaggerated for illustration purposes, in a real chip the quantum dots would be far more densely packed and the metric distortions needed for different causal relationships would be small. The substrate system can be silicon wafer technology that will support graphene on silicon so that part, or all of the graphene can be suspended above the silicon wafer. The graphene can flex or move in response to excitation signals putting it into physical superposition. Each graphene dot is influenced by an electrical circuit allowing the strength of optical coupling to other elements to be adjusted.)
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Tag in combination with Rou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the quantum circuit is configured such that executing an i-th slice of the quantum circuit comprises executing all gates for which incoming and outgoing wires lie within the i-th slice to propagate the system qubits forward in a dimension. (As depicted in Fig. 2 the forward propagation direction in the t, time direction And in [0105] FIG. 7 Illustrates the QGC equivalent of a circuit in a standard quantum computer. In a QGC all elements in 701 can (and must be) replaced by a gravitationally active gates 702. In order to preserve the quantum computer operation, the computational gates are replaced with low mass action elements 703 operating on inputs I, 704 [wherein the quantum circuit is configured such that executing an i-th slice of the quantum circuit comprises executing all gates for which incoming ..] and giving outputs O, 705 [… outgoing wires lie within the i-th slice to propagate the system qubits forward in a dimension] and the measurement gates are high mass action elements 703 with a larger mass. This generalizes the QC to a QGC but at the expense of the ability to implement deterministic algorithms. Power is achieved by implementing new forms of ‘algorithm’ available to QGCs the most readily implementable being a deep learning QG neural network. [0106] FIG. 8 Illustrates the distribution of measurement elements in a QGC so that the self-collapse is formed from more than one gate mass. The summing of metric distortions from individual gates 807 will reach the critical E.sub.g level in some time T [… and outgoing wires lie within the i-th slice to propagate the system qubits forward in a dimension]. The measurement gate described in FIG. 6, 801, 802, 803 is affected by the accumulation of metric distortions from a set of QGGs 804, 805, 806 [herein the quantum circuit is configured such that executing an i-th slice of the quantum circuit comprises executing all gates for which incoming and outgoing wires lie within the i-th slice to propagate the system qubits forward in a dimension]. This location of space-time 807 now has sufficient distortion to modify the metric above the critical E.sub.g limit.)
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and Tag in combination with Rou teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the quantum circuit comprises at least one ancilla wire and the quantum circuit is configured such that an i-th slice of the quantum circuit comprises interacting one or more system qubits at a bottom of the i-th slice with at least one ancilla qubit via unitary gates in order to introduce initial correlations between the one or more system qubits at the bottom of the i-th slice and system qubits at the bottom of one or more other slices. (As depicted in Fig. 16 and in [0116] FIG. 16 Illustrates the standard Shor code 1601 for quantum error correction [wherein the quantum circuit comprises at least one ancilla wire and the quantum circuit is configured such that an i-th slice of the quantum circuit comprises interacting one or more system qubits at a bottom of the i-th slice with at least one ancilla qubit via unitary gates in order to introduce initial correlations between the one or more system qubits at the bottom of the i-th slice and system qubits at the bottom of one or more other slices]. A full explanation can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_error_correction. Implementing this in quantum logic allows for an error corrected store of quantum information that can be manipulated without errors increasing that swamp the result. In our system quantum error correction is an emergent property of the dynamic network. A stable pattern will emerge that cycles around the triangle 1602, 1603, 1604. The diagram is much simplified as one to two orders of magnitude more nodes are required for implementation but the conceptual idea is illustrated. The pattern would not stable if errors accumulated and it would dissipate. Stable patterns are the only ones that emerge because they are intrinsically error correcting. And as depicted in Fig 7 and in [0105] FIG. 7 Illustrates the QGC equivalent of a circuit in a standard quantum computer [wherein the quantum circuit comprises at least one ancilla wire and the quantum circuit is configured such that an i-th slice of the quantum circuit comprises interacting one or more system qubits at a bottom of the i-th slice with at least one ancilla qubit via unitary gates in order to introduce initial correlations between the one or more system qubits at the bottom of the i-th slice and system qubits at the bottom of one or more other slices]. In a QGC all elements in 701 can (and must be) replaced by a gravitationally active gates 702. In order to preserve the quantum computer operation, the computational gates are replaced with low mass action elements 703 operating on inputs I, 704 and giving outputs O, 705 and the measurement gates are high mass action elements 703 with a larger mass. This generalizes the QC to a QGC but at the expense of the ability to implement deterministic algorithms. Power is achieved by implementing new forms of ‘algorithm’ available to QGCs the most readily implementable being a deep learning QG neural network.
PNG
media_image4.png
602
782
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
590
754
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
While Tag teaches the use of gate qubits as components connected to resonate information in a quantum circuits with error correction. Tag does not expressly teach the use of an ancilla system as part of the quantum circuits.
Rou does expressly teach the use of an ancilla system as part of the quantum circuits, in [0067] where constant factors that can be recovered from the normalization are ignored. Once the nine qubits are received, the goal of the algorithm is to recover the original superposition, assuming that no greater than one Pauli-type error has occurred within the quantum network. Shor's code invokes specific quantum entanglements with additional, or ancillary, qubits and measures the ancillary qubits [wherein the quantum circuit comprises at least one ancilla wire and the quantum circuit is configured such that an i-th slice of the quantum circuit comprises interacting one or more system qubits at a bottom of the i-th slice with at least one ancilla qubit via unitary gates in order to introduce initial correlations between the one or more system qubits at the bottom of the i-th slice and system qubits at the bottom of one or more other slices] to correct any error. The process of error correction must be accomplished while retaining the original quantum information superposition… [0071] Quantum error-detection and error-correction can also be performed in the absence of measurement, using only unitary operations and ancilla systems prepared in standard quantum states [wherein the quantum circuit comprises at least one ancilla wire and the quantum circuit is configured such that an i-th slice of the quantum circuit comprises interacting one or more system qubits at a bottom of the i-th slice with at least one ancilla qubit via unitary gates in order to introduce initial correlations between the one or more system qubits at the bottom of the i-th slice and system qubits at the bottom of one or more other slices]. This technique is essentially the same as those used for modeling arbitrary quantum computing and networking operations. The major advantage of quantum error-detection and error-correction in the absence of measurement is that it becomes increasingly difficult for real-world quantum information systems to render a reliable procedure to perform quantum measurements. In essence, the solution is to introduce an ancilla system with basis states, .vertline.i>, corresponding to possible error syndromes, where that system initializes in a standard pure state, .vertline.0>, prior to error-correction. A unitary operator, U, is then defined on the principal system plus ancilla and operates on the whole state space. The result is that U preserves inner products and can also be extended to a unitary operator on the entire (Hilbert) state space.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Tag and Rou for the same reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Tag in combination with Rou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each system qubit wire corresponds to a degree of freedom associated with a section of a physical domain being simulated. (in [0004] Quantum computers have emerged as a new computational resource and operate on qubits rather than bits, Qubits can represent 0 and 1, and any mixture of the two simultaneously and multiple qubits can be entangled to form a quantum register called a qubyte [wherein each system qubit wire corresponds to a degree of freedom associated with a section of a physical domain being simulated]. Operations on quantum registers allow the implementation of algorithms such as Sher's and Grover's that use quantum parallelism to search solutions in parallel rather than sequentially. Since many natural processes are quantum in nature, for example, the folding of proteins, chemical reactions and the operation of catalysts, quantum computers have wide applicability. Because qubits can be simulated to arbitrary precision on a digital computer a quantum computer has the same power as a classical computer…)
