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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group, comprising claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/15/2026.
Claims Status
Claim 13 is canceled.
Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are pending.
Claims 14-21 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-12 are examined on the merits.
Priority
The instant application claims priority to US provisional application No. 63/344,592, filed 05/22/2022. Therefore, the Effective Filing Date (EFD) assigned to each of the claims 1-12 is the provisional filing date of application No. 63/344,592, filed 05/22/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 01/22/2024, and 04/24/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have therefore been considered. Signed copies of the IDS documents are included with this Office Action.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0109], “a active-space” should read “an active-space”
In paragraph [0130], “computing component 130..” should read “computing component 130.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7 and 9 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.
With respect to claim 7, the claim recites the limitation of “wherein the one or more inactive orbitals comprise one or more core orbitals or virtual orbitals”. The claim is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the one or more inactive orbitals” in claim 1, upon which claim 7 is dependent.
With respect to claim 9, the claim recites the limitation of “partitioning the plurality of orbitals into the two or more active orbitals and the one or more inactive orbitals”. The claim is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the one or more inactive orbitals” in claim 1, upon which claim 9 is dependent.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea of mental steps, mathematic concepts, or a natural law without significantly more.
The MPEP at MPEP 2106.03 sets forth steps for identifying eligible subject matter:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of
matter?
(2A)(1) Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature,
a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
(2A)(2) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the
judicial exception integrated into a practical application?
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial
exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept?
With respect to step (1): Yes, the claims recite a method and a system.
With respect to step (2A)(1): The claims recite abstract ideas of mathematical concepts and mental processes.
“Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection” (MPEP 2106.04). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/judging and organizing information (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Laws of nature or natural phenomena include naturally occurring principles/relations that are naturally occurring or that do not have markedly different characteristics compared to what occurs in nature (MPEP 2106(b)).
Mathematical concepts recited in claim 1:
determining fermionic constraint information regarding an active-space electronic Hamiltonian defined in an active space of two or more active orbitals of the chemical system
translating the fermionic constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian into a qubit basis to generate qubit constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian
utilizing the measured values representative of the expectation values of the quantum operators acting on the eigenstates of the active-space electronic Hamiltonian to yield an approximation to expectation values of quantum operators acting on eigenstates of the total electronic Hamiltonian to generate a model of the chemical system that represents at least one of: a structural characteristic of the chemical system, a chemical interaction characteristic of the chemical system, or a response characteristic
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, and 9 recite additional steps that either are directed to abstract ideas or further limit the judicial exceptions in independent claim 1, and as such, are further directed to abstract ideas. Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that individually and in combination constitute abstract ideas. The relevant recitations are:
Claim 2: “wherein the fermionic constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian defined in the space of two or more active orbitals comprises an effective fermionic Hamiltonian and the qubit constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian defined in the space of two or more active orbitals comprises a translated version of the fermionic Hamiltonian into the qubit basis”
Claim 5: “determining […] an estimate of the 4-RDM”
Claim 6: “wherein utilizing the measured values to yield an approximation to expectation values of quantum operations acting on eigenstates of the total electronic Hamiltonian comprises performing a second order N-electron Valence State Perturbation Theory calculation”
Claim 7: “wherein the one or more inactive orbitals comprise one or more core orbitals or virtual orbitals”
Claim 9: “identifying […] a plurality of orbitals of the chemical system; and partitioning the plurality of orbitals into the two or more active orbitals and the one or more inactive orbitals”
The abstract ideas in the claims are evaluated under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined herein to each cover mental processes and mathematic concepts because the claims recite no more than performing mathematical calculations to estimate a characteristics of a chemical system. The method uses steps of computing and translating values into qubits to calculate characteristic values. The system functions as a tool to perform the mathematical steps. Furthermore, the claims comprise mental processes of identifying or partitioning as one of ordinary skill can make identifications mentally.
