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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show figure 15 as described in the specification page 28. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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
Claims 1-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 2 "the computer" should be "the hybrid quantum-classical computer" as antecedently recited.
Claim 1 line 7; claim 2 line 1-2; claim 13 line 1; claim 14 line 1; claim 16 line 8; claim 17 line 1-2; claim 28 line 1; claim 29 line 1 "the quantum component" should be "the quantum computing component" as antecedently recited.
Claim 12 line 1; claim 27 line 1 "further comprising using the using the ground state property" should be "further comprising using the ground state property" as the language "using the" is redundant.
Claim 14 and claim 29 recite "a quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAQO)" should be "a quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA)" as QAOA denotes quantum approximate optimization algorithm.
Claim 15 line 2 "the algorithm" should be "the quantum-classical algorithm" as antecedently recited.
Claim 16 line 2 "a hybrid quantum-classical computer (HQC)" should be "a hybrid quantum-classical (HQC) computer" to clearly denotes that HQC stands for hybrid quantum-classical.
Dependent claims are also objected for inheriting the same deficiencies in which claims they depend on.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-29 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.
Claim 1 line 6; claim 16 line 6 recite "the classical processor". There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation as the claim antecedently recited “a classical computing component” and “at least one processor”. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as "the at least one processor" as antecedently recited.
Claim 1 line 8; claim 16 line 9 recite "the ground state energy of Hamiltonian". There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as "a ground state energy of Hamiltonian".
Claim 1 line 11; claim 16 line 12 recite "the sample outcomes". There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as "the plurality of samples" as antecedently recited.
Claim 1 line 12; claim 16 line 13 recite "the expectation value". There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as "an expectation value".
Claim 1 line 14; claim 16 line 15 recite "the weighted expectation value". There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as "a weighted expectation value".
Claim 1 line 14; claim 16 line 15 recite "the weighted expectation value
p
0
O
0
". It is unclear whether
p
0
O
0
is merely name that denotes the weighted expectation value or it is a mathematical expression of a product of
p
0
and
O
0
. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets that
p
0
O
0
as merely a name that denotes a weighted expectation value.
Claim 7 line 1; claim 22 line 1 recite "the charge density". There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as "a charge density".
Claim 8 line 2; claim 23 line 2 recite "the one-particle". There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation. Examiner interprets as "one-particle".
Claim 11 line 1; claim 26 line 1 recite "the quantum circuit depth". There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as "a quantum circuit depth".
Claim 11 line 2; claim 26 line 2 recite "the inverse spectral gap". There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as "an inverse spectral gap".
Claim 11 line 2-3; claim 26 line 2-3 recite "the inverse target accuracy and inverse initial overlap". There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as "an inverse target accuracy and an inverse initial overlap".
Claim 15 line 2 "the expectation value". There is lack of antecedent basis for such limitation. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as "an expectation value" as antecedently recited.
Claim 15 line 2-3 "estimates the expectation value of the observable (O) with respect to the ground state p0". There is lack of antecedent basis for the ground state p0 and it is unclear whether the ground state is referring to the ground state energy as recited in line 2 or the ground state property or a different ground state p0. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets as a ground state p0.
Claim 15 line 3-4 recites "the weighted expectation values
p
0
O
0
". There is lack of antecedent basis for the weighted expectation values as the claim antecedently recites the expectation value (e.g., single value) and the limitation also renders the claim unclear and indefinite because it is unclear whether
p
0
O
0
is merely name that denotes the weighted expectation value or it is a mathematical expression of a product of
p
0
and
O
0
. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets that
p
0
O
0
as merely a name that denotes a weighted expectation value.
Dependent claims are also rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies in which claims they depend on.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites a quantum-classical algorithm for estimating a ground state property of an observable (O), which is not interpreted as a method claim. Thus, the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Even if such claim 15 is interpreted as a method claim, under Prong One of Step 2A of the USPTO current eligibility guidance (MPEP 2106), the claim recites an algorithm for estimating a ground state property of an observation, wherein the algorithm estimates ground state energy, estimates expectation value of the observable and estimates the weighted expectation values. Such limitations cover mathematical calculations, relationship, and/or formula. Therefore, the claim includes limitations that fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim does not recite additional element that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A prong two or ensure the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim would not be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 even if interpreted as a method claim.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Harry - US 20230289637.
Regarding claim 15, Harry teaches a quantum-classical algorithm for estimating a ground state property of an observable (O) (Harry, [0022] describes a Variational Quantum Eigensolver (VQE) is a classical-quantum hybrid algorithm [i.e., a quantum-classical algorithm] for approximating the lowest eigensystem of a given Hamiltonian H [i.e., estimating a ground state property of an observable]), wherein the algorithm (1) estimates ground state energy (Harry [0022] the VQE is used to find a parameter that minimizes expected energy
m
i
n
θ
ψ
θ
|
H
|
ψ
(
θ
)
[i.e., estimate ground state energy]), (2) estimates the expectation value of the observable (O) with respect to the ground state
p
0
(Harry [0023] the expected energy of the Hamiltonian H is evaluated with respect to the parameter 0 that is used to generate quantum state [i.e., estimates the expectation value of the observable O with respect to the ground state
p
0
]), and (3) estimates the weighted expectation values
p
0
O
0
(Harry [0023] describes obtaining the expectation values of the weighted sum of Pauli Strings that comprise H [i.e., estimate the weighted expectation values
p
0
O
0
).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 and 16-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination of limitations, including initializing the quantum component to an initial state with qubit registers; estimating the ground state energy of a Hamiltonian (H) matrix that characterizes a physical system; generating a plurality of samples from a parameterized Hadamard test circuit; evaluating the sample outcomes; estimating the expectation value (po) of the observable (O) with respect to the ground state energy; estimating the weighted expectation value po0o; and from the weighted expectation value, deriving an estimate of the ground state property.
Azad – NPL Quantum chemistry calculations using energy derivatives on quantum computers (IDS filed 03/03/2023 cited no. 12) - teaches a method to calculate energy derivatives for both ground state and excited state energies with respect to the parameters of a chemical system based on the framework of the variational quantum eigensolver (VQE). Figure 1 illustrates a VQE workflow having an initial state, variational ansatz and measurements within the quantum processor, and a classical to receive state energy and output parameter updates. However, Azad does not teach or suggest the combination of limitations as described above as required in claims 1 and 16.
Harry – US 20230289637 teaches a method to facilitate estimation of an expected energy value of a Hamiltonian based on data of the Hamiltonian, and Harry [0022] also describes a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) as a classical quantum hybrid algorithm that utilizes near term quantum devices for approximating or estimating the lowest eigenvalues. However, Harry does not teach or suggest the combination of limitations as described above as required in claims 1 and 16.
Shehab – US 20200372094 (IDS filed on 04/10/2023 cited no. 27) teaches a hybrid quantum classical computer for obtaining a solution to an optimization problem by using variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) or quantum approximate optimization algorithm (QAOA). [0042] The variational method consists of iterations that include choosing a “trial state” of the quantum processor depending on a set of one or more parameters (referred to as “variational parameters”) and measuring an expectation value of the model Hamiltonian (e.g., energy) of the trial state. A set of variational parameters (and thus a corresponding trial state) is adjusted and an optimal set of variational parameters are found that minimizes the expectation value of the model Hamiltonian (the energy). The resulting energy is an approximation to the exact lowest energy state. However, Shehab does not teach or suggest the combination of limitations as described above as required in claims 1 and 16.
Lin – NPL Heisenberg-limited ground state energy estimation for early fault tolerant quantum computers (IDS filed on 03/03/2023 cited no. 3) – teaches a method to estimate the ground state energy of a Hamiltonian with Heisenberg-limited precision scaling, which employs a simple quantum circuit with one ancilla qubit, and a classical post-processing procedure. Besides the ground state energy, our algorithm also produces an approximate cumulative distribution function of the spectral measure, which can be used to compute other spectral properties of the Hamiltonian. However, Lin does not teach or suggest the combination of limitations as described above as required in claims 1 and 16.
Oh – NPL Quantum computational method of finding the ground state energy and expectation values teaches a quantum computational way of obtaining a ground-state energy and expectation values of observables of interacting Hamiltonians. It is based on the combination of the adiabatic quantum evolution to project a ground state of a noninteracting Hamiltonian onto a ground state of an interacting Hamiltonian and the phase estimation algorithm to retrieve the ground-state energy. However, Oh does not teach or suggest the combination of limitations as described above as required in claims 1 and 16.
Zhang – NPL Computing Ground State Properties with Early Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computers – is an NPL disclosed by the applicant, which teaches the claimed invention. However, such reference cannot be used as prior art.
Therefore, none of the closest found prior art teaches the combination of limitations as required in claims 1 and 16. Accordingly, claims 1-14 and 16-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2764. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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.
/HUY DUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2182 (571)272-2764
Prosecution Insights