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Tag in combination with Rou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one system qubit wire of the quantum circuit extends through multiple slices of quantum circuit. (in As depicted in Fig. 2 and Fig. 5, in [0095] … The grid should be imagined as fuzzy and in flux. In FIG. 2 the dimensions x 201, y 202 and t 203 of space-time are illustrated while z must be imagined. A grid of processing elements is arranged in this space. The light cones from those elements indicate the degree to which different areas of spacetime are ‘time-like’ and ‘space-like’ separated and therefore the causal connection between computational elements [wherein at least one system qubit wire of the quantum circuit extends through multiple slices of quantum circuit]. (Space-like and time-like regions of a light cone are illustrated at 401 of FIG. 4). The center of the cone 204 represents some arbitrary small region in space-time at which we have placed a processing element. The elements can communicate along light cones using encoded light pulses. Each processing element might be imagined as a small microprocessor of around the size of a grain of sand, able to receive and send encoded light pulses, through polarization, time bucket or other quantum optical encoding scheme. These microprocessors would also need the ability to maintain quantum coherence and entanglement of the photonic inputs and outputs they process. Such processors can be created in principle using, for example, Linear Optics Quantum Computation (LOQC) elements or indeed any arbitrary quantum optical device including the non-linear devices described in the introduction [wherein at least one system qubit wire of the quantum circuit extends through multiple slices of quantum circuit]. We will describe methods to make such processing units later, and such units can be as simple as a single logic gate or as complex as a commercial microchip without loss of generality to the design. [0096] Elements that are time-like separated 205, 206, 207 & 208 are causally connected to element 204 as they fall within the past or future light cone of 204 [wherein at least one system qubit wire of the quantum circuit extends through multiple slices of quantum circuit]. In the case of 205 & 206 this is a cause relationship and 207 and 208 is an effect relationship. Thus 205 & 206 may form inputs to the operation performed by 204 and the output of this operation may form an input to elements 207 and 208… [0103] FIG. 5 Illustrates the general arrangement of a quantum gravity computer using optical switches such as graphene dots or tryptophan molecules. The upward direction 503 represents time while x 501 and y 502 represent two spatial dimensions and the slices represent equal time slices [wherein at least one system qubit wire of the quantum circuit extends through multiple slices of quantum circuit]. (Note this is a convenience and there is no such thing as an equal time slice in a quantum gravity computer due to uncertainty in the metric.) A z dimension is not illustrated and for this diagram is not necessary as we imagine that the processing system is similar to a two-dimensional silicon chip. At each slice the first two labelled 504, 505 in our illustration the quantum dot—gates 506 have an element in a superposition—507 labels the left element of the two possible states. These superposed elements each cause a different metric distortion. The future light cones 508 and 509 are therefore defined by whether element 507 is in the left or right position [wherein at least one system qubit wire of the quantum circuit extends through multiple slices of quantum circuit]. Since this is uncertain the future light cones from this gate can affect different groupings of dots in future time periods in an uncertain basis, Cone 508 only affects the bottom left quantum dot on the chip substrate while cone 509 affects two dots. The metric distortions are exaggerated for illustration purposes, in a real chip the quantum dots would be far more densely packed and the metric distortions needed for different causal relationships would be small. The substrate system can be silicon wafer technology that will support graphene on silicon so that part, or all of the graphene can be suspended above the silicon wafer. The graphene can flex or move in response to excitation signals putting it into physical superposition. Each graphene dot is influenced by an electrical circuit allowing the strength of optical coupling to other elements to be adjusted [wherein at least one system qubit wire of the quantum circuit extends through multiple slices of quantum circuit].)
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. Additionally, Tag teaches a computing entity comprising at least one processor and a memory storing computer- executable instructions, the computer executable-instructions configured, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to at least: (in [0095] FIG. 2 Illustrates schematically a block of spacetime in a general relativistic framework with two light cones centered on points in the grid, the first labelled 204. We should immediately say that blocks of spacetime do not exist in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (RQM) but they are a useful notion to setup our understanding:… The light cones from those elements indicate the degree to which different areas of spacetime are ‘time-like’ and ‘space-like’ separated and therefore the causal connection between computational elements. (Space-like and time-like regions of a light cone are illustrated at 401 of FIG. 4). The center of the cone 204 represents some arbitrary small region in space-time at which we have placed a processing element. The elements can communicate along light cones using encoded light pulses. Each processing element might be imagined as a small microprocessor [a computing entity comprising at least one processor and a memory storing computer- executable instructions, the computer executable-instructions configured, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to at least:] of around the size of a grain of sand, able to receive and send encoded light pulses, through polarization, time bucket or other quantum optical encoding scheme. These microprocessors would also need the ability to maintain quantum coherence and entanglement of the photonic inputs and outputs they process. Such processors can be created in principle using, for example, Linear Optics Quantum Computation (LOQC) elements [a computing entity comprising at least one processor and a memory storing computer- executable instructions, the computer executable-instructions configured, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to at least] or indeed any arbitrary quantum optical device including the non-linear devices described in the introduction. We will describe methods to make such processing units later, and such units can be as simple as a single logic gate or as complex as a commercial microchip without loss of generality to the design.)
Additionally, Rou teaches in [0114] FIG. 7 presents a generalized view of the quantum gap 100 as central to both classical and quantum computational and networking processes. The quantum gap 100 is the structural and functional interface between a given software instruction set 102 and hardware registers 104. Primitive and register are used interchangeably throughout the description herein. The software instruction set 102 is a computer program such as shown in FIG. 8 below. The hardware registers 104 are memory cells for storing data or qubits… [0152] FIG. 13 shows a quantum gate 200 for storing and retrieving data held in a memory 202. The quantum gate 200 advantageously defines the intra-gap transformation mechanics such that the outcome of the most recent instruction can be predicted accurately. In effect, execution of instructions leaves a trail in the form of an n-code sequence in quantum switches, quantum routers and quantum memory registers…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Tag and Rou for the same reasons disclosed above, in claim 1.
Regarding claims 14-16 & 18, the limitations are similar to the limitations in claims 2-4 & 6and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5-6, 11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tag in view or Rou in further view of Johnson et al. (US 20200160204, hereinafter ‘John’).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Tag in combination with Rou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions. (Examiner notes that the qubit/bit is used to encode information governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by locale interactions, Tag also teaches this as depicted in Fig. 3, Fig. 7 and Fig. 16, in [0100] In FIG. 3a we generalize the model a little further by replacing the Michaelson beam splitter apparatus with a Hadamard gate 312. This gate modifies the base states of |0> and |1> to a superposition of |0> and |0> and |1> with equal probability [wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions]…)
Tag in combination with Rou teach the use of Hamiltonian characterized by location interactions for encode operations in a quantum circuits.