With respect to step (2A)(2): The claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claimed additional elements are analyzed alone or in combination to determine if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the judicial exception, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements that are not abstract ideas:
a classical computing component
a quantum computing component
providing the qubit constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian to a quantum computing component of the hybrid quantum-classical computing system
receiving measured values (a) corresponding to expectation values of quantum operators acting on quantum states of at least a portion of a plurality of qubits of the quantum computing component and (b) representative of the expectation values of the quantum operators acting on eigenstates of the active-space electronic Hamiltonian
The element of a quantum computing component does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The element does not provide an improvement to the technological field, as demonstrated by its conventionality as discussed below in Step 2B, is not a particular machine, and is merely used to perform the computations that comprise the judicial exceptions. With respect to the classical computing component, the courts have weighed in and consistently maintained that when, for example, a memory, display, processor, machine, etc. ... are recited so generically (i.e., no details are provided) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and these limitations may be viewed as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The classical and quantum computing component function as devices to gather data and execute calculations. Furthermore, the elements of providing qubit constraint information to a quantum computing component and the classical computing component receiving values generates the data on which the judicial exceptions are performed, and are thus directed to data gathering. Data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, or how the abstract idea is performed. Data gathering steps are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 3, 4, and 8 are directed to further steps of gathering data or limiting the data gathered and thus do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Dependent claim 11 is directed to an extra-solution step that is ancillary to the judicial exception and thus does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Dependent claims 10, and 12 are directed to computing components that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and on which the judicial exceptions are applied.
None of these dependent claims recite additional elements, alone or in combination, which would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Lastly, the claims have been evaluated with respect to step (2B): Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims lack a specific inventive concept. Under said analysis, Applicant is reminded that the judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they provide significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi).
With respect to the instant claims, the additional elements described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As set forth in the MPEP at 2106.05(d).I, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to claim 1: The additional elements of a classical computing component, a quantum computing component, providing the qubit constraint information to a quantum computing component, and receiving measured values do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to the quantum computing component, the prior art to Sotnikov et al. (“Neural network agent playing spin Hamiltonian games on a quantum computer”, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, published March 2020) discloses the two standard quantum computer eigensolvers (page 11, paragraph 2). With respect to the classical computing component, as exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). With respect to providing qubit constraint information to a quantum computing component, the prior art Walther et al. (“Experimental one-way computing”, Nature, published March 2005) discloses that standard quantum computation is based on sequences of unitary quantum logic gates that process qubits (Abstract). Further, with respect to receiving measured values, as stated in the MPEP at 2106.05(d).II with regard to Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015), storing and retrieving information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and convention activity. As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 3: The additional element of wherein the measured values comprise at least one of an expectation value of the active-space Hamiltonian or at least one reduced density matrix (RDM) does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The prior art to Mazziotti (“Two-Electron Reduced Density Matrix as the Basic Variable in Many-Electron Quantum Chemistry and Physics”, Chemical Reviews, published online 2011) discloses that the 2-RDM has long been employed as a tool for analysis of quantum information (page 258, column 2, Section Future Directions). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 4: The additional element of the at least one RDM comprises at least one of a 1-RDM, a 2-RDM, a 3-RDM, or a 4-RDM does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The prior art to Mazziotti discloses that the 2-RDM has long been employed as a tool for analysis of quantum information (page 258, column 2, Section Future Directions). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 8: The additional elements of performing state preparation of a plurality of qubits and performing one or more measurements operations do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The prior art to Gard et al. (“Efficient symmetry-preserving state preparation circuits for the variational quantum eigensolver algorithm”, npj Quantum Information, published 2020) discloses that the variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) has become the prevailing algorithm for chemistry simulations with NISQ devices and discloses that the VQE relies on preparing and measuring multi-qubit states based on a variation ansatz (page 1, column 1). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 10: The additional element of the quantum computing component is configured to use up to one hundred qubits to perform a quantum circuit does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The specification in paragraph [0078] discloses that currently operation quantum computing components tend to include relatively low numbers of qubits less than 100 qubits. As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 11: The additional elements of causing, by the classical computing component, at least one of a display of a graphical representation of at least a portion of the model of the chemical system, or generation and storage in a classical memory of a file comprising one or more parameters of the model of the chemical system do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As recited in the MPEP at 2106.05(d).II, with respect to Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015), storing information in memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claim 12: The additional elements a system comprising a classical computing component and a quantum computing component do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to the quantum computing component, the prior art to Sotnikov et al. discloses the two standard quantum computer eigensolvers (page 11, paragraph 2). With respect to the classical computing component, with respect to the classical computing component, as exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
The claims have all been examined to identify the presence of one or more judicial exceptions. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether the additional limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether those additional limitations provide an inventive concept which provides significantly more than those exceptions. Individually, the limitations of the claims and the claims as a whole have been found lacking.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 2021/0232960 A1, published July 2021) in view of Kurashige et al. (“Complete active space second-order perturbation theory with cumulant approximation for extended active-space wavefunction from density matrix renormalization group”, The Journal of Chemical Physics, published 2014).
