DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
This US Application 17/835,328 (06/08/2022) claims priority from Foreign Application EP21305788.8 (06/09/2021), as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 06/27/2022. The claims to the benefit of priority are acknowledged; and the effective filing date of claims 1-13 is 06/09/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 06/08/2022 was considered.
Claims interpretations regarding 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
In claim 1, the recited "Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) method" recites means (or an equivalent, nonce term, here "method") and function and/or result (here "Variational Quantum Eigensolver"), but the recitation does not invoke 112/f because it is interpreted as a well-known process, e.g. "known" (instant specification: [4]). MPEP 2181.I.A,3rd para. pertains with analogy to structures having "sufficiently definite meaning," such as "filters" and "brakes."
Other claims interpretations
In claim 1, the following portions of the preamble are interpreted as intended use and therefore not clearly limiting the claim:
for finding an optimal quantum state minimizing an energy associated with a Hamiltonian operator... for producing trial quantum states for the Hamiltonian operator, ...to be optimized.
The following portions of the preamble are interpreted as limiting the claim:
...with a quantum processor and a classical processor by using a Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) method, wherein the Hamiltonian operator represents an energy of a molecule, the quantum processor comprising a predetermined quantum circuit..., said predetermined quantum circuit comprising at least parametric quantum gates associated with one or more parameters...
MPEP 2111.02 pertains.
Claim objections
Claims 1-3 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. With regard to any suggested amendment below to overcome an objection, in the subsequent examination it is assumed that each amendment is made. However, equivalent amendments also would be acceptable. Any amendments in response to the following objections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: an improper extra space in line 7 after "…the method comprising" and before the colon.
In claim 2, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation (608.01(m) Form of Claims). Sub-steps / elements should be indented from their parent step / element. This rule should be applied throughout the claims as needed.
In claim 3, the is an extra and unnecessary "or" recited in the list of "circuit" types. Also, readability would be improved by amending to "(LDCA)" instead of "..., LDCA,..."
Claim 12 is objected to as reciting an objective of "determining a quantum state of a chemical compound" without clearly accomplishing that objective, e.g. not further referring to the "chemical compound" of the preamble.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend. MPEP 608.01(n).III pertains. The claim 13 preamble is not clearly limiting, and it is not clear that the rest of the claim differs in scope from claim 1. MPEP 2111.02 pertains. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the invention. Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted. The following issues cause the respective claims to be rejected under 112(b) as indefinite:
In claim 1, the relationship is unclear between the recited "with a quantum process and a classical processor" and the rest of the claim. If this clause is intended to modify "finding," then this may be clarified. Relatedly, it is unclear which steps of the recited method are required to be performed "with a quantum processor" versus "with... a classical processor," preventing at least clear 101 analysis.
In claim 1, the recited "providing the Hamiltonian operator..." is unclear as is the relationship of the recitation to the rest of the claim. For example, the relationship is unclear between simply "providing" the operator versus the recited "finding an optimal quantum state," the recited iteration and the recitation of the subsequent "performing...," etc. Possibly "providing" should be amended to either "providing and evaluating" or simply "evaluating" or any equivalently clarifying amendment. Similarly, the relationship is unclear between the recited "providing" and the recited "iteratively."
In claim 1, the relationship is unclear between the recited "providing the Hamiltonian operator" and the subsequently recited "in an orbital basis." The specification discloses "...the orbital basis in which the Hamiltonian operator is provided gets updated..." ([15]; also [5]), which appears to refer to a particular orbital basis having a particular value or condition. It is unclear how to interpret simply providing the operator "in an orbital basis." Possibly the claim should recite "...providing the Hamiltonian operator having in initial orbital basis..." or any equivalently clarifying amendment.
In claim 1, the relationships are unclear between further the steps/elements. The claim recites a "providing…" step followed by a series of indented steps ("performing…, "computing...," "diagonalizing…" and "modifying …"). It is, for example, unclear whether the series of indented steps further limits the preceding "providing" step or another element. The relationship is unclear between "providing..." and the subsequent series of steps. Adding an explicit relationship may help to overcome this rejection, for example, amending to "...providing... iteratively, until a predefined stopping criterion is satisfied, the iteratively providing comprising: performing...").
In claim 1, the grammatical structure of the list of steps is unclear due at least to the recited ", and determining..." (after the "diagonalizing" step). It is unclear why two steps, "diagonalizing" and "determining" are recited without a line break. It is unclear why "and" is recited here and again before "modifying." If "diagonalizing" and "determining" are intended as a sub-list of two steps within the list of "performing...," etc., then this is not clear. A list of only two elements should not contain a comma, e.g. "X and Y" not "X, and Y."
In claim 2, the relationship is unclear between iteration associated with the claim 1 recited "iteratively" and iteration associated with the claim 2 recited "iterative scheme," even given the recitation of two stopping criteria.
In claim 3, the recited "product" is a term of relative or vague degree or form of association, neither defined in the specification ([49]) nor having a well-known and sufficiently particular definition in the art and in the instant context. The disclosure at [49] is not interpreted as a definition. (MPEP 2173.05(b) pertains.) Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, examples from the specification are not imported into the claims as limitations absent a clearly limiting definition in the specification. (MPEP 2145.VI pertains.)
In claim 4, depending from claim 1, the relationship is unclear between the claim 1 "providing the Hamiltonian operator..." and the claim 4 "for which the Hamiltonian operator is provided," at least due to the apparently redundant recitation. It may help to overcome this rejection to more explicitly recite how the providing of the Hamiltonian differs relative to the application to the Hubbard model.
Claim 7 is indefinite as not interpretable at for improper grammatical construction, apparently missing a verb.
In claim 8, the recited "and" renders the claim indefinite, since the "molecule" can be only one among the list.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to one or more Judicial Exceptions (JEs) without significantly more. Regarding JEs, "Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas..., natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection" (MPEP 2106.04 §I). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts and procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, which are a type of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
101 background
MPEP 2106 organizes JE analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prong One & Prong Two), and 2B as analyzed below. MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
Analysis of instant claims
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a 101 process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03)?
The instant claims are directed to a method (claims 1-13), which falls within one of the categories of statutory subject matter.
[Step 1: claims 1-13 – Yes].
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a-c))?
Background
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
• mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships
and mathematical calculations) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I));
• certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)); and/or
• mental processes (concepts practically performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Analysis of instant claims
Mathematical concepts recited in instant claims 1-2, include the terms:
• "quantum state minimizing an energy associated with a Hamiltonian operator" (claim 1);
• "using a Variational Quantum Eigensolver method" (claim 1);
• "providing the Hamiltonian operator in an orbital basis and iteratively" (claim 1);
• "performing the VQE method to find optimized values" (claim 1);
• "computing a one particle reduced density matrix based on the intermediate optimal quantum state" (claim 1);
• "diagonalizing the one particle reduced density matrix" (claim 1);
• "determining an updated orbital basis" (claim 1);
• "modifying the Hamiltonian operator … to express the Hamiltonian operator" (claim 1);
• "returning …the intermediate optimal quantum state " (claim 1);
• " performing the VQE method is an iterative scheme" (claim 2);
• " preparing a trial quantum state for the Hamiltonian operator" (claim 2);
• "performing measurements representative of the energy" (claim 2);
• "updating values of the parameters of the parametric quantum gates" (claim 2);
• "returning the optimized values" (claim 2);
Said terms are being identified as mathematical concepts. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art. In this instant disclosure, [0056 - 0078] describes the use of equations and parameters by algorithms to calculate the optimized values; which indicates the use of math. Thus, the recited terms corresponds to verbal equivalents of mathematical concepts because they constitute actions executed by a group of mathematical steps in a form of a mathematical algorithm; thus mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). A mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Dependent claims 3-13 recite further details about parameters and criteria regarding the step of "finding an optimal quantum state"; not reciting any additional non-abstract elements; all reciting further aspects of the information being analyzed, the manner in which that analysis is performed. Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that, individually and in combination, constitute abstract ideas. The instant claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
[Step 2A Prong One: claims 1-13 – Yes].
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application by an additional element (MPEP 2106.04(d))?
Background
MPEP 2106.04(d).I lists the following example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Analysis of instant claims
Instant claims 1-2 and 12-13 recite additional elements that are not abstract ideas:
"a quantum processor and a classical processor"
In Step 2A, Prong One above, claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more judicial exceptions (JEs).
In this Step 2A, Prong Two immediately above claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more additional elements. Additional elements are further discussed in Step 2B below.
Here in Step 2A, Prong Two, no additional step or element clearly demonstrates integration of the JE(s) into a practical application.
At this point in examination it is not yet the case that any of the Step 2A, Prong Two considerations enumerated above clearly demonstrates integration of the identified JE(s) into a practical application. Referring to the considerations above, none of 1. an improvement, 2. treatment, 3. a particular machine or 4. a transformation is clear in the record.
For example, regarding the first consideration at MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), the record, including for example the specification, does not yet clearly disclose an explanation of improvement over the previous state of the technology field. The claims do not yet clearly result in such an improvement. [Step 2A Prong Two: claims 1-13 - No].
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of elements in addition to any identified judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05)?
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Step 2B of the 35 USC § 101 analysis determines whether the claims contain additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, and an inventive concept cannot be furnished by an abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1-13 recite a computer or computer functions, interpreted as instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, where the computer does not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exceptions; which can be performed without the use of a computer (MPEP 2106.04(d) § I; and MPEP 2106.05(f)).
It is known in the art that the use of quantum-classical architecture to find the optimal quantum state of a molecule is well-understood, routine and conventional (Kjaergaard "Superconducting qubits: Current state of play." Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11(1):369-395 (2020)).
When the claims are considered as a whole, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; they do not confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technology; they do not solve a problem rooted in or arising from the use of a particular technology; they do not improve a technology by allowing the technology to perform a function that it previously was not capable of performing; and they do not provide any limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a broad technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(h).
[Step 2B: claims 1-13 - No].
Conclusion: Instant claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter
For these reasons, the claims in this instant application, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept. Hence, the claimed invention does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, so instant claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Rejection of Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-13
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moll ("Quantum optimization using variational algorithms on near-term quantum devices." Quantum Science and Technology 3(3):030503 (2018)) in view of Rubin ("A hybrid classical/quantum approach for large-scale studies of quantum systems with density matrix embedding theory." arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.06910 (2016)), as cited on the attached Form PTO-892.
Independent claim 1 recites:
A method for finding an optimal quantum state minimizing an energy associated with a Hamiltonian operator with a quantum processor and a classical processor by using a Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) method, wherein the Hamiltonian operator represents an energy of a molecule, the quantum processor comprising a predetermined quantum circuit for producing trial quantum states for the Hamiltonian operator, said predetermined quantum circuit comprising at least parametric quantum gates associated with one or more parameters to be optimized, … wherein when the predefined stopping criterion is satisfied, the method further comprises returning, as the optimal quantum state minimizing the energy associated with the Hamiltonian operator, the intermediate optimal quantum state which minimizes the most the energy associated with the Hamiltonian operator
The preamble portions of claim 1 bolded immediately above are interpreted in the earlier interpretations section as overcoming the presumption against the preamble being interpreted as limiting the claim and are here interpreted as limiting.
Moll teaches the above portions of claim 1 as an approach to Hamiltonian-problem solving using the Variational quantum eigensolver method via a hybrid quantum–classical architecture, where a quantum co-processor prepares multi-qubit quantum states parametrized by control parameters and the subsequent measurement of a cost function Eq (θ), typically the energy of a problem Hamiltonian, serves a classical computer to find new values θ in order to minimize Eq (θ) and find the ground-state energy (i.e. which minimizes the most the energy associated with the Hamiltonian) (pg. 5 para. 1); wherein in a quantum algorithm, a step is expressed as a unitary operator that can be written as a tensor product of randomly chosen arbitrary two-qubit gates (pg. 3 para. 6); wherein first, on the quantum processor a tentative variational eigenstate, a trial state, is generated by a sequence of gates parameterized by a set of control parameters θ (i.e. quantum processor comprising a predetermined quantum circuit for producing trial quantum states for the Hamiltonian operator); wherein θ describes a vector of parameters that will be optimized using VQE (i.e. quantum circuit comprising at least parametric quantum gates associated with one or more parameters to be optimized) (pg. 7 para. 6); wherein the VQE procedure ends when the minimum of Eq (θ) is reached within a given accuracy (i.e. until a predefined stopping criterion) and the optimal parameters θ are found (pg. 6 para. 3).
Independent claim 1 recites:
the method comprising: providing the Hamiltonian operator in an orbital basis and iteratively, until a predefined stopping criterion is satisfied: performing the VQE method to find optimized values for at least some of the one or more parameters associated with the parametric quantum gates of the predetermined quantum circuit that yield an intermediate optimal quantum state which minimizes the energy associated with the Hamiltonian operator; … in the updated orbital basis
which Moll teaches as in the electronic Hamiltonian, parameters describe the one- and two-electron interactions and can be efficiently computed classically as the overlap integrals of the orbitals in the basis set (pg. 6 para. 6); wherein time overheads due to repeated sampling and the number of function evaluations to update the variational parameters will affect the performance of the optimization (pg. 12 para. 2); wherein an optimization algorithm processes Eq (θ) providing new parameters θ with the value of Eq (θ) minimized as a function of the parameters θ and, for each parameter set, a new set of gates for trial state preparation has to be loaded onto the quantum processor (i.e. iteratively) (pg. 6 para. 3); wherein θ describes a vector of parameters that will be optimized using VQE (pg. 7 para. 6); wherein the VQE procedure ends when the minimum of Eq (θ) is reached within a given accuracy (i.e. until a predefined stopping criterion) and the optimal parameters θ are found (i.e. predetermined quantum circuit that yield an intermediate optimal quantum state which minimizes the energy associated with the Hamiltonian operator) (pg. 6 para. 3).