Additionally, John teaches the use of Hamiltonians in application of Hadamard test for estimating quantum energy states, in [0098] Some embodiments described herein generate, measure, or utilize quantum states that approximate a target quantum state (e.g., a ground state of a Hamiltonian) [wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions]. As will be appreciated by those trained in the art, there are many ways to quantify how well a first quantum state “approximates” a second quantum state…he first quantum state approximates the second quantum state when an inner product between the first and second vectors (called the “fidelity” between the two quantum states) is greater than a predefined amount (typically labeled ϵ). In this example, the fidelity quantifies how “close” or “similar” the first and second quantum states are to each other. The fidelity represents a probability that a measurement of the first quantum state will give the same result as if the measurement were performed on the second quantum state. Proximity between quantum states can also be quantified with a distance measure, such as a Euclidean norm, a Hamming distance, or another type of norm known in the art… [0101] Quantum annealing starts with the classical computer 254 generating an initial Hamiltonian 260 and a final Hamiltonian 262 based on a computational problem 258 to be solved [wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions], and providing the initial Hamiltonian 260, the final Hamiltonian 262 and an annealing schedule 270 as input to the quantum computer 252. The quantum computer 252 prepares a well-known initial state 266 (FIG. 2B, operation 264), such as a quantum-mechanical superposition of all possible states (candidate states) with equal weights, based on the initial Hamiltonian 260. The classical computer 254 provides the initial Hamiltonian 260, a final Hamiltonian 262, and an annealing schedule 270 to the quantum computer 252. The quantum computer 252 starts in the initial state 266, and evolves its state according to the annealing schedule 270 following the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, a natural quantum-mechanical evolution of physical systems [wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions] (FIG. 2B, operation 268). More specifically, the state of the quantum computer 252 undergoes time evolution under a time-dependent Hamiltonian, which starts from the initial Hamiltonian 260 and terminates at the final Hamiltonian 262…; And in [0032] The quantum approximate optimization algorithm described in the above-referenced paper entitled, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” aims to tune the parameters of a quantum circuit on M qubits so that the bit strings sampled on the output tend toward better cut assignments. The structure of the quantum circuit is motivated by the quantum adiabatic evolution which transforms the ground state of the trivial Hamiltonian [wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions] H.sub.x=−Σ.sub.i=1.sup.MX, into the ground state of the target Hamiltonian H.sub.T=¼ Σ.sub.i,jA.sub.i,j(I−Z.sub.iZ.sub.j). The quantum system is initialized in the ground state of Hx by applying a Hadamard gate
John, Rou and Tag are analogous art because both involve developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the prior art for developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems for implementing quantum computer component to a quantum approximate optimization algorithm, as disclosed by John with the method of developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems using quantum computer and device elements, as collectively disclosed by Rou and Tag.
One of ordinary skill in the arts would have been motivated to combine the disclosed methods disclosed by John, Rou and Tag as noted above; Doing so allows for enabling quantum approximate optimization algorithms to be applied to valuable problem instances (e.g., those including several thousand or more qubits) using near-term quantum computers, (John, 0005); allows for enabling a method for reducing the number of qubits with which an operator is represented on a quantum computer, (John, 0006).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Tag in combination with Rou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each system qubit wire corresponds to a degree of freedom associated with a section of a physical domain being simulated. (in [0004] Quantum computers have emerged as a new computational resource and operate on qubits rather than bits, Qubits can represent 0 and 1, and any mixture of the two simultaneously and multiple qubits can be entangled to form a quantum register called a qubyte [wherein each system qubit wire corresponds to a degree of freedom associated with a section of a physical domain being simulated]. Operations on quantum registers allow the implementation of algorithms such as Sher's and Grover's that use quantum parallelism to search solutions in parallel rather than sequentially. Since many natural processes are quantum in nature, for example, the folding of proteins, chemical reactions and the operation of catalysts, quantum computers have wide applicability. Because qubits can be simulated to arbitrary precision on a digital computer a quantum computer has the same power as a classical computer…; And in [0095] FIG. 2 Illustrates schematically a block of spacetime in a general relativistic framework with two light cones centered on points in the grid, the first labelled 204. We should immediately say that blocks of spacetime do not exist in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (RQM) but they are a useful notion to setup our understanding: The grid should be imagined as fuzzy and in flux. In FIG. 2 the dimensions x 201, y 202 and t 203 of space-time [wherein each system qubit wire corresponds to a degree of freedom associated with a section of a physical domain being simulated] are illustrated while z must be imagined. A grid of processing elements is arranged in this space. The light cones from those elements indicate the degree to which different areas of spacetime are ‘time-like’ and ‘space-like’ separated and therefore the causal connection between computational elements…)
Additionally John teaches in [0093] For any given medium that implements a qubit, any of a variety of properties of that medium may be chosen to implement the qubit. For example, if electrons are chosen to implement qubits, then the x component of its spin degree of freedom may be chosen as the property of such electrons to represent the states of such qubits [wherein each system qubit wire corresponds to a degree of freedom associated with a section of a physical domain being simulated]. Alternatively, the y component, or the z component of the spin degree of freedom may be chosen as the property of such electrons to represent the state of such qubits. This is merely a specific example of the general feature that for any physical medium that is chosen to implement qubits, there may be multiple physical degrees of freedom (e.g., the x, y, and z components in the electron spin example) that may be chosen to represent 0 and 1 [wherein each system qubit wire corresponds to a degree of freedom associated with a section of a physical domain being simulated]. For any particular degree of freedom, the physical medium may controllably be put in a state of superposition, and measurements may then be taken in the chosen degree of freedom to obtain readouts of qubit values. [0094] Certain implementations of quantum computers, referred as gate model quantum computers, comprise quantum gates. In contrast to classical gates, there is an infinite number of possible single-qubit quantum gates that change the state vector of a qubit. Changing the state of a qubit state vector typically is referred to as a single-qubit rotation, and may also be referred to herein as a state change or a single-qubit quantum-gate operation. A rotation, state change, or single-qubit quantum-gate operation may be represented mathematically by a unitary 2×2 matrix with complex elements. A rotation corresponds to a rotation of a qubit state within its Hilbert space [wherein each system qubit wire corresponds to a degree of freedom associated with a section of a physical domain being simulated], which may be conceptualized as a rotation of the Bloch sphere. (As is well-known to those having ordinary skill in the art, the Bloch sphere is a geometrical representation of the space of pure states of a qubit.) Multi-qubit gates alter the quantum state of a set of qubits [wherein each system qubit wire corresponds to a degree of freedom associated with a section of a physical domain being simulated]. For example, two-qubit gates rotate the state of two qubits as a rotation in the four-dimensional Hilbert space of the two qubits. (As is well-known to those having ordinary skill in the art, a Hilbert space is an abstract vector space possessing the structure of an inner product that allows length and angle to be measured. Furthermore, Hilbert spaces are complete: there are enough limits in the space to allow the techniques of calculus to be used.)
John, Rou and Tag are analogous art because both involve developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the prior art for developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems for implementing quantum computer component to a quantum approximate optimization algorithm, as disclosed by John with the method of developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems using quantum computer and device elements, as collectively disclosed by Rou and Tag.
One of ordinary skill in the arts would have been motivated to combine the disclosed methods disclosed by John, Rou and Tag as noted above; Doing so allows for enabling quantum approximate optimization algorithms to be applied to valuable problem instances (e.g., those including several thousand or more qubits) using near-term quantum computers, (John, 0005); allows for enabling a method for reducing the number of qubits with which an operator is represented on a quantum computer, (John, 0006).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated and Tag in combination with Rou and John teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising causing the quantum circuit to be configured to cause measurement of at least one physical qubit of the plurality of qubits to determine a value corresponding to at least one degree of freedom within the physical domain.