Regarding claim 1, Scott et al. teaches a method for simulating a chemical system using a hybrid quantum-classical computing system (paragraph [0048]), the method comprising:
determining fermionic constraint information (Figure 2, 220), of orbitals, such as molecular orbitals (paragraph [0098]);
translating the fermionic constraint information regarding the Hamiltonian into a qubit basis to generate qubit constraint information (paragraph [0101]);
the classical computing component providing the qubit constraint information regarding the Hamiltonian to a quantum computing component (paragraph [0108]);
the classical computing component receiving measured values (a) corresponding to expectation values of quantum operations acting on quantum states of at least a portion of a plurality of qubits of the quantum computing component (Figure 5, 540; paragraph [0157]) and (b) representative of the expectation values of quantum operators acting on eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (paragraphs [0169]-[0171]); and
utilizing, by the classical computing component (Figure 3), the measured values representative of the expectation values of the quantum operators acting on the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian to yield an approximation to expectation values of quantum operators acting on eigenstates of the total electronic Hamiltonian to generate a model of the chemical system that represents at least one of: a structural characteristic of the chemical system, a chemical interaction characteristic of the chemical system, or a response characteristic (Figure 5, 550; paragraph [0006]).
Scott et al. does not teach the claim element of an active space of two or more active orbitals.
However, Kurashige et al. teaches complete active space second-order perturbation theory with cumulant approximation for extended active-space wavefunction from density matrix renormalization group (Abstract). Kurashige et al. teaches that it is not well understood that one of the best uses of the quantum chemical DMRG method is to calculate static correlation in combination with the complete active model, and that in the complete active space model, a set of molecular orbitals are divided into active and external orbitals (page 1, column 1, paragraph 2). Kurashige et al. teaches determining the Hamiltonian in the active space of the active orbitals (page 3, column 1, Section Brief review of CASPT2) and teaches two or more active orbitals (page 3, column 2, paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the active orbitals of Kurashige et al. to the method of Scott et al. because Scott et al. is directed to a computationally efficient method of using quantum computing to simulate a molecule (paragraph [0003]) and teaches the computation basis for the fermionic Hamiltonian comprising orbitals such as Fock-orbitals, molecular orbitals, or atomic orbitals (paragraph [0098]). Kurashige et al. teaches using localized molecular orbitals for the construction of a four-particle reduced density matrix and multiplication of the 4-RDM and a diagonal Fock matrix (Abstract). Kurashige et al. teaches an approach wherein a set of molecular orbitals are divided into active and external orbitals, and chemical description ascribed to multireference nature is qualitatively modeled using active orbitals allowing for high-rate compression of information, thus being able to handle large-size complete active space models with near-exact accuracy (page 1, column 1, paragraph 2 – column 2). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of modeling characteristics of a molecule using an active space model to determine the fermionic Hamiltonian by combining the prior art references and would be motivated to do so in order to achieve computational efficiency and near-exact accuracy.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is directed to the fermionic constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian defined in the space of two or more active orbitals comprising an effective fermionic Hamiltonian and the qubit constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian defined in the space of two or more active orbitals comprising a translated version of the fermionic Hamiltonian into the qubit basis. Scott et al. teaches the method of claim 1 in view of Kurashige et al. Scott et al. teaches the fermionic constraint information comprising an effective fermionic Hamiltonian, a spin Hamiltonian (paragraph [0037]; paragraph [0105]), and teaches the constraint information of the Hamiltonian comprising a translated version of the fermionic Hamiltonian into the qubit basis (paragraphs [0029]; [0105]).
