DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed 11/30/2022. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 17, 19-22, 26, and 28 are currently pending, of which claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 17, 19-22, 26, and 28 are currently rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a cost model is applied to the assignment(s) and/or the complete mapping between fermionic operators and Pauli operators to enable selection of a relatively lower cost mapping” as recited in claim 1, “A control apparatus for a quantum information processor”, and “the apparatus comprising: a processor”, as disclosed in claim 26 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, and any one of the preceding claims. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 8 not been further treated on the merits.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim ends with two periods “..”. 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 6 and 26 is 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the identity matrix”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “methods steps (a) to (d)”. However, there is no step (d) described in the claim, nor in claim 1 which the claim depends on. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “methods steps (a) to (d)”. However, there is no step (d) described in the claim, nor in claim 1 which the claim depends on. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the apparatus”. It is unclear if applicant intends this apparatus to be the control apparatus previously disclosed in claim 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-6, 8-13, 15, 17, 19-22, 26, and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, at Step 1 the claim is directed a method, which is a statutory category of invention.
At Step 2A, Prong 1, Examiner notes that claims are directed to mathematical concepts:
A method of generating an encoding for mapping fermionic operators onto qubits (mathematical relationships) of a quantum information processor, the method comprising:
receiving a set of fermionic operators, Fi, to be represented on the quantum information processor;
identifying a set including every Pauli operator, P, implementable on the quantum information processor (mathematical relationships);
assigning a first fermionic operator, F1, to a first Pauli operator, P1 (mathematical relationships);
assigning a Pauli operator to each subsequent fermionic operator, Fs (mathematical relationships), by:
(a) identifying one or more commutation relations and/or anticommutation relations between Fs and the set of all fermionic operators {F1...F(s-1) } which have already been assigned to Pauli operators in the set {P1...P(s-1)} (mathematical relationships);
(b) identifying for the fermionic operator Fs a set of candidate Pauli operators to which Fs may be assigned, wherein a candidate Pauli operator is one which has the same commutation and anticommutation relations with each Pauli operator Pj as the commutation and anticommutation relations between Fs the corresponding Fj, for all j in the range 1 < j < (s-1) (mathematical relationships); and
(c) selecting a Pauli operator, Ps, from the set of candidate Pauli operators and assigning Fs to Ps (mathematical relationships); and
repeating steps (a) to (c) using further subsequent fermionic modes until each fermionic operator has been assigned to a Pauli operator, thereby to provide a complete mapping in which each fermionic operator, Fi, is assigned to a corresponding Pauli operator Pi (mathematical relationships); wherein
a cost model is applied to the assignment(s) and/or the complete mapping between fermionic operators and Pauli operators to enable selection of a relatively lower cost mapping (mathematical calculations).
At Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements are bolded above. These additional elements are merely an “apply it” scenario using generically recited computer components. See MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The “generating an encoding for mapping fermionic operators onto qubits of a quantum information processor” limitation simply uses a quantum information processor to perform the mathematical relationships (generating an encoding) to transform the data used for mathematical calculations from one format to another.
Additionally, the italicized limitations above are describing insignificant extra-solution activity used for the processing of the mathematical concepts.
In regards to the insignificant extra-solution activity found in the italicized limitations, the “receiving a set of fermionic operators” limitations describe mere data transmitting recited at a high level of generality. Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362.
Claim 2 is directed to the mathematical concept of the cost model (mathematical calculations) applied on the generic circuitry (quantum information processor). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 is directed to the mathematical concept of the cost model (mathematical calculations) applied on the generic circuitry (quantum information processor). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim simply generally describes the generic circuitry (physical arrangements of qubits forming part of the quantum information processor).