(in [0095] FIG. 2 Illustrates schematically a block of spacetime in a general relativistic framework with two light cones centered on points in the grid, the first labelled 204. We should immediately say that blocks of spacetime do not exist in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (RQM) but they are a useful notion to setup our understanding: The grid should be imagined as fuzzy and in flux. In FIG. 2 the dimensions x 201, y 202 and t 203 of space-time [further comprising causing the quantum circuit to be configured to cause measurement of at least one physical qubit of the plurality of qubits to determine a value corresponding to at least one degree of freedom within the physical domain] are illustrated while z must be imagined. A grid of processing elements is arranged in this space. The light cones from those elements indicate the degree to which different areas of spacetime are ‘time-like’ and ‘space-like’ separated and therefore the causal connection between computational elements… [0096] Elements that are time-like separated 205, 206, 207 & 208 are causally connected to element 204 as they fall within the past or future light cone of 204. In the case of 205 & 206 this is a cause relationship and 207 and 208 is an effect relationship. Thus 205 & 206 may form inputs to the operation performed by 204 and the output of this operation may form an input to elements 207 and 208… [0097] In a classical computer there may be regions that are space—like separated—not causally connected… [0100] In FIG. 3a we generalize the model a little further by replacing the Michaelson beam splitter apparatus with a Hadamard gate 312. This gate modifies the base states of |0> and |1> to a superposition of |0> and |0> and |1> with equal probability [further comprising causing the quantum circuit to be configured to cause measurement of at least one physical qubit of the plurality of qubits to determine a value corresponding to at least one degree of freedom within the physical domain]. The QG no-op gate 310 of FIG. 3a, which had been imagined as a time-bin encoded photon timing operation in FIG. 3 can be implemented by any quantum gravity no-op (QGNO) gate. The only function of the QGNO gate is to move some mass based on the operation of the gate without making any appreciable modification to the quantum state…)
Additionally John teaches in [0093] For any given medium that implements a qubit, any of a variety of properties of that medium may be chosen to implement the qubit. For example, if electrons are chosen to implement qubits, then the x component of its spin degree of freedom may be chosen as the property of such electrons to represent the states of such qubits [further comprising causing the quantum circuit to be configured to cause measurement of at least one physical qubit of the plurality of qubits to determine a value corresponding to at least one degree of freedom within the physical domain]. Alternatively, the y component, or the z component of the spin degree of freedom may be chosen as the property of such electrons to represent the state of such qubits. This is merely a specific example of the general feature that for any physical medium that is chosen to implement qubits, there may be multiple physical degrees of freedom (e.g., the x, y, and z components in the electron spin example) that may be chosen to represent 0 and 1 [further comprising causing the quantum circuit to be configured to cause measurement of at least one physical qubit of the plurality of qubits to determine a value corresponding to at least one degree of freedom within the physical domain]. For any particular degree of freedom, the physical medium may controllably be put in a state of superposition, and measurements may then be taken in the chosen degree of freedom to obtain readouts of qubit values [further comprising causing the quantum circuit to be configured to cause measurement of at least one physical qubit of the plurality of qubits to determine a value corresponding to at least one degree of freedom within the physical domain].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Joh, Rou and Tag for the same reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claims 17-18, the limitations are similar to the limitations in claims 5-6 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7-9 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tag in view or Rou in view of Haah et al. (US 20200143280, hereinafter ‘Ha’).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated and Tag in combination with Rou teaches the method of claim 6, wherein an i-th slice of the quantum circuit is configured to, upon execution by a quantum processor, evolve the degree of freedom in accordance with an operator. (in [0092] In a quantum gravity computer, a different approach is taken to removing the looping problem… A QGC is not chaos. It is a different approach to manipulating information. We should state that unlike our analogy above a QGC does perform calculations which evolve over time [wherein an i-th slice of the quantum circuit is configured to, upon execution by a quantum processor, evolve the degree of freedom in accordance with an operator] however, they are not rigidly and deterministically step-by-step procedures….[0095] FIG. 2 Illustrates schematically a block of spacetime in a general relativistic framework with two light cones centered on points in the grid, the first labelled 204. We should immediately say that blocks of spacetime do not exist in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (RQM) but they are a useful notion to setup our understanding: The grid should be imagined as fuzzy and in flux. In FIG. 2 the dimensions x 201, y 202 and t 203 of space-time are illustrated while z must be imagined. A grid of processing elements is arranged in this space. The light cones from those elements indicate the degree to which different areas of spacetime are ‘time-like’ and ‘space-like’ separated and therefore the causal connection between computational elements [wherein an i-th slice of the quantum circuit is configured to, upon execution by a quantum processor, evolve the degree of freedom in accordance with an operator]. (Space-like and time-like regions of a light cone are illustrated at 401 of FIG. 4)… [0104] FIG. 6 illustrates the QGC equivalent of the ‘measurement’ gate in a quantum computer for a QGC. In a regular quantum computer an element is provided which does not obey the normal mechanics of other gates in the system. It is an irreversible measurement mechanism 602 and application to the quantum state results in a collapse from the superposed 0|1 601 state to either |0> or |1> 603 with a given probability—usually 50:50..l. [0105] FIG. 7 Illustrates the QGC equivalent of a circuit in a standard quantum computer. In a QGC all elements in 701 can (and must be) replaced by a gravitationally active gates 702. In order to preserve the quantum computer operation [wherein an i-th slice of the quantum circuit is configured to, upon execution by a quantum processor, evolve the degree of freedom in accordance with an operator], the computational gates are replaced with low mass action elements 703 operating on inputs I, 704 and giving outputs O, 705 and the measurement gates are high mass action elements 703 with a larger mass…; And in [0036] Qubits and gates physicalize with space-time metric properties. They are located at a point x, y, z, t in the metric with momentum and consequent degrees of uncertainty.)
While Tag in combination with Rou teach the quantum circuit executing uses a quantum processor to process and model evolving quantum computational elements.
Tag and Rou do not expressly use the term degree of freedom for measuring states using an operator.
Ha does expressly teach the term degree of freedom for measuring states using an operator, in [0003] Embodiments of the disclosed technology include a quantum circuit that is configured to implement a real time evolution unitary of a Hamiltonian in a quantum computing device, wherein a unit time evolution unitary operator is decomposed into overlapping smaller blocks of unitary operators. In some implementations, a size of the overlap is proportional to the logarithm of a number of qubits in the simulated system… [0004] Further, in some embodiments, a quantum circuit program is generated for a quantum circuit configured to implement a real time evolution unitary of a Hamiltonian in a quantum computing device, wherein a unit time evolution unitary operator is decomposed into overlapping smaller blocks of unitary operators; and the quantum circuit is configured to implement the real time evolution unitary of the Hamiltonian… [0015] A Hamiltonian is a hermitian operator H on a Hilbert space that generates the unitary dynamics U.sub.t.sup.H of a system of interacting degrees of freedom [evolve the degree of freedom in accordance with an operator] by the Schrödinger equation ∂.sub.tU.sub.t.sup.H=HU.sub.t.sup.H. It is standard that any physical system can be modeled by a local Hamiltonian, meaning H is a sum of terms, each of which is supported on a ball of small diameter (interaction range) with respect to the natural metric of the space the system lives in…
Ha, Rou and Tag are analogous art because both involve developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the prior art for developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems using quantum circuits, as disclosed by Ha with the method of developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems using quantum computer and device elements, as collectively disclosed by Rou and Tag.