Regarding claim 3, the claim is directed to the measured values comprising at least one of an expectation value of the active-space Hamilton or at least one reduced density matrix (RDM). Scott et al. teaches the method of claim 1 in view of Kurashige et al. Scott et al. also teaches measuring an expectation value of the Hamiltonian (paragraph [0142]).
Furthermore, Kurashige et al. teaches a measured value comprising an RDM (Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, the claim is directed to at least one RDM comprising at least one of a one particle RDM (1-RDM), a two particle RDM (2-RDM), a three particle RDM (3-RDM), or a four particle RDM (4-RDM). Scott et al. teaches the method of claim 1 in view of Kurashige et al.
Scott et al. does not teach the claim element of at least one RDM.
However, Kurashige et al. teaches an RDM comprising a 4-RDM (Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, the claim is directed to determining, by the classical computing component, an estimate of the 4-RDM. Scott et al. teaches the method of claim 4 in view of Kurashige et al.
Scott et al. does not teach the claim element of an estimate of the 4-RDM.
However, Kurashige et al. teaches an estimate of the 4-RDM (Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, the claim is directed to utilizing the measured values to yield an approximation to expectation values of quantum operators acting on eigenstates of the total electronic Hamiltonian comprises performing a second order N-electron Valence State Perturbation Theory calculation. Scott et al. teaches the method of claim 1 in view of Kurashige et al. Scott et al. teaches calculating a second order fermionic Hamiltonian (paragraph [0099]).
Scott et al. does not teach the claim element of performing a second order N-electron Valence State Perturbation Theory.
However, Kurashige et al. teaches the complete active space second-order many-body perturbation theory (page 2, column 1, paragraph 1), and teaches the prior art using second-order n-electron valence perturbation theory (page 2, column 2, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 7, the claims are directed to the one or more inactive orbitals comprise one or more core orbitals or virtual orbitals. Scott et al. teaches the method of claim 1 in view of Kurashige et al.
Scott et al. does not teach the claim element of inactive orbitals.
However, Kurashige et al. teaches inactive orbitals comprising core orbitals (page 3, column2, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is directed to performing, by the quantum computing component, state preparation of a plurality of qubits based at least in part on the qubit constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian, and performing, by the quantum computing component, one or more measurement operations to determine the measured values based on quantum states of at least a portion of the plurality of qubits. Scott et al. teaches the method of claim 1 in view of Kurashige et al. Scott et al. also teaches preparation of the plurality of qubits based on constraint information regarding the Hamiltonian (paragraphs [0118] and [0119]), and performing a measurement operation to determine measured values based on quantum states of the plurality of qubits (paragraphs [0009]; [0120]).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is directed to identifying, by the classical computing component, a plurality of orbitals of the chemical system, and partitioning the plurality of orbitals into the two or more active orbitals and the one or more inactive orbitals. Scott et al. teaches the method of claim 1 in view of Kurashige et al. Scott et al. teaches the computation of the fermionic Hamiltonian being based on a plurality of orbitals, such as molecular orbitals (paragraph [0098]).
Scott et al. does not teach the claim elements of identifying a plurality of orbitals of the chemical system, and partitioning the plurality of orbitals into the two or more active orbitals and the one or more inactive orbitals.