Claim 4 is directed to the mathematical concept of the cost model to implement a unitary rotation generated by a Pauli operator (mathematical calculations). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim simply describes these mathematical calculations performed based on a number of hardware-native operations. These hardware-native operations are general operations caused by applying the mathematical concepts on generic circuitry. See MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Claim 5 is directed to the mathematical concept of the cost model further described (mathematical calculations). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 is directed to the mathematical concept of the mapping of fermionic operators (mathematical relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 is directed to the mathematical concept of the mapping of fermionic operators (mathematical relationships). Moreover, none of the additional elements regarding the generic computer components (i.e., hardware layout) are more than high level generic computer components that amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 9 is directed to the mathematical concept of the cost model (mathematical calculations). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 is directed to the mathematical concept of the mapping of fermionic operators (mathematical relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 is directed to the mathematical concept of the method for lower cost mapping of fermionic operators (mathematical calculations/relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 is directed to the mathematical concept of the aggregate cost mapping of fermionic operators (mathematical calculations/relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 is directed to the mathematical concept of the aggregate cost mapping of fermionic operators (mathematical calculations/relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 is directed to the mathematical concept of the cost model (mathematical calculations). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 is directed to the mathematical concept of the cost model (mathematical calculations). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 19 is directed to the mathematical concept of the mapping of fermionic operators to Pauli operators (mathematical relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20 is directed to the mathematical concept of the mapping of fermionic operators to Pauli operators based on the cost (mathematical calculations/relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 21 is directed to the mathematical concept of the mapping of fermionic operators to Pauli operators based on the cost (mathematical calculations/relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 22 is directed to the mathematical concept of the mapping of the fermionic operators (mathematical relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, as stated in the claim 1 analysis, is simply is using the quantum information processor to enact the encoding. This is equivalent to the “apply it” scenario using generically recited computer components. See MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Claim 26 is directed to the mathematical concept of the mapping of the fermionic operators (mathematical relationships). Under Steps 2A prong 2 and 2B, as stated in the claim 1 analysis, is simply is using the quantum information processor to enact the encoding. This is equivalent to the “apply it” scenario using generically recited computer components. Moreover, none of the additional elements regarding generic computer components (i.e., control apparatus, processor) are more than high level generic computer components that amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer See MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Claim 28 is directed to the mathematical concept of the mapping of the fermionic operators (mathematical relationships). Moreover, none of the additional elements regarding generic computer components (i.e., non-transient computer readable medium, a computer) are more than high level generic computer components that amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer See MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, 15, 17, and, 19-22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitchell Chiew in NPL: “Optimal fermion-qubit mappings”, hereinafter “Chiew”.
Regarding Claim 1, Chiew teaches:
A method of generating an encoding for mapping fermionic operators onto qubits of a quantum information processor, the method comprising:
receiving a set of fermionic operators, Fi, to be represented on the quantum information processor (Page 12, First paragraph, e.g., Strategy of choosing fermion enumeration scheme pertains to the efficiency of a quantum computer (quantum information processor));
identifying a set including every Pauli operator, P, implementable on the quantum information processor (Page 12, Last paragraph, e.g., all Pauli strings are implemented);
assigning a first fermionic operator, F1, to a first Pauli operator, P1 (Page 29, Section 3.4 " Reducing the average Pauli weight for cellular fermion graphs", Third paragraph, e.g., fermions are enumerated to number each sub-lattice before moving on to the next);
assigning a Pauli operator to each subsequent fermionic operator, Fs, (Page 29, Section 3.4 " Reducing the average Pauli weight for cellular fermion graphs", Third paragraph, e.g., fermions are enumerated to number each sub-lattice before moving on to the next) by:
(a) identifying one or more commutation relations and/or anticommutation relations between Fs and the set of all fermionic operators {F1...F(s-1)} which have already been assigned to Pauli operators in the set {P1...P(s-1)} (Page 3, Section 2.1 "Canonical commutation relations", e.g., Jordan Wigner transformation follows fermionic commutation relations (CCRs); Page 11, Section 3 "Fermion enumeration schemes and quantum circuit cost", e.g., Fermion enumeration schemes are based on Jordan-Wigner transformations);
(b) identifying for the fermionic operator Fs a set of candidate Pauli operators to which Fs may be assigned (Fig. 21, e.g., shows enumeration schemes (candidate Pauli operators)), wherein a candidate Pauli operator is one which has the same commutation and anticommutation relations with each Pauli operator Pj as the commutation and anticommutation relations between Fs the corresponding Fj, for all j in the range 1 < j < (s-1) (Page 3, Section 2.1 "Canonical commutation relations", e.g., Jordan Wigner transformation follows fermionic commutation relations (CCRs); Page 5, Section 2.3 "The Jordan-Wigner transformation", e.g., anticommutation relations are used in Jordan-Wigner transformation; Page 11, Section 3 "Fermion enumeration schemes and quantum circuit cost", e.g., Fermion enumeration schemes are based on Jordan-Wigner transformations); and
(c) selecting a Pauli operator, Ps, from the set of candidate Pauli operators and assigning Fs to Ps (Page 30, Section 3.5 "Reducing the average pth power of Pauli weight for a square lattice", First paragraph, e.g., an enumeration scheme with the least p-sum is found (selected)); and
repeating steps (a) to (c) using further subsequent fermionic modes until each fermionic operator has been assigned to a Pauli operator, thereby to provide a complete mapping in which each fermionic operator, Fi, is assigned to a corresponding Pauli operator Pi, (Page 29, Section 3.4 " Reducing the average Pauli weight for cellular fermion graphs", Third paragraph, e.g., fermions are enumerated to number each sub-lattice before moving on to the next (which are based on Jordan-Wigner transformation)); wherein
a cost model is applied to the assignment(s) and/or the complete mapping between fermionic operators and Pauli operators to enable selection of a relatively lower cost mapping (Page 23, Last paragraph, e.g., resulting optimal enumeration scheme yields minimum C1(f) (cost model); Page 30, Section 3.5 "Reducing the average pth power of Pauli weight for a square lattice", First paragraph, e.g., an enumeration scheme with the least p-sum is found (selected)).