One of ordinary skill in the arts would have been motivated to combine the disclosed methods disclosed by Ha, Rou and Tag as noted above; Doing so allowing for building and implementing a quantum circuit that is configured to implement a real time evolution unitary of a Hamiltonian in a quantum computing device, (Ha, 0003).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated and Ha further teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the operator is a Hamiltonian, in [0003] Embodiments of the disclosed technology include a quantum circuit that is configured to implement a real time evolution unitary of a Hamiltonian [wherein the operator is a Hamiltonian] in a quantum computing device, wherein a unit time evolution unitary operator is decomposed into overlapping smaller blocks of unitary operators. In some implementations, a size of the overlap is proportional to the logarithm of a number of qubits in the simulated system… [0004] Further, in some embodiments, a quantum circuit program is generated for a quantum circuit configured to implement a real time evolution unitary of a Hamiltonian in a quantum computing device, wherein a unit time evolution unitary operator is decomposed into overlapping smaller blocks of unitary operators; and the quantum circuit is configured to implement the real time evolution unitary of the Hamiltonian… [0015] A Hamiltonian is a hermitian operator H [wherein the operator is a Hamiltonian] on a Hilbert space that generates the unitary dynamics U.sub.t.sup.H of a system of interacting degrees of freedom by the Schrödinger equation ∂.sub.tU.sub.t.sup.H=HU.sub.t.sup.H. It is standard that any physical system can be modeled by a local Hamiltonian, meaning H is a sum of terms, each of which is supported on a ball of small diameter (interaction range) with respect to the natural metric of the space the system lives in…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Ha, Rou and Tag for the same reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated and Tag in combination with Rou and Ha teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the physical domain is one of a one dimensional, two dimensional, or three dimensional physical domain. (in [0036] Qubits and gates physicalize with space-time metric properties. They are located at a point x, y, z, t in the metric with momentum and consequent degrees of uncertainty.)
Regarding claim 19 the limitations are similar to the limitations in claim 7 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 1, 5-9, 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagg (US 20220366289, hereinafter ‘Tag’) in view of Cao (US 20210255856, hereinafter ‘Cao’).
Regarding independent claim 1, Tag teaches a method for generating a quantum circuit, the method comprising: defining a plurality of system qubit wires and interactions therebetween configured for performing a quantum algorithm; (in [0117] FIG. 17 Illustrates a layout for the QGC implementation. A series of quantum gravity gates (QGG)—somewhat equivalent to neural network nodes—are deposited onto a substrate which is organized into a series of interlocking fingers or a snaking paths [defining a plurality of system qubit wires and interactions therebetween configured for performing a quantum algorithm]. The QGG elements are formed of graphene tuned to a particular wavelength and spaced along the finger so that they coherently transport energy along a finger. Portions of graphene compound move with respect to the substrate when excited. At the end of each finger a connecting element transports energy from one finger to the next and computation occurs in the other direction along an adjacent finger, Quantum resonant gravity gates (nodes) are laid out along the snaking paths 1701, 1702, 1703. The nodes are able to communicate most readily with each other along the main pathways but are entangled 1704 and gravitationally effective laterally 1705 [defining a plurality of system qubit wires and interactions therebetween configured for performing a quantum algorithm]. The nodes of the quantum gravity computer are not wired as a conventional computer might be, rather the gates are simply placed at the correct interval and computation occurs because of quantum resonant coupling between gates [defining a plurality of system qubit wires and interactions therebetween configured for performing a quantum algorithm]. Such coupling is inspired by the mechanism in photosynthesis...; And in [0004] Quantum computers have emerged as a new computational resource and operate on qubits rather than bits, Qubits can represent 0 and 1, and any mixture of the two simultaneously and multiple qubits can be entangled to form a quantum register called a qubyte. Operations on quantum registers allow the implementation of algorithms [a method for generating a quantum circuit, the method comprising: defining a plurality of system qubit wires and interactions therebetween configured for performing a quantum algorithm] such as Sher's and Grover's that use quantum parallelism to search solutions in parallel rather than sequentially… )
identifying a past causal cone of a first system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; defining a first slice containing the past causal cone of the first system qubit wire; identifying a second causal cone of a second system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; and defining a second slice containing a portion of the second causal cone that is not within the first slice. (in [0103] FIG. 5 Illustrates the general arrangement of a quantum gravity computer using optical switches such as graphene dots or tryptophan molecules. The upward direction 503 represents time while x 501 and y 502 represent two spatial dimensions and the slices represent equal time slices. (Note this is a convenience and there is no such thing as an equal time slice in a quantum gravity computer due to uncertainty in the metric.) A z dimension is not illustrated and for this diagram is not necessary as we imagine that the processing system is similar to a two-dimensional silicon chip. At each slice the first two labelled 504, 505 in our illustration the quantum dot—gates 506 have an element in a superposition—507 labels the left element of the two possible states. These superposed elements each cause a different metric distortion. The future light cones 508 [identifying a past causal cone of a first system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; defining a first slice containing the past causal cone of the first system qubit wire] and 509 [identifying a second causal cone of a second system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires] are therefore defined by whether element 507 is in the left or right position. Since this is uncertain the future light cones from this gate can affect different groupings of dots in future time periods in an uncertain basis, Cone 508 only affects the bottom left quantum dot on the chip substrate while cone 509 affects two dots [and defining a second slice containing a portion of the second causal cone that is not within the first slice]… Each graphene dot is influenced by an electrical circuit allowing the strength of optical coupling to other elements to be adjusted.;
And alternatively as depicted regions depicted in Fig. 2, in [0095] FIG. 2 Illustrates schematically a block of spacetime in a general relativistic framework with two light cones centered on points in the grid, the first labelled 204. We should immediately say that blocks of spacetime do not exist in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (RQM) but they are a useful notion to setup our understanding: The grid should be imagined as fuzzy and in flux. In FIG. 2 the dimensions x 201, y 202 and t 203 of space-time are illustrated while z must be imagined. A grid of processing elements is arranged in this space. The light cones from those elements indicate the degree to which different areas of spacetime are ‘time-like’ and ‘space-like’ separated [identifying a past causal cone of a first system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; defining a first slice containing the past causal cone of the first system qubit wire; identifying a second causal cone of a second system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; and defining a second slice containing a portion of the second causal cone that is not within the first slice] and therefore the causal connection between computational elements. (Space-like and time-like regions of a light cone are illustrated at 401 of FIG. 4). The center of the cone 204 represents some arbitrary small region in space-time at which we have placed a processing element. The elements can communicate along light cones using encoded light pulses. Each processing element might be imagined as a small microprocessor of around the size of a grain of sand, able to receive and send encoded light pulses, through polarization, time bucket or other quantum optical encoding scheme. These microprocessors would also need the ability to maintain quantum coherence and entanglement of the photonic inputs and outputs they process... We will describe methods to make such processing units later, and such units can be as simple as a single logic gate or as complex as a commercial microchip without loss of generality to the design. [0096] Elements that are time-like separated 205, 206, 207 & 208 are causally connected to element 204 as they fall within the past or future light cone of 204. In the case of 205 & 206 [identifying a past causal cone of a first system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; defining a first slice containing the past causal cone of the first system qubit wire] this is a cause relationship and 207 and 208 is an effect relationship [identifying a second causal cone of a second system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; and defining a second slice containing a portion of the second causal cone that is not within the first slice]. Thus 205 & 206 may form inputs to the operation performed by 204 and the output of this operation may form an input to elements 207 and 208…)
While Tag teaches the quantum circuit elements as gates that resonate information as claimed qubit wire(s).
Additionally, Cao teaches that quantum circuit elements comprise quantum gates and wires for propagating quantum information, in [0168] A quantum circuit may be specified as a sequence of quantum gates. As described in more detail below, the term “quantum gate,” as used herein, refers to the application of a gate control signal (defined below) to one or more qubits to cause those qubits to undergo certain physical transformations and thereby to implement a logical gate operation.,… [0181] The qubits W04 may be interconnected in any graph pattern [a … system qubit wire of the plurality of system qubit wires; as a plurality of networked sub-system of qubits connected with a plurality of qubit wires]. For example, they be connected in a linear chain, a two-dimensional grid, an all-to-all connection, any combination thereof, or any subgraph of any of the preceding… [0191] In embodiments in which some or all of the qubits W04 are implemented as two-dimensional quasiparticles called “anyons” (also referred to as a “topological quantum computer” implementation), the control unit W06 may be nanowires, the control signals W08 may be local electrical fields or microwave pulses, the measurement unit W10 may be superconducting circuits, and the measurement signals W12 may be voltages.