However, Kurashige et al. teaches in the complete active space approach, a set of molecular orbitals is divided into active and external orbitals (page 1, column 1, paragraph 2), and teaches labeling excitation classes with c, o, and u, referring to core, active and external orbitals (page 3, column 2, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is directed to the quantum computing component being configured to use up to one hundred qubits to perform a quantum circuit. Scott et al. teaches the method of claim 1 in view of Kurashige et al. Scott et al. also teaches the quantum computing component being configured to use up to one hundred qubits to perform a quantum circuit (paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is directed to causing, by the classical computing component, at least one of (a) display of a graphical representation of at least a portion of the model of the chemical system or (b) generation and storage in a classical memory of a file comprising one or more parameters of the model of the chemical system. Scott et al. teaches the method of claim 1 in view of Kurashige et al. Scott et al. also teaches a classical computing component causing display of a graphical representation of the solution, thus a portion of the model of the chemical system (paragraph [0187]).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is directed to a hybrid quantum-classical computing system comprising a classical computing component, and a quantum computing component, the hybrid quantum-classical computing system being configured to perform the method of claim 1. Scott et al. teaches the method of claim 1 in view of Kurashige et al. Scott et al. teaches a system comprising a quantum computer (Abstract) and a classical computer (paragraph [0043]; paragraph [0048]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/152,971. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of Application ‘971 encompass the instant claims, and further claims are made obvious by the disclosure of Application ‘971.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Claims
Application ‘971
Claim(s)
Limitations
Claim(s)
Limitations
1
A method for simulating a chemical system using a hybrid quantum-classical computing system, the method comprising: determining, by a classical computing component of a hybrid quantum-classical computing system, fermionic constraint information regarding an active-space electronic Hamiltonian defined in an active space of two or more active orbitals of the chemical system; translating, by the classical computing component, the fermionic constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian into a qubit basis to generate qubit constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian; providing, by the classical computing component, the qubit constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian to a quantum computing component of the hybrid quantum-classical computing system; receiving, by the classical computing component, measured values (a) corresponding to expectation values of quantum operators acting on quantum states of at least a portion of a plurality of qubits of the quantum computing component and (b) representative of the expectation values of quantum operators acting on eigenstates of the active-space electronic Hamiltonian; and utilizing, by the classical computing component, the measured values representative of the expectation values of the quantum operators acting on the eigenstates of the active-space electronic Hamiltonian to yield an approximation to expectation values of quantum operators acting on eigenstates of the total electronic Hamiltonian to generate a model of the chemical system that represents at least one of: a structural characteristic of the chemical system, a chemical interaction characteristic of the chemical system, or a response characteristic.
1
A method for simulating a chemical system using a hybrid quantum-classical computing system, the method comprising: obtaining, by a classical computing component of the hybrid quantum-classical computing system, an indication of a chemical system; evaluating, by the classical computing component, class selection metrics based at least in part on a structure of the chemical system; determining, by the classical computing component, whether the class selection metrics satisfy one or more class selection criteria; responsive to determining that class selection metrics do not satisfy the one or more class selection criteria, performing, by the classical computing component, at least one of (a) providing a notification that the class selection criteria are not satisfied by the chemical system or (b) performing a classical approximation to generate a model of the chemical system that represents at least one of: a structural characteristic of the chemical system, a chemical interaction characteristic of the chemical system, or a response characteristic; responsive to determining that the class selection metrics do satisfy the one or more class selection criteria: providing, by the classical computing component, qubit constraint information regarding an active-space electronic Hamiltonian for the chemical system to a quantum computing component of the hybrid quantum-classical computing system; receiving, by the classical computing component, measured values (a) corresponding to expectation values of quantum operators acting on quantum states of at least a portion of a plurality of qubits of the quantum computing component and (b) representative of the expectation values of quantum operators acting on eigenstates of the active-space electronic Hamiltonian; and utilizing, by the classical computing component, the measured values to generate the model of the chemical system that represents at least one of: a structural characteristic of the chemical system, a chemical interaction characteristic of the chemical system, or a response characteristic.
12
generating the qubit constraint information, wherein generating the qubit constrain information comprises: determining, by the classical computing component, fermionic constraint information regarding an active-space electronic Hamiltonian defined in an active space of two or more active orbitals of the chemical system; translating, by the classical computing component, the fermionic constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian into a qubit basis to generate qubit constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian
3
wherein the measured values comprise at least one of an expectation value of the active-space Hamiltonian or at least one reduced density matrix (RDM)
10
wherein the measured values comprise at least one of an expectation value of the active-space Hamiltonian or at least one reduced density matrix (RDM)
4
wherein the at least one RDM comprises at least one of a one particle RDM (1-RDM), a two particle RDM (2-RDM), a three particle RDM (3-RDM), or a four particle RDM (4-RDM)
11
wherein the at least one RDM comprises at least one of a one particle RDM (1-RDM), a two particle RDM (2-RDM), a three particle RDM (3-RDM), or a four particle RDM (4-RDM)
5
determining, by the classical computing component, an estimate of the 4-RDM
11
wherein the at least one RDM comprises at least one of a one particle RDM (1-RDM), a two particle RDM (2-RDM), a three particle RDM (3-RDM), or a four particle RDM (4-RDM)
6
wherein utilizing the measured values to yield an approximation to expectation values of quantum operators acting on eigenstates of the total electronic Hamiltonian comprises performing a second order N-electron Valence State Perturbation Theory calculation
8
wherein the hybrid approximation is one of a second- order N-electron valence state perturbation theory (NEVPT2) approximation or an ACO approximation
8
performing, by the quantum computing component, state preparation of a plurality of qubits based at least in part on the qubit constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian; and performing, by the quantum computing component, one or more measurement operations to determine the measured values based on quantum states of at least a portion of the plurality of qubits
14
performing, by the quantum computing component, state preparation of a plurality of qubits based at least in part on the qubit constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian; and performing, by the quantum computing component, one or more measurement operations to determine the measured values based on quantum states of at least a portion of the plurality of qubits
11
causing, by the classical computing component, at least one of (a) display of a graphical representation of at least a portion of the model of the chemical system or (b) generation and storage in a classical memory of a file comprising one or more parameters of the model of the chemical system
4
causing, by the classical computing component, at least one of (a) display of a graphical representation of at least a portion of the model of the chemical system or (b) generation and storage in a classical memory of a file comprising one or more parameters of the model of the chemical system
12
A hybrid quantum-classical computing system comprising: a classical computing component; and a quantum computing component, the hybrid quantum-classical computing system configured to perform the method of claim 1
1
A method for simulating a chemical system using a hybrid quantum-classical computing system, the method comprising: obtaining, by a classical computing component of the hybrid quantum-classical computing system, an indication of a chemical system; evaluating, by the classical computing component, class selection metrics based at least in part on a structure of the chemical system; determining, by the classical computing component, whether the class selection metrics satisfy one or more class selection criteria; responsive to determining that class selection metrics do not satisfy the one or more class selection criteria, performing, by the classical computing component, at least one of (a) providing a notification that the class selection criteria are not satisfied by the chemical system or (b) performing a classical approximation to generate a model of the chemical system that represents at least one of: a structural characteristic of the chemical system, a chemical interaction characteristic of the chemical system, or a response characteristic; responsive to determining that the class selection metrics do satisfy the one or more class selection criteria: providing, by the classical computing component, qubit constraint information regarding an active-space electronic Hamiltonian for the chemical system to a quantum computing component of the hybrid quantum-classical computing system; receiving, by the classical computing component, measured values (a) corresponding to expectation values of quantum operators acting on quantum states of at least a portion of a plurality of qubits of the quantum computing component and (b) representative of the expectation values of quantum operators acting on eigenstates of the active-space electronic Hamiltonian; and utilizing, by the classical computing component, the measured values to generate the model of the chemical system that represents at least one of: a structural characteristic of the chemical system, a chemical interaction characteristic of the chemical system, or a response characteristic.
With respect to claim 2, the Specification of Application ‘971 discloses in paragraph [0011] that the fermionic constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian defined in the space of two or more active orbitals comprises an effective fermionic Hamiltonian and the qubit constraint information regarding the active-space electronic Hamiltonian defined int eh space of two or more active orbitals comprises a translated version of the fermionic Hamiltonian into the qubit basis.
With respect to claims 7 and 9, the Specification of Application ‘971 discloses in paragraph [0006] that a more accurate approximation may be constructed where orbitals can be rotated and split into active and inactive orbitals, the inactive orbitals including the core and virtual orbitals.
With respect to claim 10, the Specification of Application ‘971 discloses in paragraph [0019] that the quantum computing component is configured to use up to one hundred qubits to perform a quantum circuit.
Thus, the limitations of the instant claims are obvious in view of the disclosure of Application ‘971.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emilie A Smith whose telephone number is (571)272-7543. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Larry D Riggs can be reached at (571)270-3062. 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.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/OLIVIA M. WISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights