DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 07/06/2022 for Application number 17/858,570. Claims 1-29 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2022, 09/29/2022, 03/29/2023, 10/05/2023, 04/02/2024, and 11/13/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cao et al. ("US 20210374550 A1", hereinafter "Cao").
Regarding claim 1, Cao teaches A method of sampling from a probability distribution, the method comprising:
receiving a description of a probability distribution (“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” [¶0061]);
determining a first Hamiltonian having a ground state encoding the probability distribution (“The data representing a first training state in the plurality of training states is implicitly specified by data representing a Hamiltonian related to the system of interest. The computer program instructions to perform the quantum circuit training include computer program instructions executable by the processor to use the data representing the first training state to represent a ground state of the Hamiltonian in the performing of the quantum circuit training.” [¶0011]);
determining a second Hamiltonian, the second Hamiltonian being continuously transformable into the first Hamiltonian via a path through at least one quantum phase transition (“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, and providing the initial Hamiltonian 260, the final Hamiltonian 262 and an annealing schedule 270 as input to the quantum computer 252…. At the end of the time evolution, the set of qubits on the quantum annealer is in a final state 272, which is expected to be close to the ground state of the classical Ising model that corresponds to the solution to the original optimization problem 258.” [¶0071; note: The annealing schedule corresponds to a “path”]);
initializing a quantum system according to a ground state of the second Hamiltonian (“The process of outputting the state preparation signal(s) to cause the qubits 104 to be in their initial state is referred to herein as “state preparation” (FIG. 2A, section 206). A special case of state preparation is “initialization,” also referred to as a “reset operation,” in which the initial state is one in which some or all of the qubits 104 are in the “zero” state i.e. the default single-qubit state.” [¶0091; “according to a ground state of the second Hamiltonian” would be inherent given);
evolving the quantum system from the ground state of the second Hamiltonian to the ground state of the first Hamiltonian according to the path through the at least one quantum phase transition (“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 (“path”) following the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, a natural quantum-mechanical evolution of physical systems (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.” [¶0071]); and
performing a measurement on the quantum system, thereby obtaining a sample from the probability distribution. (“Although not shown explicitly in FIG. 1 and not required, the measurement unit 110 may provide one or more feedback signals 114 to the control unit 106 based on the measurement signals 112. For example, quantum computers referred to as “one-way quantum computers” or “measurement-based quantum computers” utilize such feedback 114 from the measurement unit 110 to the control unit 106. Such feedback 114 is also necessary for the operation of fault-tolerant quantum computing and error correction.” [¶0090; note: obtaining a sample from the probability distribution is merely an intended result thus carries little to no patentable weight])
Regarding claim 2, Cao teaches The method of claim 1, wherein determining the first Hamiltonian comprises deriving the first Hamiltonian from a projected entangled pair state (PEPS) representation of its ground state. (“In certain embodiments of the fourth aspect, each of the plurality of quantum states is either a matrix product state or a projected entangled pair state.” [¶0030])
Regarding claim 8, Cao teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the ground state of the second Hamiltonian is a product state. (“In certain embodiments of the third aspect, each of the plurality of quantum states is either a matrix product state or a projected entangled pair state.” [¶0023])
Regarding claim 9, Cao teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the evolving is adiabatic. (“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, and providing the initial Hamiltonian 260, the final Hamiltonian 262 and an annealing schedule 270 as input to the quantum computer 252.” [¶0071; note quantum annealing is an adiabatic quantum computation])
Regarding claim 27, it is substantially similar to claim 1 respectively, and is rejected in the same manner, the same art, and reasoning applying.
Claim 28 recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 28 additionally requires A computer program product for configuring a quantum computer to sample from a probability distribution, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method (Cao, ¶0005)
Claim 29 recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 29 additionally requires A system comprising: a quantum computer; and a computing node configured to: (Cao, ¶0005)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-7, 15-17, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Crosson ("Classical and Quantum Computation in Ground States and Beyond", hereinafter "Crosson").
Regarding claim 3, Cao teaches The method of claim 1, however fails to explicitly teach wherein the description of the probability distribution comprises a description of a Markov chain whose stationary distribution is the probability distribution.
Crosson teaches teaches wherein the description of the probability distribution comprises a description of a Markov chain whose stationary distribution is the probability distribution (“To do this we will review some definitions and techniques from the mathematical theory of Markov Chains in section Section 5.3.4. The time it takes for a Markov chain to converge to its stationary distribution is governed by the spectral gap of the transition matrix (which encodes the transition probabilities of the random walk).” [pg. 15, bottom para])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cao’s teachings by using the Markov chain techniques disclosed by Crosson. One would have been motivated to make this modification because efficient simulation algorithms are valuable for the perspective they yield on the complexity of these systems. [pg. 16, Crosson]
Regarding claim 4, Cao/Crosson teaches The method of claim 3, Crosson further teaches wherein the Markov chain satisfies detailed balance. (“The transition probabilities are chosen to be reversible with respect to π (i.e. they satisfy detailed balance), and this together with a few additional assumptions ensures that the random walk will eventually converge to π” [pg. 85, ¶3])
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Crosson as claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Cao/Crosson teaches The method of claim 4, where Crosson teaches wherein determining the first Hamiltonian comprises constructing the first Hamiltonian from the Markov chain. (“This opens up the possibility of treating the ground state wave function as an (unnormalized) classical probability distribution, and the idea behind the quantum Monte Carlo method we will consider is to treat the off-diagonal matrix entries of a stoquastic Hamiltonian as transition probabilities of a random walk that converges to the thermal state.” [pg. 15, ¶2])
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Crosson as claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Cao/Crosson teaches The method of claim 3, wherein the description of the Markov chain comprises a generator matrix. (“This opens up the possibility of treating the ground state wave function as an (unnormalized) classical probability distribution, and the idea behind the quantum Monte Carlo method we will consider is to treat the off-diagonal matrix (“generator matrix”) entries of a stoquastic Hamiltonian as transition probabilities of a random walk that converges to the thermal state.” [pg. 15, ¶2])
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Crosson as claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Cao/Crosson teaches The method of claim 3, wherein the Markov chain comprises a single-site update. (“…the factor of 2nL comes from the chain being lazy and the choice of random single-site updates (which means there is a 1/nL chance of proposing each particular transition)” [pg. 94, bottom para])
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Crosson as claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, Cao/Crosson teaches The method of claim 1, Crosson teaches wherein the probability distribution comprises a classical Gibbs distribution. (“To sample from the Gibbs distribution π for the effective classical system (5.11) we will use a Markov chain which chooses a site in the classical lattice Λ uniformly at random and proposes to flip the bit at that site to make a transition z → zwith an acceptance probability P(z,z) given by the metropolis rule.” [pg. 90, §5.4.5, ¶1])
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Crosson as claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, Cao/Crosson teaches The method of claim 15, Crosson teaches wherein the path is distinct from a path along a set of first Hamiltonians associated with the Gibbs distribution at different temperatures. (“Simulated annealing attempts to minimize a cost function by treating it as the energy of a physical system, and by performing a random walk to sample the Gibbs distribution of this energy function at various temperature” [pg. 12, ¶2])
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Crosson as claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, Cao/Crosson teaches The method of claim 16, Crosson teaches wherein the Gibbs distribution is a Gibbs distribution of weighted independent sets of a graph (“The matrix P is called a transition matrix, and since the state space of the random walk is a connected graph and the Metropolis rule satisfies the property of detailed balance, the transition matrix P with transitions satisfying (5.19) will have the Gibbs distribution π as an eigenvector corresponding to an eigenvalue with magnitude 1” [pg. 90, bottom para]).
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Crosson as claim 3.
Regarding claim 21, Cao/Crosson teaches The method of claim 16, Crosson teaches wherein the Gibbs distribution is a Gibbs distribution of an Ising model. (“The most famous spin system is the ferromagnetic Ising model” [pg. 2, 1.1.1., ¶1])
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Crosson as claim 3.
Regarding claim 22, Cao/Crosson teaches The method of claim 21, Crosson teaches wherein the Gibbs distribution is a zero-temperature Gibbs distribution (“First consider the model at zero temperature. At T = 0, following our discussion of the fan-out in Section 2.4, it is easy to see that the ground state of this model can be thought of as a series of fan-out gates originating from the root vertex vr with possible bit flips applied to the fan-out depending on the sign of J(v,w).” [pg. 44, ¶3])
and the Ising model is a ferromagnetic ID Ising model. (“The most famous spin system is the ferromagnetic Ising model” [pg. 2, 1.1.1., ¶1])
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Crosson as claim 3.
