DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This office action is issued in response to communication filed on 9/2/2022. Claims 1-18,20-24,27-33 and 37 are pending in this Office 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 recites the term “and/or” which is selective language. The examiner suggests using either the "and" term or the "or" term, otherwise the claim should be worded in a clearer fashion to claim both terms. For the purpose of this examination the examiner is selecting the "or" term from this selective language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites in part “the number N of second quantum states”. The “N” and “m” are undefined ( i.e. integer greater than zero otherwise, claim 13 is indefinite if N and m is negative or fractional ) . It is also not clear what the m1+…+mN in the claim is referring to. Claim 27 is also objected for similar issue. Appropriate correction is required
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18,20-24 and 27-29 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. Although these claims are allowable over prior art, all other rejections and/or objections (if any) such as 101/112/claim objection must be overcome before the claims are allowed.
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 1-18,20-24,27-33 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 37:
Step 1: Statutory Category ?: Yes. claim 1 recites a method (i.e., a “process”) claim 37 recites a system (i.e., a “machine”) which are statutory categories.
Claim 1:
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitation “determining, by a first system (110) comprising one or more first processing units (112), a size parameter of a quantum computation, wherein the quantum computation is configured for solving a computational problem, wherein the size parameter is characteristic of an input size of the computational problem” . The determining step is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion .
The limitation of “wherein the quantum computation is configured for solving a computational problem” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 1 recites additional elements of “ communicating, by the first system, the size parameter to a second system (120) comprising one or more second processing units (122); communicating, by the second system, a computational key to the first system, wherein the computational key is based on the size parameter of the quantum computation; and performing, by the first system, a simulation of the quantum computation based on the computational key” which is simply data gathering step and pre/post solution activities therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 recites additional elements of “ first system” and “second system” . The first and second system are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional elements of first and second system are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception and the additional elements of data gathering pre/post solution activities are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(d)) , Subsection II). Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 1 therefore is ineligible. Claim 2 recites additional element of “wherein the simulation of the quantum computation performed by the first system is a classical simulation performed by a non- quantum computing system”. The recited non-quantum computing system is recited at a high level of generality that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer at best equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept, claim 2 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 3 recites additional element of “wherein performing the simulation of the quantum computation based on the computational key includes computing a solution to the computational problem based on the computational key” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 3 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites additional element of “wherein the quantum computation is a first quantum computation (212), the method further comprising: performing, by the first system, a simulation of a second quantum computation (214) based on the computational key, wherein the second quantum computation is different from the first quantum computation, wherein the second quantum computation has a size parameter which is equal to or less than the size parameter of the first quantum computation” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 4 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites additional element of “communicating, by a third system (330), a size parameter of a second quantum computation to the second system, wherein the second quantum computation is different from the first quantum computation, wherein the size parameter of the second quantum computation is equal to or less than the size parameter of the first quantum computation; communicating, by the second system, the computational key to the third system; and performing, by the third system, a simulation of the second quantum computation based on the computational key” which is simply data gathering and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The data gathering is are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)) , Subsection II. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 5 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 6 recites additional element of “wherein the second quantum computation is configured to solve a second computational problem different from the first computational problem, wherein performing a simulation of the second quantum computation based on the computational key includes computing a solution to the second computational problem based on the computational key” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 6 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites additional element of “performing a simulation of a plurality of quantum computations based on the computational key, wherein each quantum computation of the plurality of quantum computations has a size parameter which is equal to or less than the size parameter of the first quantum computation, wherein the plurality of quantum computations includes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or more quantum computations” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 7 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites additional element of “wherein the size parameter of the quantum computation increases as the input size of the computational problem increases” which is mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. Claim 8 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites additional element of “wherein the computational key depends only on the size parameter of the quantum computation, such that two quantum computations which are different from each other but which have the same size parameter result