Dependent claim 2 recites:
wherein performing the VQE method is an iterative scheme in which the quantum processor is used in conjunction with the classical processor, the quantum processor preparing a trial quantum state for the Hamiltonian operator and performing measurements representative of the energy associated with the Hamiltonian operator for said trial quantum state, and the classical processor updating values of the parameters of the parametric quantum gates of the predetermined quantum circuit based on the measurements performed by the quantum processor, the iterative scheme being executed until a second predefined stopping criterion is satisfied, the VQE method returning the optimized values of the parameters
which Moll teaches as an approach to Hamiltonian-problem solving using the Variational quantum eigensolver method via a hybrid quantum–classical architecture (pg. 5 para. 1) leading to very short-depth circuits (pg. 2 para. 5); wherein the high-dimensional trial wavefunctions are generated on the quantum computer using parametrized single-qubit and entangling gates, while the optimization of the gate parameters is performed on a classical computer by summing expectation values of the qubit operators measured on the quantum device and thereby calculating the total energy as a cost function (pg. 2 para. 5); wherein the VQE procedure ends when the minimum of Eq (θ) is reached within a given accuracy (i.e. until a predefined stopping criterion) and the optimal parameters θ are found (i.e. reading on a second stopping criterion) (pg. 6 para. 3).
Dependent claim 3 recites "wherein the predetermined quantum circuit is a product quantum circuit comprising only one-qubit quantum gates in a form of rotations, or a quantum circuit comprising fSim quantum gates or a Low-Depth Circuit Ansatz, LDCA, quantum circuit" which Moll teaches as the single-qubit operations are decomposed into rotations about the x- and the z-axes (pg. 8 para. 4).
Dependent claim 8 recites "wherein the molecule is a H2, LiH and/or H20 molecule" which Moll teaches as applying the method described in claim 1 to a hydrogen molecule (pg. 8 para. 5).
Dependent claim 9 recites "wherein a number of qubits in the predetermined quantum circuit corresponds to a number of spin-orbitals used to describe the molecule" which Moll teaches as, for lithium hydride number of spin-orbitals (i.e. 12) are mapped onto four qubits (9 para. 3).
Dependent claim 11 recites "wherein the parametric quantum gates comprise rotation quantum gates, and wherein the parameters associated with said rotation quantum gates comprise values of angles" which Moll teaches as the preparation of the heuristic trial states comprising two types of quantum gates, single-qubit Euler rotations determined by the rotation angles and an entangling drift operation acting on pairs of qubits (pg. 8 para. 3).
Dependent claim 13 recites:
a method for determining physical properties of materials comprising: a method for finding an optimal quantum state by minimizing the energy associated with a Hamiltonian operator with a quantum processor and a classical processor according to claim 1
which Moll teaches as an approach to Hamiltonian-problem solving using the Variational quantum eigensolver method via a hybrid quantum–classical architecture (pg. 5 para. 1) and as described in claim 1; wherein the large state space of a quantum computer can be used to simulate a chemical system and calculate its properties, including correlations and reaction rates (pg. 2 para. 2).
Ascertainment of the Difference the Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims (MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claim 1, Moll does not teach "computing a one particle reduced density matrix based on the intermediate optimal quantum state; diagonalizing the one particle reduced density matrix to obtain a transformation matrix, and determining an updated orbital basis in which the one particle reduced density matrix is diagonal, based on the transformation matrix; and modifying the Hamiltonian operator by using the transformation matrix, to express the Hamiltonian operator." However, Rubin teaches it as the VQE being integrated into any computational chemistry methodology that requires a high-fidelity solver with an interface requiring the one-particle and two-particle reduced density matrices (pg. 1 col. 2 para. 2); wherein the total system Hamiltonian is approximated using the Hartree–Fock method to find an optimal single-particle basis (pg. 2 col. 2 para. 3); wherein, using the Hubbard model, the exact solution is computed with an exact diagonalization of the Hamiltonian (pg. 6 Table 1); wherein for the Hubbard model this involves a Fourier transform (i.e. involving a transformation matrix) on the one-particle and two-particle integral tensors (pg. 6 col. 2 para. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Moll does not teach "wherein the method is applied on a Hubbard model for which the Hamiltonian operator is provided." However, Rubin teaches it as validating the density matrix embedding theory coupled with the output from the variational quantum eigensolver by reproducing the ground state energy of the Hubbard model converged to the infinite limit (pg. 1 para. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Moll does not teach "wherein the Hamiltonian operator is a second-quantized Hamiltonian." Regarding claim 6, Moll does not teach "wherein a physical quantum state is encoded into a qubit state by means of a Jordan-Wigner transformation from which the Hamiltonian operator is decomposed accordingly in terms of qubit observables." However, Rubin teaches claims 5-6 as, during the minimization scheme in quantum computing, the antisymmetric fermionic creation/annihilation operators are represented by distinguishable qubits, with Jordan–Wigner transformation being utilized for mapping fermionic creation/ annihilation operators to Pauli spin-operators that preserve the anti-commutation relations and parity of the second quantized operators (pg. 4 col. 2 para. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Moll does not teach "a method for determining a quantum state of a chemical compound, comprising: a method for finding an optimal quantum state minimizing the energy associated with a Hamiltonian operator with a quantum processor and a classical processor according to claim 1, wherein an expectation value of the Hamiltonian operator over a given quantum state corresponds to the energy of said quantum state." However, Rubin teaches it as the applied VQE being a functional minimization scheme that leverages fast construction of the wavefunction to find expectation values of operators (pg. 4 col. 2 para. 1); wherein the energy E of the system is minimized by varying over parameters for the wavefunction ansatz and the expectation value is determined by summing the expectation of each term in the Hamiltonian (pg. 4 col. 2 para. 1).
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale for Combining References (MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-9, and 11-13, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the teachings by Rubin to the method by Moll because Rubin teaches applying one particle reduced density matrix method integrated with the VQE algorithm to study quantum systems with higher resolution (pg. 7 col. 2 para. 2 Rubin). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for applying the variational quantum eigensolver method to determined minimized emery states of molecules.
Rejection of Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moll and Rubin as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Peruzzo ("A variational eigenvalue solver on a photonic quantum processor." Nature communications 5(1):4213 (2014)), as cited on the attached Form PTO-892.
Dependent claim 7 recites "wherein the optimal quantum state corresponding to an eigenvector associated a lowest eigenvalue."
Ascertainment of the Difference the Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims (MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claim 7, neither Moll nor Rubin teach the recited limitation above. However, Peruzzo teaches it as a variation eigensolver method using a photonic processor to calculate the ground-state molecular energy for He–H+ (pg. 1 para. 1); wherein the eigenvalue problem for an observable represented by an operator can be restated as a variational problem such that the eigenvector corresponding to the lowest eigenvalue is the eigenvector that minimizes the wavefunction (i.e. optimal state) (pg. 2 col. 2 para. 5).
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale for Combining References (MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claim 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the teachings by Peruzzo to the method by Moll and Rubin because Peruzzo teaches the proposed approach drastically reduces the coherence time requirements, enhancing the potential of quantum resources (pg. 1 para. 1 Peruzzo). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for applying the variational quantum eigensolver method to determined minimized emery states of molecules.
Rejection of Claim 10
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moll and Rubin as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of McClean ("The theory of variational hybrid quantum-classical algorithms." New Journal of Physics 18(2):023023 (2016)), as cited on the attached Form PTO-892.
Dependent claim 10 recites "wherein the predefined stopping criterion is a maximum number of iterations and/or a minimum change of a variance between the minimums of the energy associated with the Hamiltonian operator obtained after two consecutive iterations "
Ascertainment of the Difference the Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims (MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claim 10, neither Moll nor Rubin teach the recited limitation above. However, McClean teaches it as a sufficient condition determined by rigorously achieving the precision requirement on the eigenvalue where as one approaches an eigenstate, the variance approaches zero (pg. 6 para. 1); wherein the condition is used to estimate the absolute accuracy of the minimization procedure obtained within the given basis and decide if the eigenvalue has been determined to the desired accuracy and precision or if the state ansatz should be altered to adjust the cost or accuracy of the procedure (i.e. reading on a stopping criterion) (pg. 6 para. 3).
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale for Combining References (MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claim 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the teachings by McClean to the method by Moll and Rubin because McClean teaches the concept of quantum variational error suppression to offer dramatic computational savings of up to three orders of magnitude (pg. 1 para. 1 McClean). One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to motivated to combine the teachings in these references with a reasonable expectation of success since the described teachings pertain to methods for applying the variational quantum eigensolver method to determined minimized emery states of molecules.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCINI A FONSECA LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0899. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Olivia Wise can be reached at (571) 272-2249. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.F.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/G. STEVEN VANNI/Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686