Regarding claim 23, Cao/Crosson teaches The method of claim 16, Crosson teaches wherein the Gibbs distribution is a Gibbs distribution of a classical Hamiltonian encoding an unstructured search problem. (“In thermal equilibrium a quantum system with Hamiltonian H will be in the Gibbs state,.. As in the classical case, the solution of a physical model typically involves going from a Hamiltonian as in (1.6) to an explicit form of the ground state or thermal state that allows one to determine observables of interest” [pg. 5, ¶2]))
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Crosson as claim 3.
Regarding claim 24, Cao/Crosson teaches The method of claim 23, Cao teaches teaches and the unstructured search problem has a single solution. (“The classical computer 254 performs postprocessing on the measurement results 276 to produce output 280 representing a solution to the original computational problem 258 (FIG. 2B, operation 278).” [¶0072])
Crosson teaches wherein the Gibbs distribution is a zero-temperature Gibbs distribution (“First consider the model at zero temperature. At T = 0, following our discussion of the fan-out in Section 2.4, it is easy to see that the ground state of this model can be thought of as a series of fan-out gates originating from the root vertex vr with possible bit flips applied to the fan-out depending on the sign of J(v,w).” [pg. 44, ¶3])
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Crosson as claim 3.
Claims 10-14 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Keesling et al. ("US 20200185120 A1", hereinafter "Keesling").
Regarding claim 10, Cao teaches The method of claim 1, however fails to explicitly teach wherein the quantum system comprises a plurality of confined neutral atoms.
Keesling teaches wherein the quantum system comprises a plurality of confined neutral atoms. (“trapping at least two atoms in at least two of said plurality of confinement regions” [¶0005; See further [¶0079] discloses “neutral atoms”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cao’s teachings by using neutral atoms in a quantum system as taught by Keesling. One would have been motivated to make this modification as neutral atoms serve as building blocks for large-scale quantum systems. [¶0079, Keesling]
Regarding claim 11, Cao/Keesling teaches The method of claim 10, where Keesling teaches wherein each of the plurality of confined neutral atoms is configured to blockade at least one other of the plurality of confined neutral atoms when excited into a Rydberg state. (“Furthermore, the Rydberg states of multiple atoms strongly interact with each other, enabling engineered, coherent interactions. These strong, coherent interactions between Rydberg atoms can provide an effective constraint that prevents simultaneous excitation of nearby atoms into Rydberg states. FIG. 1F shows such an effect, which is also sometimes called Rydberg blockade.” [¶0110])
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Keesling as claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Cao/Keesling teaches The method of claim 10, where Keesling teaches wherein initializing the quantum system comprises exciting each of a subset of the plurality of confined neutral atoms according to the ground state of the second Hamiltonian. (“According to some embodiments, arranged 1D arrays of atoms may be excited and evolved to produce solutions to quantum computing problems and may be used as a quantum simulator. Described below are techniques for exciting and controlling a 1D array of atoms, as well as characterization of the interaction between the atoms. In the case of homogeneous coherent coupling, the Hamiltonian Equation (1) closely resembles the paradigmatic Ising model for effective spin-½ particles with variable interaction range. Its ground state exhibits a rich variety of many-body phases that break distinct spatial symmetries, as shown in FIG. 2A.” [¶0117])
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Keesling as claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Cao/Keesling teaches The method of claim 10, Keesling teaches wherein evolving comprises directing a time-varying beam of coherent electromagnetic radiation to each of the plurality of confined neutral atoms. (“The tweezer laser source 106 supplies light to the crystal 102, which is then deflected into n separate tweezer beams that form a tweezer array 107, each associated with one of the one or more tone frequencies. The frequency of each individual tone frequency determines the deflection of the respective tweezer beam. The tweezer beams may be used to trap atoms 190. The individual tone frequencies may be adjusted in frequency in order to adjust the spacing of the atoms 190. Atoms 190 may then be manipulated by manipulation laser sources 108A and 108B in order to evolve the system.” [¶0086])
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Keesling as claim 10.
Regarding claim 14, Cao/Keesling teaches The method of claim 10, Keesling teaches wherein the plurality of confined neutral atoms is confined by optical tweezers. (“As shown in FIG. 1A, individual .sup.87Rb atoms are trapped using optical tweezers and arranged into defect-free arrays.” [¶0111])
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Keesling as claim 10.
Regarding claim 25, Cao/Keesling teaches The method of claim 10, Keesling teaches wherein performing the measurement comprises imaging the plurality of confined neutral atoms. (“The final states of individual atoms are detected in step 118 by turning the traps back on, and imaging the recaptured ground state atoms via atomic fluorescence using, for example, a camera, while the anti-trapped Rydberg atoms are ejected.” [¶0089])
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Keesling as claim 10.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Crosson and further in view of Liu et al. ("The Ising Partition Function: Zeros and Deterministic Approximation", hereinafter "Liu").
Regarding claim 18, Cao/Crosson teaches The method of claim 17, however fails to explicitly teach wherein the graph is a unit disk graph.
Liu teaches wherein the graph is a unit disk graph.
(“Similarly, Theorem 1.4, the FPTAS for two-spin sys tems on hypergraphs, follows by combining Theorem 3.1 with Lemma 2.1 and the Suzuki-Fisher theorem [50] (also stated as Theorem 4.3 in the next section). Again, the Suzuki Fisher theorem ensures that there are no zeros inside the unit disk, under the condition on the hyperedge activities stated in Theorem 1.4.” [pg. 994, 3.5, ¶2])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cao’s/Crosson’s teachings in order to use a unit disk graph. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to approximate the partition function of the ferromagnetic Ising model in graphs and hypergraphs. [Abstract, Liu]
Regarding claim 19, Cao/Crosson/Liu teaches The method of claim 18, Liu teaches wherein the graph is a chain graph. (“Similarly, Theorem 1.4, the FPTAS for two-spin sys tems on hypergraphs, follows by combining Theorem 3.1 with Lemma 2.1 and the Suzuki-Fisher theorem [50] (also stated as Theorem 4.3 in the next section). Again, the Suzuki Fisher theorem ensures that there are no zeros inside the unit disk, under the condition on the hyperedge activities stated in Theorem 1.4.” [pg. 994, 3.5, ¶2; note: “chain” is merely a label for a graph and carries little to no patentable weight. Under BRI and in light of the specification, the examiner will interpret unit disk and chain to be equivalent graphs.])
Same motivation to combine the teachings of Cao/Crosson/Liu as claim 18.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Crosson and further in view of Reitzner et al. ("QUANTUMWALKS", hereinafter "Reitzner").
Regarding claim 20, Cao/Crosson teaches The method of claim 17, however fails to explicitly teach wherein the graph is a star graph with two vertices per branch.
Reitzner teaches wherein the graph is a star graph with two vertices per branch.
(“Fig. 4.7. A star graph having two arm vertices connected;” pg. 663, Fig. 4.7])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cao’s/Crosson’s teachings by using a star graph as taught by Reitzner. One would have been motivated to make this modification as a way to investigate the dynamics of an excitation in a spin system and a quantum walk in continuous time. [pg. 606, Introduction, Reitzner]
Claim 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Keesling and further in view of Hollerith et al. ("Quantum gas microscopy of Rydberg macrodimers", hereinafter "Hollerith").
Regarding claim 26, Cao/Keesling teaches The method of claim 25, however fails to explicitly teach teaches wherein imaging the plurality of confined neutral atoms comprises quantum gas microscopy.
Hollerith teaches wherein imaging the plurality of confined neutral atoms comprises quantum gas microscopy. (“Our results allow for rigorous testing of Rydberg interaction potentials and highlight the potential of quantum gas microscopy for molecular physics” [Abstract])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cao’s/Keesling’s teachings in order to use quantum gas microscopy for imaging neutral atoms as taught by Hollerith. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to understand and study Rydberg interaction potentials and highlight the potential of quantum gas microscopy for molecular physics. [Abstract, Hollerith]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MICHAEL H HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2122