in the same computational key” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 9 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites additional element of “wherein all measurements performed in the quantum computation are Pauli measurements, and/or wherein all unitary operations performed in the quantum computation are Clifford unitary operations” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 10 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites additional element of “wherein the quantum computation includes an input quantum state, particularly wherein the input quantum state is not a Pauli stabilizer state” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 11 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites additional element of “wherein the input quantum state includes or consists of a tensor product of K first quantum states and a tensor product of N second quantum states, wherein each first quantum state is a Pauli stabilizer state and each second quantum state is not a Pauli stabilizer state” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 12 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites additional element of “wherein the size parameter of the quantum computation depends on at least one of: the number N of second quantum states; and the total number of qubits of the N second quantum states, particularly wherein each i-th second quantum state is a state of m; qubits, wherein the total number of qubits of the N second quantum states is equal to m1 + ... + MN” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 13 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites additional element of “wherein the size parameter of the quantum computation increases with the number N of second quantum states” which is mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. Claim 14 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites additional element of “wherein the computational key is associated with the input quantum state of the quantum computation” which is simply data gathering and therefore is insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Mere data gathering is well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II). Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 15 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 16 recites additional element of “wherein the input quantum state is representable, particularly approximately representable, as a probability distribution Pinput, wherein the computational key contains information allowing the first system to obtain at least one sample of the probability distribution Pinput” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 16 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites additional element of “wherein the probability distribution Pinput is a probability distribution over a plurality of extreme points of a convex operator set Δ” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 17 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recites additional element of “wherein the convex operator set Δ consists of all Hermitian n-qubit operators X such that Tr (X) = 1 and Tr (Iσ><σI X) > 0 for all n-qubit Pauli stabilizer states lσ>” which is a mathematical formulas or equations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 18 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites additional element of “providing a sample of the probability distribution input, wherein the sample is generated by the first system using the computational key or wherein the sample is included in the computational key communicated to the first system by the second system, wherein the sample yields, as an outcome of the sample, an extreme point of the convex operator set Δ" which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 20 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 20 is not patent eligible.
Claim 21 recites additional element of “wherein the convex operator set A is a set of n-qubit operators, denoted as Δ = Δ(n), wherein the quantum computation includes a first measurement, particularly a Pauli measurement, wherein the first measurement is representable as a probability distribution P1, wherein the simulation of the quantum computation performed by the first system includes: based on the sample of the probability distribution Pinput, providing a sample of the probability distribution P1, wherein the sample of the probability distribution P1 yields, as an outcome of the sample, an extreme point of a convex operator set Δ(n1) and a simulated measurement outcome of the first measurement, wherein the convex operator set Δ(n1) is a set of n1-qubit operators, wherein either (a) n1 is equal to n and the convex operator set Δ(n1) is equal to the convex operator set Δ(n) or (b) n1 is smaller than n and the convex operator set Δ(n1) is different from the convex operator set A(n)” which is a mathematical formulas or equations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 21 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Claim 22 recites additional element of “wherein the convex operator set A(n1) consists of all Hermitian n1-qubit operators X such that Tr (X) = 1 and Tr (Iσ><σI X) ≥ 0 for all n1-qubit Pauli stabilizer states lσ>” which is a mathematical formulas or equations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 22 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 22 is not patent eligible.
Claim 23 recites additional element of “wherein the quantum computation includes a second measurement, particularly a Pauli measurement, wherein the second measurement is configured to be performed after the first measurement, wherein the second measurement is representable as a probability distribution P2, wherein the simulation of the quantum computation performed by the first system includes: providing a sample of the probability distribution P2, wherein the sample of the probability distribution P2 yields, as an outcome of the sample, an extreme point of a convex operator set Δ(n2) and a simulated measurement outcome of the second measurement, wherein the convex operator set Δ(n2) is a set of n2-qubit operators, wherein (a) n2 is equal to n1 and the convex operator set Δ(n2) is equal to the convex operator set Δ(n1) or (b) n2 is smaller than n1 and the convex operator set Δ(n2) is different from the convex operator set Δ(n1)” which is a mathematical formulas or equations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 23 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 23 is not patent eligible.
Claim 24 recites additional element of “wherein the convex operator set Δ(n2) consists of all Hermitian n2-qubit operators X such that Tr (X) = 1 and Tr (j6><oI X) 0 for all n2-qubit Pauli stabilizer states j6>” which is a mathematical formulas or equations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 24 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 24 is not patent eligible.
Claim 27 recites additional element of “wherein the quantum computation includes a plurality of measurements M1, M2 ... MT, wherein T is 5 or larger, 10 or larger, or 100 or larger, particularly wherein the plurality of measurements are Pauli measurements, wherein, for each i, the (i+1)-th measurement M;+1 of the plurality of measurements is configured to be performed after the i-th measurement Mi of the plurality of measurements, wherein each i-th measurement Mi is representable as a probability distribution P;, wherein the simulation of the quantum computation performed by the first system includes, for each i-th measurement Mi: providing a sample of the probability distribution Pi, wherein the sample of the probability distribution P yields, as an outcome of the sample, an extreme point of a convex operator set A(ni) and a simulated measurement outcome of the i-th measurement Mi, wherein the convex operator set A(ni) is a set of ni- qubit operators, wherein, for each i, the number of qubits n;+1 associated with the convex operator set A(ni+1) relating to the (i+1)-th measurement Mi+1 is smaller than or equal to, particularly smaller than, the number of qubits ni associated with the convex operator set A(ni) relating to the i-th measurement Mi” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 27 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 27 is not patent eligible.
Claim 28 recites additional element of “wherein, for each i, the convex operator set Δ(ni;) consists of all Hermitian ni;-qubit operators X such that Tr (X) = 1 and Tr (Iσ><σI X) ≥ 0 for all ni-qubit Pauli stabilizer states lσ>” which is a mathematical formulas or equations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 28 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 28 is not patent eligible.
Claim 29 recites additional elements that are mathematical calculations that fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 29 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 29 is not patent eligible.
Claim 30 recites additional element of “determining, by the second system, the computational key from the size parameter” which is mental process that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. Claim 30 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 30 is not patent eligible.
Claim 31 recites additional element of “wherein the computational key is determined using a linear programming algorithm” which is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea. Claim 31 does not include any additional element that integrates the abstract idea into practical application in step 2A-Prong 2 and amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception in step 2B. Claim 31 is not patent eligible.
Claim 32 recites additional element of “storing the computational key by the second system” which is simply data gathering and therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The data gathering is are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(d) , Subsection II). Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 32 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 33 recites additional element of “wherein the first system comprises a plurality of processing units, wherein the simulation of the quantum computation is performed in parallel by the plurality of processing units” . The processing unit is recited at the very high level of generality that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and at best equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception. Even when considered in combination, the additional element does not provide an inventive concept, claim 33 therefore is ineligible.
Claim 37:
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited ?: Yes.
The limitation “wherein the quantum computation is configured for solving a computational problem, wherein the size parameter is characteristic of an input size of the computational problem” is a mathematical calculations that falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
Claim 37 recites additional elements of “ a first system (110) comprising one or more first processing units (112); and a second system (120) comprising one or more second processing units (122), the second system being communicatively coupled to the first system, wherein the first system is configured to communicate a size parameter of a quantum computation to the second system, wherein the second system is configured for communicating a computational key to the first system, wherein the computational key is based on the size parameter of the quantum computation, and wherein the first system is configured for performing a simulation of the quantum computation based on the computational key” which are data gathering steps and pre/post solution activities therefore are insignificant extra-solution activities. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 37 recites additional elements of “ first system” and “second system” . The first and second system are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system.
Step 2B: Recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No.
Claim 37 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. As indicates above, the additional elements of first and second system are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the exception and the additional elements of data gathering pre/post solution activities are well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(d)) , Subsection II). Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, claim 37 therefore is ineligible.
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 1-17,30-33 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (US Patent 11,170,137 B1, hereinafter “Richardson”) and further in view of Garcia-Ramirez et al.(US Patent Application Publication 2015/0339471 A1, hereinafter “Garcia”)
As to claim 1, Richardson teaches a method of simulating a quantum computation, comprising: determining, by a first system (110) comprising one or more first processing units (112), a size parameter of a quantum computation, wherein the quantum computation is configured for solving a computational problem, wherein the size parameter is characteristic of an input size of the computational problem (Richardson col 9, lines 50-65 teaches the quantum instance programming 108 may configure a quantum algorithm 165 by providing an initial configuration 166 for the algorithm. The initial configuration 166 may represent initial values for qubits. Richardson col13, lines 25-35 teaches client may select an instance type for the quantum computing instance that is to be attached to the classical instance. At least some of the instance types may indicate particular quantum computing characteristics such as a particular number of qubits or configurations of hardware resources);
communicating, by the first system, the size parameter to a second system (120) comprising one or more second processing units (122); (Richardson col 9, lines 50-65 teaches the quantum instance programming 108 may configure a quantum algorithm 165 by providing an initial configuration 166 for the algorithm. The initial configuration 166 may represent initial values for qubits. Richardson col13, lines 25-35 teaches client may select an instance type for the quantum computing instance that is to be attached to the classical instance. At least some of the instance types may indicate particular quantum computing characteristics such as a particular number of qubits or configurations of hardware resources)
communicating, by the second system, a computational key to the first system, wherein the computational key is based on the size parameter of the quantum computation ( Richardson col 14, lines 20-40 teaches presenting a set of available algorithm and a recommendation of one or more algorithms)
; and
performing, by the first system, a simulation of the quantum computation based on the computational key. (Richardson col 10, lines 3-15 teaches quantum algorithm 165 may be run based on input from the classical computing instance)
Richardson fails to expressly teach simulation is performed by the first system.
However, Garcia teaches simulation is performed by the first system.(Garcia par [0006] teaches simulation of quantum circuits using classical computers includes receiving a quantum state that is a superposition of a plurality of stabilizer states )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Richardson and Garcia to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to significantly reduce computational resources.(Garcia par [0025])
As to claim 2, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the simulation of the quantum computation performed by the first system is a classical simulation performed by a non- quantum computing system. (Garcia par [006] teaches using classical computer to simulate quantum circuits)
As to claim 3, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim 1 or claim2, wherein performing the simulation of the quantum computation based on the computational key includes computing a solution to the computational problem based on the computational key. (Richardson col 14, lines 20-30 teaches at least some of the quantum algorithms 165A-165X may be designed for particular problem domains such as molecular modeling, integer factorization , and so on)
As to claim 4, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to any of claim1, wherein the quantum computation is a first quantum computation (212), the method further comprising: performing, by the first system, a simulation of a second quantum computation (214) based on the computational key, wherein the second quantum computation is different from the first quantum computation, wherein the second quantum computation has a size parameter which is equal to or less than the size parameter of the first quantum computation. (Richardson col 9, lines 50-65 teaches the quantum instance programming 108 may configure a quantum algorithm 165 by providing an initial configuration 166 for the algorithm. The initial configuration 166 may represent initial values for qubits. Richardson col 14, lines 20-30 teaches at least some of the quantum algorithms 165A-165X may be designed for particular problem domains such as molecular modeling, integer factorization , and so on. The examiner interprets equal or less than the first is a design choice)
As to claim 5, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim1, wherein the quantum computation is a first quantum computation, the method further comprising: communicating, by a third system (330), a size parameter of a second quantum computation to the second system, wherein the second quantum computation is different from the first quantum computation(Richardson col13, lines 25-35 teaches client may select an instance type for the quantum computing instance that is to be attached to the classical instance. At least some of the instance types may indicate particular quantum computing characteristics such as a particular number of qubits or configurations of hardware resources), wherein the size parameter of the second quantum computation is equal to or less than the size parameter of the first quantum computation (The examiner interprets equal or less than the first is a design choice) ; communicating, by the second system, the computational key to the third system; and performing, by the third system, a simulation of the second quantum computation based on the computational key (Richardson col 10, lines 3-15 teaches quantum algorithm 165 may be run based on input from the classical computing instance).
As to claim 6, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim 4 wherein the second quantum computation is configured to solve a second computational problem different from the first computational problem, wherein performing a simulation of the second quantum computation based on the computational key includes computing a solution to the second computational problem based on the computational key. ( Richardson col 14, lines 20-30 teaches at least some of the quantum algorithms 165A-165X may be designed for particular problem domains such as molecular modeling, integer factorization , and so on)
As to claim 7, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim1, wherein the quantum computation is a first quantum computation (Richardson col 9, lines 50-65 teaches the quantum instance programming 108 may configure a quantum algorithm 165 by providing an initial configuration 166 for the algorithm. The initial configuration 166 may represent initial values for qubits), the method further comprising: performing a simulation of a plurality of quantum computations based on the computational key,
wherein each quantum computation of the plurality of quantum computations has a size parameter which is equal to or less than the size parameter of the first quantum computation (Richardson col 10, lines 3-15 teaches quantum algorithm 165 may be run based on input from the classical computing instance) , wherein the plurality of quantum computations includes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or more quantum computations.(Richardson col 6, lines 45-60 teaches a quantum computer may run a quantum algorithm that include a sequence of quantum logic gates; a problem may be encoded by setting the initial configuration values of the qubits . The value of 3 or more is a design choice)
As to claim 8, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim1, wherein the size parameter of the quantum computation increases as the input size of the computational problem increases(Richardson col 6, lines a 45-60 teaches quantum computer may run a quantum algorithm that include a sequence of quantum logic gates; a problem may be encoded by setting the initial configuration values of the qubits).
As to claim 9, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim1, wherein the computational key depends only on the size parameter of the quantum computation, such that two quantum computations which are different from each other but which have the same size parameter result in the same computational key. (Richardson col 6, lines 45-60 teaches a quantum computer may run a quantum algorithm that include a sequence of quantum logic gates; a problem may be encoded by setting the initial configuration values of the qubits)
As to claim 10, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim1, wherein all measurements performed in the quantum computation are Pauli measurements, and/or wherein all unitary operations performed in the quantum computation are Clifford unitary operations. (Garcia par [0025] teaches stabilizer circuits can be efficiently simulated in polynomial time by keeping track of the Pauli operators that stabilize the quantum state)
As to claim 11, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim1, wherein the quantum computation includes an input quantum state, particularly wherein the input quantum state is not a Pauli stabilizer state. (Garcia par [0006] teaches receiving a quantum state that is a superposition of a plurality of stabilizer states)
As to claim 12, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim 11, wherein the input quantum state includes or consists of a tensor product of K first quantum states and a tensor product of N second quantum states, wherein each first quantum state is a Pauli stabilizer state and each second quantum state is not a Pauli stabilizer state. (Garcia par [0036] teaches a multiplication table of the Pauli operators X,Y AND Z and the identify matrix I. The Pauli group Gn on n qubits consists of the n-fold tensor product of Pauli matrices)
As to claim 13, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim 12, wherein the size parameter of the quantum computation depends on at least one of: the number N of second quantum states; and the total number of qubits of the N second quantum states, particularly wherein each i-th second quantum state is a state of m; qubits, wherein the total number of qubits of the N second quantum states is equal to m1 + ... + MN. (Richardson col 9, lines 50-65 teaches the quantum instance programming 108 may configure a quantum algorithm 165 by providing an initial configuration 166 for the algorithm. The initial configuration 166 may represent initial values for qubits)
As to claim 14, Richardson and Garcia teach the method of claim12, wherein the size parameter of the quantum computation increases with the number N of second quantum states.(Richardson col 6, lines 45-60 teaches a quantum computer may run a quantum algorithm that include a sequence of quantum logic gates; a problem may be encoded by setting the initial configuration values of the qubits)
As to claim 15, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim11, wherein the computational key is associated with the input quantum state of the quantum computation.(Richardson col 10, lines 15-23 teaches this state may represent the result(s) of the run of the algorithm 165)
As to claim 16, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim11, wherein the input quantum state is representable, particularly approximately representable, as a probability distribution Pinput, wherein the computational key contains information allowing the first system to obtain at least one sample of the probability distribution Pinput. (Richardson col 10, lines 15-23 teaches the quantum algorithms may be considered probabilistic such that they provide a solution with a certain probability and the algorithm 165 may be run more than once to arrive at different results 117)
As to claim 17, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim 16, wherein the probability distribution Pinput is a probability distribution over a plurality of extreme points of a convex operator set A. ( Richardson col 10, lines 15-23 teaches the quantum algorithms may be considered probabilistic such that they provide a solution with a certain probability and the algorithm 165 may be run more than once to arrive at different results 117)
As to claim 30 , Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim1, further comprising: determining, by the second system, the computational key from the size parameter. (Richardson col 9 , lines 1-15 teaches recommend instance type based on number of qbits)
As to claim 31, Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim 30, wherein the computational key is determined using a linear programming algorithm. (Richardson col 9, lines 1-15 teaches the recommendation may seek to optimize a speed, accuracy or cost of the problem based on input concerning the client’s goals)
As to claim 32 , Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim1, further comprising: storing the computational key by the second system. (Richardson col 14, lines 20-25 teaches set of available quantum algorithm may be stored in catalog 200)
As to claim 33 , Richardson and Garcia teach the method according to claim1, wherein the first system comprises a plurality of processing units, wherein the simulation of the quantum computation is performed in parallel by the plurality of processing units. (Richardson col 22, lines 30-35 teaches multiple runs may be performed in parallel)
Claim 37 merely recite a system to perform the method of claim 1. Accordingly, Richardson and Garcia teach every limitation of claim 37 as indicates in the above rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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.
/HIEN L DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147