Regarding Claim 2, Chiew teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the cost model is based on properties of the quantum information processor (Page 23, Last paragraph, e.g., resulting optimal enumeration scheme yields minimum C1(f) (cost model); Page 32, Section 4 “Discussion”, e.g., optimal enumeration scheme improves fermion-qubit mapping).
Regarding Claim 3, Chiew teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the cost model is based on the physical arrangement of qubits forming part of the quantum information processor (Page 23, Last paragraph, e.g., resulting optimal enumeration scheme yields minimum C1(f) (cost model); Page 32, Section 4 “Discussion”, e.g., optimal enumeration scheme improves fermion-qubit mapping).
Regarding Claim 5, Chiew teaches:
The method according to claim 1 wherein the cost model is based on at least one of:
the number of qubits on which a given Pauli operator has support;
a weighted sum or average of the number of qubit-qubit connections spanned by a given Pauli operator (Section 3.5 “Reducing the average pth power of Pauli weight for a square lattice”, e.g., Pauli weight with the minimum p-sum is found);
a blacklist of forbidden Pauli operators for assignment to one or more fermionic operators; and/or
a whitelist of forced assignments of Pauli operators for one or more fermionic operators.
Regarding Claim 8, Chiew teaches:
A use of the method of claim 1 in identifying improved hardware layouts for an encoding which maps the fermionic operators onto qubits of a quantum information processor (Page 23, Last paragraph, e.g., resulting optimal enumeration scheme (improved hardware layout) yields minimum C1(f)), the use comprising:
selecting a hardware layout from a set of hardware layouts (Page 30, Section 3.5 "Reducing the average pth power of Pauli weight for a square lattice", First paragraph, e.g., an enumeration scheme with the least p-sum is found (selected));
executing the method of any one of the preceding claims to identify the optimum mapping for that hardware layout (Page 23, Last paragraph, e.g., resulting optimal enumeration scheme yields minimum C1(f));
selecting a new hardware layout from the set of hardware layouts (Page 30, Proposition 2, e.g., new enumeration scheme is determined based on the Pauli weight); and
selecting the hardware layout and associated optimum encoding which results in the lowest cost according to the cost model (Page 23, Last paragraph, e.g., resulting optimal enumeration scheme yields minimum C1(f) (cost model); Page 30, Section 3.5 "Reducing the average pth power of Pauli weight for a square lattice", First paragraph, e.g., an enumeration scheme with the least p-sum is found (selected)).
Regarding Claim 9, Chiew teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the cost model is applied to one, more, or each iteration of step (c) to identify the optimum of the candidate Pauli operators to which Fs should be assigned (Page 30, Section 3.5 "Reducing the average pth power of Pauli weight for a square lattice", First paragraph, e.g., an enumeration scheme with the least p-sum is found (selected)).
Regarding Claim 10, Chiew teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the cost model is applied to the complete mapping to determine a relative cost for the complete mapping (Page 23, Last paragraph, e.g., resulting optimal enumeration scheme yields minimum C1(f) (cost model); Page 30, Section 3.5 "Reducing the average pth power of Pauli weight for a square lattice", First paragraph, e.g., an enumeration scheme with the least p-sum is found (selected)).
Regarding Claim 11, Chiew teaches:
The method according to claim 10, wherein the method is repeated at least one further time to determine a relative cost of at least a second, different, complete mapping, and wherein the method further comprises selecting the lowest cost complete mapping (Page 25, Third paragraph, e.g., Repeated application of steps minimizes C1).
Regarding Claim 12, Chiew teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein an aggregate cost for a complete mapping is equal to the largest cost of any individual mapping between a fermionic operator and its corresponding Pauli operator (Page 30, Section 3.5 "Reducing the average pth power of Pauli weight for a square lattice", First paragraph, e.g., an enumeration scheme with the least p-sum is found, hence each scheme has a p-sum based on Pauli weights (cost of individual mappings)).
Regarding Claim 13, Chiew teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein an aggregate cost for a complete mapping is based on one or more of:
an average Pauli weight of the Pauli operators (Page 30, Section 3.5 "Reducing the average pth power of Pauli weight for a square lattice", First paragraph, e.g., fermion enumeration schemes are based on the average pth power of Pauli weight to find the minimum p-sum);
an operator weight of stabilizers associated with the encoding;
a probability of an undetectable error given a hardware noise model for the quantum information processor; and/or
a total circuit depth of an algorithm for implementing logical operations on the qubits of the quantum information processor onto which the fermionic operators have been mapped.
Regarding Claim 15, Chiew teaches:
The method of claim 1, further including wherein the cost model is applied to the set of all possible Pauli operators implementable on the quantum information processor to identify, for each Pauli operator, a first set of other Pauli operators which commute with that Pauli operator, ordered from lowest cost to highest cost, wherein the first set of Pauli operators is used in steps (b) and (c) to identify the optimum candidate Pauli operator (Fig. 21, e.g., each fermion enumeration scheme is represented by an edgesum (cost); Page 30, Section 3.5 “Reducing the average pth power of Pauli weight for a square lattice”, e.g., enumeration scheme with the minimum p-sum (cost model) is found; Page 3, Section 2.1 “Canonical commutation relations”, e.g., fermionic commutation relations are used in Jordan Wigner transformation)..
Regarding Claim 17, Chiew teaches:
The method of claim 1, further including wherein the cost model is applied to the set of all possible Pauli operators implementable on the quantum information processor to identify, for each Pauli operator, a second set of other Pauli operators which anticommute with that Pauli operator, ordered from lowest cost to highest cost, wherein the second set of Pauli operators is used in steps (b) and (c) to identify the optimum candidate Pauli operator (Fig. 21, e.g., each fermion enumeration scheme is represented by an edgesum (cost); Page 30, Section 3.5 “Reducing the average pth power of Pauli weight for a square lattice”, e.g., enumeration scheme with the minimum p-sum (cost model) is found; Section 2.3 “The Jordan-Wigner transformation”, e.g., fermionic anticommutation relations are used in Jordan Wigner transformation).
Regarding Claim 19, Chiew teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein each time a fermionic operator is assigned to a Pauli operator, subsequent fermionic operators are prohibited from also being assigned to that same Pauli operator (Fig. 21, e.g., enumeration schemes are mapped one-to-one).
Regarding Claim 20, Chiew teaches:
The method according to claim 1 wherein, in the event that during step (c) the optimum Pauli operator has a cost greater than the cost of any previously discovered mapping or some predetermined threshold, the method is halted and method steps (a) to (d) are repeated on the (s-1)th fermionic operator, ensuring that the Pauli operator assigned to the (s-1)th fermionic operator in the repeated steps (a) to (d) is different from the Pauli operator assigned to the (s-1)h fermionic operator the previous time steps (a) to (d) were enacted on the (s-1)th fermionic operator (Fig. 21, e.g., shows different fermion enumeration schemes, where all enumerations schemes are completed).
Regarding Claim 21, Chiew teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein in the event that the list of candidate Pauli operators contains no entries, the method is halted and method steps (a) to (d) are repeated on the (s-1)th fermionic operator, ensuring that the Pauli operator assigned to the (s-1)th fermionic operator in the repeated steps (a) to (d) is different from the Pauli operator assigned to the (s-1)th fermionic operator the previous time steps (a) to (d) were enacted on the (s-1)th fermionic operator (Fig. 21, e.g., shows different fermion enumeration schemes, where all enumerations schemes are completed; Page 30, Section 3.5 “Reducing the average pth power of Pauli weight for a square lattice”, e.g., enumeration scheme with the minimum p-sum is found).
Regarding Claim 22, Chiew teaches:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising encoding the complete mapping onto the quantum information processor (Page 12, e.g., fermion enumeration scheme (encoding) pertains to the efficiency of the quantum computer (quantum information processor); Page 30, Section 3.5 "Reducing the average pth power of Pauli weight for a square lattice", First paragraph, e.g., an enumeration scheme with the least p-sum is found).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 6, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiew in view of Mark Steudtner in NPL: “Methods to simulate fermions on quantum computers with hardware limitations”, hereinafter “Steudtner”.
Regarding Claim 4, Chiew teaches the method of claim 1. Chiew does not teach:
wherein the cost model is based on a number of hardware-native operations required to implement a unitary rotation generated by a given Pauli operator.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Steudtner teaches performing single-qubit rotations by applying single qubit unitary rotation on all qubits of the Quantum Dot Processor (QDP). Steudtner explains “The control architecture of the QDP is such that we can merely apply the same single qubit unitary rotation on all qubits in either ℛ or ℬ (even or odd numbered columns).” (Steudtner: Page 166, Section 4.3.3.3 Single-qubit rotations)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the unitary rotation on all qubits as taught by Steudtner with the fermion-qubit mapping as taught by Chiew. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose fermion-qubit mapping algorithms, and Steudtner enhances the model of Chiew because “can be performed locally while the single qubit operations on the memory qubits can be performed in parallel using the global unitary rotations.” (Steudtner: Page 188, First paragraph)
Regarding Claim 6, Chiew teaches the method of claim 1. Chiew does not teach:
wherein the mapping includes, for each pair of fermionic operators having a product relation equal to the identity matrix, a stabiliser formed from the product of the corresponding Pauli operators to which the pair of fermionic operators have been assigned;
wherein a code space of the qubits is chosen so that a measurement of any stabiliser yields a value of 1.
However, Steudtner teaches:
wherein the mapping includes, for each pair of fermionic operators having a product relation equal to the identity matrix, a stabiliser formed from the product of the corresponding Pauli operators to which the pair of fermionic operators have been assigned (Page 9, Section 1.3 Quantum error correction, e.g., quantum stabilizer code is used for qubit mapping; Page 10, First paragraph, e.g., stabilizer set forms a group of Pauli strings using the operator product);
wherein a code space of the qubits is chosen so that a measurement of any stabiliser yields a value of 1 (Page 10, §9, e.g., Stabilizer measuring outputs ⟨S⟩ = ±1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the quantum stabilizer coder as taught by Steudtner with the fermion-qubit mapping as taught by Chiew. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose fermion-qubit mapping algorithms, and Steudtner enhances the model of Chiew because stabilizers aid with error correction when performing qubit mapping (See: Steudtner: Section 1.3 “Quantum error correction”, Pages 9-11)
Regarding Claim 26, Chiew does not teach:
A control apparatus for a quantum information processor, the apparatus configured to compile a quantum circuit for performing quantum operations on a quantum information processor, the apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to perform the steps of claim 1.
However, Steudtner teaches:
A control apparatus for a quantum information processor (Page 159, Section 4.3 “The quantum dot processor”, e.g., crossbar control structure (control apparatus)), the apparatus configured to compile a quantum circuit for performing quantum operations on a quantum information processor, the apparatus comprising:
a processor … (Page 159, Section 4.3 “The quantum dot processor”, e.g., Quantum dot processor (QDP) is used for compiling qubit mapping algorithms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the quantum dot processor and crossbar control structure as taught by Steudtner with the fermion-qubit mapping as taught by Chiew. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose fermion-qubit mapping algorithms, and Steudtner enhances the model of Chiew by allowing for the control and processing of the mapping algorithm.
Regarding Claim 28, Chiew does not teach:
A non-transient computer readable medium comprising instructions which cause a computer to enact the method steps of claim 1.
However, Steudtner teaches:
A non-transient computer readable medium comprising instructions which cause a computer to enact the [qubit mapping algorithm] (Page 4, First paragraph, instructions to perform Quantum algorithm are stored in a computer’s memory).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the computer’s memory to store instructions as taught by Steudtner with the fermion-qubit mapping as taught by Chiew. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose fermion-qubit mapping algorithms, and Steudtner enhances the model of Chiew by allowing for the storing of instructions to perform the mapping algorithm.
Prior Art Made of Record
NPL: “Fermion-to-qubit mappings with varying resource requirements for quantum simulation” – teaches mapping of fermionic states onto qubit states by using a framework that results in simpler mappings lead to qubit savings.
US 20210011771 A1 – teaches a computing system that uses a digital processor and a topological quantum computing device, where the processor determines the lowest estimated total resource cost for each measurement sequence of fermionic parity operators. It further teaches expressing the fermionic parity operators in terms of Pauli operators on a two-qubit system. See Fig. 1 and ¶0055-0070
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS H DE LA GARZA whose telephone number is (571)272-0474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at (571) 272-3702. 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.
/C.H.D./
Carlos H. De La GarzaExaminer, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-0474