Cao and Tag are analogous art because both involve developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the prior art for developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems for implementing quantum computing components, as disclosed by Cao with the method of developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems using quantum computer and device elements, as disclosed by Tag.
One of ordinary skill in the arts would have been motivated to combine the disclosed methods disclosed by Cao and Tag as noted above; Doing so allowing for building and implementing quantum computing and related components using improved methods that allow access to scalable fault-tolerant quantum computers, (Cao, 0022).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Tag in combination with Cao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions. (Examiner notes that the qubit/bit is used to encode information governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by locale interactions, Tag also teaches this as depicted in Fig. 3, Fig. 7 and Fig. 16, in [0100] In FIG. 3a we generalize the model a little further by replacing the Michaelson beam splitter apparatus with a Hadamard gate 312. This gate modifies the base states of |0> and |1> to a superposition of |0> and |0> and |1> with equal probability [wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions]…)
Tag in combination with Rou teach the use of Hamiltonian characterized by location interactions for encode operations in a quantum circuits.
Additionally, Cao teaches [0045] The starting point of quantum algorithms for quantum chemistry problems is to represent the fermionic model on a quantum computer, i.e., a system of qubits and quantum gates [wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions]. There are several ways to encode fermionic systems into spin systems, most of which use the formalism of second quantization. The fermionic Hamiltonian is isospectrally mapped to a Hamiltonian on the system of spins or qubits [wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions], enabling the estimation of energy expectation values indirectly through spin measurements. [0046] Since molecular Hamiltonians [wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions] are unbounded operators acting on infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces, the numerical methods used to approximately solve molecular structure problems always restrict themselves to a finite dimensional subspace, choosing a suitable basis of fermionic modes that spans this approximation subspace. Fermion to qubit mappings encode fermionic states [wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions] in Fock space or occupation number space into states of a system of qubits, and the target Hamiltonian H [wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions] acting on m fermionic modes into a simulator Hamiltonian {tilde over (H)} composed of quantum gates acting on t=f(m) qubits, such that for any isometry V that maps fermionic states to qubit states, we have VH={tilde over (H)}V. Examples of such encodings include the Jordan-Wigner (JW) transformation, the Bravyi-Kitaev (BK) transformation, and the Verstraete-Cirac mapping. Several newer methods have also been proposed, with advantages in the number of qubits required, the number of qubits on which a transformed fermionic creation or annihilation operator acts non-trivially. For simplicity, the description herein focuses on the JW transformation to illustrate embodiments of the vCC algorithm for molecular Hamiltonians…
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Tag in combination with Cao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each system qubit wire corresponds to a degree of freedom associated with a section of a physical domain being simulated. (in [0142] where for each function ψ.sub.i,s the index i labels the spatial degree of freedom and s labels the spin degree of freedom [wherein each system qubit wire corresponds to a degree of freedom associated with a section of a physical domain being simulated]. Here the integer N is assumed to be even. The set of functions in Eqn. 42 is called a basis set and each element of the set is a spin orbital. For simplifying the notation from here on, we will use i, j, etc., to index combined spatial and spin degrees of freedom. The basis set in Eqn. 102 then becomes {ψ.sub.i}. for i=1 to N. The introduction of a basis set allows one to discretize the problem. By introducing ladder operators {a.sub.i, a.sub.i.sup.†, i=1, . . . , N} satisfying fermionic commutation relationship {a.sub.i, a.sub.j.sup.†}≡a.sub.ia.sub.j.sup.†+a.sub.j.sup.†a′.sub.i=δ.sub.ijI, {a.sub.i.sup.†, a.sub.j.sup.†}={a.sub.i, a.sub.j}=0, {a.sub.i.sup.†, a.sub.j.sup.†}{a.sub.i, a.sub.j}=0, we can transform the Hamiltonian in Eqn. 1 into a second-quantized form:…; And examiner notes the section of a physical domain as modeled qubits in the quantum computing system as noted in [0163] Various physical embodiments of a quantum computer are suitable for use according to the present disclosure. In general, the fundamental data storage unit in quantum computing is the quantum bit, or qubit [… a physical domain being simulated]. The qubit is a quantum-computing analog of a classical digital computer system bit. A classical bit is considered to occupy, at any given point in time, one of two possible states corresponding to the binary digits (bits) 0 or 1. By contrast, a qubit is implemented in hardware by a physical medium with quantum-mechanical characteristics. Such a medium, which physically instantiates a qubit, may be referred to herein as a “physical instantiation of a qubit,” [wherein each system qubit wire corresponds to a degree of freedom associated with a section of a physical domain being simulated] a “physical embodiment of a qubit,” a “medium embodying a qubit,” or similar terms, or simply as a “qubit,” for ease of explanation. It should be understood, therefore, that references herein to “qubits” within descriptions of embodiments of the present invention refer to physical media which embody qubits.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Tag and Cao for the same reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated and Tag in combination with Cao teaches the method of claim 6, wherein an i-th slice of the quantum circuit is configured to, upon execution by a quantum processor, evolve the degree of freedom in accordance with an operator. (in [0092] In a quantum gravity computer, a different approach is taken to removing the looping problem… A QGC is not chaos. It is a different approach to manipulating information. We should state that unlike our analogy above a QGC does perform calculations which evolve over time [wherein an i-th slice of the quantum circuit is configured to, upon execution by a quantum processor, evolve the degree of freedom in accordance with an operator] however, they are not rigidly and deterministically step-by-step procedures….[0095] FIG. 2 Illustrates schematically a block of spacetime in a general relativistic framework with two light cones centered on points in the grid, the first labelled 204. We should immediately say that blocks of spacetime do not exist in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (RQM) but they are a useful notion to setup our understanding: The grid should be imagined as fuzzy and in flux. In FIG. 2 the dimensions x 201, y 202 and t 203 of space-time are illustrated while z must be imagined. A grid of processing elements is arranged in this space. The light cones from those elements indicate the degree to which different areas of spacetime are ‘time-like’ and ‘space-like’ separated and therefore the causal connection between computational elements [wherein an i-th slice of the quantum circuit is configured to, upon execution by a quantum processor, evolve the degree of freedom in accordance with an operator]. (Space-like and time-like regions of a light cone are illustrated at 401 of FIG. 4)… [0104] FIG. 6 illustrates the QGC equivalent of the ‘measurement’ gate in a quantum computer for a QGC. In a regular quantum computer an element is provided which does not obey the normal mechanics of other gates in the system. It is an irreversible measurement mechanism 602 and application to the quantum state results in a collapse from the superposed 0|1 601 state to either |0> or |1> 603 with a given probability—usually 50:50..l. [0105] FIG. 7 Illustrates the QGC equivalent of a circuit in a standard quantum computer. In a QGC all elements in 701 can (and must be) replaced by a gravitationally active gates 702. In order to preserve the quantum computer operation [wherein an i-th slice of the quantum circuit is configured to, upon execution by a quantum processor, evolve the degree of freedom in accordance with an operator], the computational gates are replaced with low mass action elements 703 operating on inputs I, 704 and giving outputs O, 705 and the measurement gates are high mass action elements 703 with a larger mass…; And in [0036] Qubits and gates physicalize with space-time metric properties. They are located at a point x, y, z, t in the metric with momentum and consequent degrees of uncertainty.)
While Tag teaches the quantum circuit executing uses a quantum processor to process and model evolving quantum computational elements.
Additionally, Cao teaches in [0141] where T.sub.i=½∇.sub.i and U.sub.i are the kinetic and potential energies of each electron, respectively, and [00060]Vij=1.Math.ri-rj.Math. is the Coulomb interaction energy between electron i at coordinate r.sub.i and electron j at coordinate r.sub.j. Hence, the electronic structure Hamiltonian H [wherein an i-th slice of the quantum circuit is configured to, upon execution by a quantum processor, evolve the degree of freedom in accordance with an operator] is a continuous operator acting on the coordinate space r. The spectrum of H in most cases is beyond analytical solution. One general method for approximating the spectrum of H is to introduce a set of orthonormal basis functions … [0142] where for each function ψ.sub.i,s the index i labels the spatial degree of freedom and s labels the spin degree of freedom [wherein an i-th slice of the quantum circuit is configured to, upon execution by a quantum processor, evolve the degree of freedom in accordance with an operator]. Here the integer N is assumed to be even. The set of functions in Eqn. 42 is called a basis set and each element of the set is a spin orbital. For simplifying the notation from here on, we will use i, j, etc., to index combined spatial and spin degrees of freedom [wherein an i-th slice of the quantum circuit is configured to, upon execution by a quantum processor, evolve the degree of freedom in accordance with an operator]. The basis set in Eqn. 102 then becomes {ψ.sub.i}. for i=1 to N. The introduction of a basis set allows one to discretize the problem. By introducing ladder operators {a.sub.i, a.sub.i.sup.†, i=1, . . . , N} satisfying fermionic commutation relationship {a.sub.i, a.sub.j.sup.†}≡a.sub.ia.sub.j.sup.†+a.sub.j.sup.†a′.sub.i=δ.sub.ijI, {a.sub.i.sup.†, a.sub.j.sup.†}={a.sub.i, a.sub.j}=0, {a.sub.i.sup.†, a.sub.j.sup.†}{a.sub.i, a.sub.j}=0, we can transform the Hamiltonian in Eqn. 1 into a second-quantized form:…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Tag and Cao for the same reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated and Cao further teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the operator is a Hamiltonian, in [0141] where T.sub.i=½∇.sub.i and U.sub.i are the kinetic and potential energies of each electron, respectively, and [00060]Vij=1.Math.ri-rj.Math. is the Coulomb interaction energy between electron i at coordinate r.sub.i and electron j at coordinate r.sub.j. Hence, the electronic structure Hamiltonian H [wherein the operator is a Hamiltonian] is a continuous operator acting on the coordinate space r. The spectrum of H in most cases is beyond analytical solution. One general method for approximating the spectrum of H is to introduce a set of orthonormal basis functions … [0142] where for each function ψ.sub.i,s the index i labels the spatial degree of freedom and s labels the spin degree of freedom [wherein the operator is a Hamiltonian]. Here the integer N is assumed to be even. The set of functions in Eqn. 42 is called a basis set and each element of the set is a spin orbital. For simplifying the notation from here on, we will use i, j, etc., to index combined spatial and spin degrees of freedom. The basis set in Eqn. 102 then becomes {ψ.sub.i}. for i=1 to N. The introduction of a basis set allows one to discretize the problem. By introducing ladder operators {a.sub.i, a.sub.i.sup.†, i=1, . . . , N} satisfying fermionic commutation relationship {a.sub.i, a.sub.j.sup.†}≡a.sub.ia.sub.j.sup.†+a.sub.j.sup.†a′.sub.i=δ.sub.ijI, {a.sub.i.sup.†, a.sub.j.sup.†}={a.sub.i, a.sub.j}=0, {a.sub.i.sup.†, a.sub.j.sup.†}{a.sub.i, a.sub.j}=0, we can transform the Hamiltonian in Eqn. 1 into a second-quantized form:…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Tag and Cao for the same reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated and Tag in combination with Cao teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the physical domain is one of a one dimensional, two dimensional, or three dimensional physical domain. (in [0036] Qubits and gates physicalize with space-time metric properties. They are located at a point x, y, z, t [wherein the physical domain is one of a one dimensional, two dimensional, or three dimensional physical domain] in the metric with momentum and consequent degrees of uncertainty.)
Additionally, Cao teaches in [0164] Each qubit has an infinite number of different potential quantum-mechanical states. When the state of a qubit is physically measured [wherein the physical domain is one of a one dimensional, two dimensional, or three dimensional physical domain], the measurement produces one of two different basis states resolved from the state of the qubit…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Tag and Cao for the same reasons disclosed above.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites limitations similar to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. Additionally, Tag teaches a computing entity comprising at least one processor and a memory storing computer- executable instructions, the computer executable-instructions configured, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to at least: (in [0095] FIG. 2 Illustrates schematically a block of spacetime in a general relativistic framework with two light cones centered on points in the grid, the first labelled 204. We should immediately say that blocks of spacetime do not exist in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (RQM) but they are a useful notion to setup our understanding:… The light cones from those elements indicate the degree to which different areas of spacetime are ‘time-like’ and ‘space-like’ separated and therefore the causal connection between computational elements. (Space-like and time-like regions of a light cone are illustrated at 401 of FIG. 4). The center of the cone 204 represents some arbitrary small region in space-time at which we have placed a processing element. The elements can communicate along light cones using encoded light pulses. Each processing element might be imagined as a small microprocessor [a computing entity comprising at least one processor and a memory storing computer- executable instructions, the computer executable-instructions configured, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to at least:] of around the size of a grain of sand, able to receive and send encoded light pulses, through polarization, time bucket or other quantum optical encoding scheme. These microprocessors would also need the ability to maintain quantum coherence and entanglement of the photonic inputs and outputs they process. Such processors can be created in principle using, for example, Linear Optics Quantum Computation (LOQC) elements [a computing entity comprising at least one processor and a memory storing computer- executable instructions, the computer executable-instructions configured, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to at least] or indeed any arbitrary quantum optical device including the non-linear devices described in the introduction. We will describe methods to make such processing units later, and such units can be as simple as a single logic gate or as complex as a commercial microchip without loss of generality to the design.)
Additionally, Cao teaches in [0007] In one aspect, a method is performed by a classical computer for implementing, on a quantum computer [a computing entity comprising at least one processor and a memory storing computer- executable instructions, the computer executable-instructions configured, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to at least], a non-unitary operation of the form I+αU, where I is the identity operator, a is a scalar, and U is a unitary operator; the quantum computer having a plurality of qubits, including an ancilla qubit; the classical computer including a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and computer program instructions stored in the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the computer program instructions being executable by the processor to perform the method [a computing entity comprising at least one processor and a memory storing computer- executable instructions, the computer executable-instructions configured, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to at least]. The method includes: (A) generating and storing, in the non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer-readable data representing a description of a first quantum circuit W [a computing entity comprising at least one processor and a memory storing computer- executable instructions, the computer executable-instructions configured, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to at least] which, when executed by the quantum computer, probabilistically realizes the non-unitary operation by the technique of linear combination of unitaries; (B) generating and storing, in the non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer-readable data representing a description of a second quantum circuit [a computing entity comprising at least one processor and a memory storing computer- executable instructions, the computer executable-instructions configured, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to at least], the second quantum circuit comprising a sequence of quantum gates…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Tag and Cao for the same reasons disclosed above, in claim 1.
Regarding claims 17-19, the limitations are similar to the limitations in claims 5-7 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tag in view of Cao in further view Amin et al. (US 20050224784, hereinafter ‘Amin’).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated and Tag in combination with Cao teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the quantum circuit simulates the dynamics of the evolution of quantum states defined on a lattice representing the physical domain. (As depicted in Fig. 2 and Fig. 5, in [0095] FIG. 2 Illustrates schematically a block of spacetime in a general relativistic framework with two light cones centered on points in the grid, the first labelled 204. We should immediately say that blocks of spacetime do not exist in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (RQM) but they are a useful notion to setup our understanding: The grid should be imagined as fuzzy and in flux. In FIG. 2 the dimensions x 201, y 202 and t 203 of space-time are illustrated while z must be imagined. A grid of processing elements [wherein the quantum circuit simulates the dynamics of the evolution of quantum states defined on a lattice representing the physical domain] is arranged in this space. The light cones from those elements indicate the degree to which different areas of spacetime are ‘time-like’ and ‘space-like’ separated and therefore the causal connection between computational elements [wherein the quantum circuit simulates the dynamics of the evolution of quantum states defined on a lattice representing the physical domain]. (Space-like and time-like regions of a light cone are illustrated at 401 of FIG. 4). The center of the cone 204 represents some arbitrary small region in space-time at which we have placed a processing element. The elements can communicate along light cones using encoded light pulses. Each processing element might be imagined as a small microprocessor of around the size of a grain of sand, able to receive and send encoded light pulses, through polarization, time bucket or other quantum optical encoding scheme [wherein the quantum circuit simulates the dynamics of the evolution of quantum states defined on a lattice representing the physical domain]… [0096] Elements that are time-like separated 205, 206, 207 & 208 are causally connected to element 204 as they fall within the past or future light cone of 204. In the case of 205 & 206 this is a cause relationship and 207 and 208 is an effect relationship. Thus 205 & 206 may form inputs to the operation performed by 204 and the output of this operation may form an input to elements 207 and 208. [0097] In a classical computer there may be regions that are space—like separated—not causally connected. At the dock speeds present in a modern-day computer it is possible for a signal to be still in flight along a wire at the time when the next calculation is to be performed. If a calculation is dependent on such a signal the computer must be organized to wait for that signal before calculation is undertaken. For this reason, modern computers distribute a dock signal and synchronization information that ensures computational elements ° wait' until they are within the light cone of a previous computation. In the language of this diagram sufficient time t 203 is allowed to pass before a computation is made so that all relevant inputs fall within the light cone of a processing element..)
Additionally, Cao teaches in [0164] Each qubit has an infinite number of different potential quantum-mechanical states. When the state of a qubit is physically measured, the measurement produces one of two different basis states resolved from the state of the qubit. Thus, a single qubit can represent a one, a zero, or any quantum superposition of those two qubit states; a pair of qubits can be in any quantum superposition of 4 orthogonal basis states; and three qubits can be in any superposition of 8 orthogonal basis states. The function that defines the quantum-mechanical states of a qubit is known as its wavefunction. The wavefunction also specifies the probability distribution of outcomes for a given measurement. A qubit, which has a quantum state of dimension two [wherein the quantum circuit simulates the dynamics of the evolution of quantum states defined on a lattice representing the physical domain] (i.e., has two orthogonal basis states), may be generalized to a d-dimensional “qudit,” where d may be any integral value, such as 2, 3, 4, or higher. In the general case of a qudit, measurement of the qudit produces one of d different basis states resolved from the state of the qudit. Any reference herein to a qubit should be understood to refer more generally to an d-dimensional [wherein the quantum circuit simulates the dynamics of the evolution of quantum states defined on a lattice representing the physical domain] qudit with any value of d.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Tag and Cao for the same reasons disclosed above.
Tag and Cao teaches the use of a lattice of interconnected qubits as noted above.
Additionally, Amin teaches a lattice of interconnected qubits, in [0299] Some embodiments of the present invention comprise a lattice of interconnected superconducting charge qubits that are capacitively coupled to each other [wherein the quantum circuit simulates the dynamics of the evolution of quantum states defined on a lattice representing the physical domain]. This is a difference between these charge qubits and the systems of FIG. 5, which are being inductively coupled. Shown in FIG. 13A is an example of a fixed coupling between two superconducting charge qubits. Shown in FIG. 13B is an example of a tunable coupling between two superconducting charge qubits. The numbers of couplings and qubits in the lattice is scalable.
Amin, Cao and Tag are analogous art because both involve developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the prior art for developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems for implementing quantum computing components, as disclosed by Amin with the method of developing information retrieval and processing techniques and systems using quantum computer and device elements, as collectively disclosed by Cao and Tag.
One of ordinary skill in the arts would have been motivated to combine the disclosed methods disclosed by Cao and Tag as noted above; Doing so allowing for building and implementing quantum computing and related components using Hamiltonian operators to enhance multi-qubit tunneling during annealing., (Amin, Abstract).
Regarding claim 20, the limitations are similar to the limitations in claim 10 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson et al. (US 11468357): teaches the use of Hamiltonians in application of Hadamard test for estimating quantum energy states, in 4:11-23: The quantum approximate optimization algorithm described in the above-referenced paper entitled, “A quantum approximate optimization algorithm,” aims to tune the parameters of a quantum circuit on M qubits [wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions] so that the bit strings sampled on the output tend toward better cut assignments. The structure of the quantum circuit is motivated by the quantum adiabatic evolution which transforms the ground state of the trivial Hamiltonian H.sub.X=−Σ.sub.i=1.sup.MX.sub.i into the ground state of the target Hamiltonian H.sub.T=¼Σ.sub.i,jA.sub.i,j(I−Z.sub.iZ.sub.j) [wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions]. The quantum system is initialized in the ground state of Hx by applying a Hadamard gate. And in 8:15-30: …Each node corresponds to a bit, whereby any boolean vector z corresponds to an assignment of graph nodes to the left (0) and right (1) of the cut. Steps 2-5: In Steps 2-5, (Stags 806), a packing of M bits into N qubits is determined, with the number of qubits with which the algorithm is carried out denoted by N, where N≤M. In Step 2, the elementary operators used to construct the N-qubit Hamiltonian [wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions] are the 2N Majorana operators {γ.sub.i}.sub.i=1.sup.2N. These operators are mapped to qubit observables using, for example, the Jordan-Wigner transformation… 9:15-19: …(52) Step 8: Using the state prepared with these parameters, the two-RDMs of the Majorana fermion Hamiltonian are estimated using standard methods either on a quantum computer by measuring the qubits [wherein the quantum circuit encodes interactions governed by a Hamiltonian characterized by local interactions]
Rose (US 20080313114): teaches in [0020] Adiabatic quantum computation typically involves evolving a system from a known initial Hamiltonian (the Hamiltonian being an operator whose eigenvalues are the allowed energies of the system) to a final Hamiltonian by gradually changing the Hamiltonian. A simple example of an adiabatic evolution is: …
Cao et al. (US 20210374550): teaches in [0065] A quantum circuit may be specified as a sequence of quantum gates. As described in more detail below, the term “quantum gate,” as used herein, refers to the application of a gate control signal (defined below) to one or more qubits to cause those qubits to undergo certain physical transformations and thereby to implement a logical gate operation. To conceptualize a quantum circuit, the matrices corresponding to the component quantum gates may be multiplied together in the order specified by the gate sequence to produce a 2n×2n complex matrix representing the same overall state change on n qubits. A quantum circuit may thus be expressed as a single resultant operator. However, designing a quantum circuit in terms of constituent gates allows the design to conform to a standard set of gates, and thus enable greater ease of deployment. A quantum circuit thus corresponds to a design for actions taken upon the physical components of a quantum computer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN ALABI whose telephone number is (571)272-0516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-5:00pm EST..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OLUWATOSIN ALABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights