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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 31, 2022 and March 6, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 7, it is difficult to differentiate the lines of the graph in grayscale. 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.
Specification
Examiner objects to the specification for containing various grammatical informalities. Examiner has attached a marked-up copy of the specification indicating where errors have occurred. To the extent that the markings are not self-explanatory and are not corrected, Examiner will enumerate the remaining objections in a subsequent Office Action.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “as ground state” toward the end should be “as a ground state”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: “value of Hamiltonian” should be “value of a Hamiltonian”.
Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: “to equivalent Hamiltonian” should be “to an equivalent Hamiltonian”.
Claims 4 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “k of Pauli strings” should be “k Pauli strings”.
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 5-9 and 14-18 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.
Claims 5 and 14 recite that “the unsigned qubit is measured on a same measurement basis”. It is unclear what this basis is the “same” as, because no point of comparison is given.
Claims 5 and 14 recite the limitation "the signed qubit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims because they at most previously recite “signed qubits” (plural; emphasis added). That is, it is unclear which of the “signed qubits”, if any, corresponds to “the signed qubit”.
Claims 7 and 16 recite the limitation "the Pauli X operator", “the Pauli Y operator”, and “the Pauli Z operator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. For purposes of examination, Examiner will construe these claims as though they were dependent on claims 6 and 15, respectively, which do provide antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claims 9 and 18 recite that “the quantum gate corresponding to the unsigned qubit is equivalently replaced by a sign”. The claim does not specify to what this sign replacement is “equivalent”; thus, it is unclear what is being compared using the word “equivalently”.
All claims dependent on a claim rejected hereunder are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20200057957) (“Johnson”) in view of Ho et al. (US 12456068) (“Ho”).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses “[a] method for estimating ground state energy of a quantum system, performed by a computer device, the method comprising:
performing transformation processing on input quantum states of n qubits through a parameterized quantum circuit, to output quantum states of the n qubits (Johnson Fig. 2A shows that for each quantum circuit C and for each shot S, a quantum state is initialized, and then for each quantum gate G in C, G is applied to the qubits [applying G = transformation processing], and for each qubit Q [numbering a positive integer n in general], the qubit is measured to produce a measurement output [output quantum states]; paragraphs 9-11 indicate that the circuit is parameterized), an expected energy value of Hamiltonian of a target quantum system in the output quantum states of the n qubits being a summation result of expected energy values of k Pauli strings obtained by decomposing the Hamiltonian, n and k being positive integers (general marginal optimization procedure includes using Hamiltonians decomposed into a linear combination of Pauli strings [e.g., an integer k number of strings] – Johnson, paragraph 80; problem Hamiltonian may be defined and mapped to a sum of Pauli product terms [i.e., the Hamiltonian is the sum of the Pauli strings] – id. at paragraph 47; quantum computer optimizes energy and updates the Hamiltonian [i.e., outputs an expected energy value] – id. at paragraph 48);
performing post-processing on the output quantum states of the n qubits …, and obtaining the expected energy value of the Hamiltonian by calculating a post-processing result (classical computer performs post-processing on measurement results [output quantum states] to produce output representing a solution to the original computational problem – Johnson, paragraph 136; see also paragraphs 41-43 (disclosing that the problem to be solved includes ground state energy calculations using a Hamiltonian)) …;
adjusting parameters of the parameterized quantum circuit … by using a convergence condition of the expected energy value of the Hamiltonian as an objective (method includes repeating generating the quantum state with a parameterized quantum circuit, measuring observables for a quantum state, transforming the Hamiltonian and/or the quantum state, updating the Hamiltonian based on the transforming, and updating one or more circuit parameters until the one or more circuit parameters have converged – Johnson, paragraph 11; see also paragraph 47 (disclosing that the energy expectation value may be associated with a problem Hamiltonian)); and
when the expected energy value of the Hamiltonian satisfies the convergence condition, determining the expected energy value of the Hamiltonian satisfying the convergence condition as ground state energy of the target quantum system (after circuit parameters are updated, the parameterized quantum circuit outputs an updated quantum state that better approximates a ground state of the Hamiltonian – Johnson, paragraph 10; if the circuit parameters are updated by an amount that is below a threshold, the circuit parameters have converged; otherwise, the Hamiltonian is transformed and updated and the circuit parameters are updated to obtain a better approximation of the ground state and the corresponding ground-state energy – id. at paragraph 115).”
Johnson appears not to disclose explicitly the further limitations of the claim. However, Ho discloses “performing post-processing on the … qubits by using a neural network, and … calculating a post-processing result of the neural network (post-processing is performed on the set of qubits based on one or more variational parameters of a quantum neural network; the post-processing filters out at least some of the noise of the analog signal and outputs a filtered signal [post-processing result] – Ho, col. 1, l. 62-col. 2, l. 13); [and]
adjusting … parameters of the neural network (parameters of quantum neural networks are determined variationally in a training scheme prior to an exposure phase – Ho, col. 4, ll. 13-25) ….”
Ho and the instant application both relate to quantum computing using neural networks and are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Johnson to perform post-processing on the qubits using a neural network and update the parameters of the neural network, as disclosed by Ho, and an ordinary artisan could reasonably expect to have done so successfully. Doing so would clean up the output qubit states by filtering out some of the noise in them, thereby rendering the overall result more intelligible. See Ho, col. 1, l. 62-col. 2, l. 13.
Claim 10 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim. Similarly, claim 19 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 11-13, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 5-9 and 14-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C VAUGHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4849. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a-5:00p ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at 571-272-7796. 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.
/RYAN C VAUGHN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125