Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The RCE (Request for Continued Examination) and amendment filed 4/15/26 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno et al “Kanno” (JP 7478385 B1) and Dridi et al “Dridi” (US 11436519 B1).
(Please see the attached copy of Dridi, and the previously attached copy of Kanno, that number paragraphs in the same format as that used in this Action).
5. Regarding claim 1, Kanno shows a method for pruning quantum computational results (abstract, para 169 show that certain measurement results are selected while others determined to be in error are removed), the method comprising: receiving a plurality of results of quantum calculations from a quantum computer (para 88, 119, 148, 157 show receiving a plurality of quantum measurement calculations performed by a quantum computer); and discarding a first result of said plurality of results of quantum calculations in response to a measured state of a quantum bit of said first result not matching an expected value (para 169 show that if a quantum measurement result does not match an expected possible state, it is discarded, and para 142-146 and 180-181 show using the expectation value to help determine which values are considered in error). Kanno para 114-117 and 142-143 show using measurement shot results and calculating an expected value for physical observables, but Kanno does not explicitly show the expected value is identified based on a highest count of measured states for the quantum bit after reaching a threshold number of shots. Dridi however does show identifying an expected value based on a highest count of measured states for the quantum bit after reaching a threshold number of shots (Dridi para 65 shows the expected value may be identified based on a highest amount from the set of shots of a particular measured outcome. Para 65, 80 show that this highest amount may be selected for those amounts that are above a threshold ranking, or amount). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the expected value based on a highest count of measured states for the quantum bit after reaching a threshold number of shots as is done in Dridi, in the quantum measurement system of Kanno, because it would provide an efficient way to determine the expected value using quantum measurements.
6. Regarding claim 5, Kanno shows discarding said first result of said plurality of results in response to a count of said first result appearing less often than a threshold number of times (para 91, 105 shows that R measurement values that occur more frequently or more than a predetermined/threshold number of times are selected, and thus the results appearing less often are not selected but instead discarded).
7. Claims 8 and 12 show the same features as claims 1 and 5 respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons. In addition for claim 8, note that Kanno shows the computer readable storage medium having program code embodied therewith comprising instructions to perform the described processes (para 70, 75, 198 show the hardware memory having program code embodied thereon that contain instructions to perform the described processes).
8. Claims 15 and 19 show the same features as claims 1 and 5 respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons. In addition for claim 15, note that Kanno shows the memory for storing the computer program, and processor connected to the memory to execute the program instructions of the computer program to perform the described processes (para 70, 75, 198 show the hardware memory storing the computer program and the processor connected to the memory to execute the program instructions to perform the described processes).
9. Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno and Dridi and Rigetti et al “Rigetti” (US 2022/0084085).
10. Regarding claim 2, in addition to that mentioned for claim 1, Kanno and Dridi do not explicitly show building a list of nodes, each node representing a quantum bit; and sorting said list of nodes based on a quality of said quantum bits. However, Rigetti does show building a list of nodes, each node representing a quantum bit (para 195 shows building a list in a graph of qubits represented by nodes); and sorting said list of nodes based on a quality of said quantum bits (para 198, 200 show sorting/categorizing the qubit nodes may be based on qubit quality). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sort a list of nodes representing qubits in Kanno, especially as modified by Dridi, because it would provide an efficient way to help discard those qubits whose measurement results do not match expected values. Those qubits would be sorted into the lower quality groups and such groups would be discarded.
11. Claim 9 shows the same features as claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
12. Claim 16 shows the same features as claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
13. Claim(s) 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno and Dridi and Rigetti and Durazzo et al “Durazzo” (US 2024/0012786 A1).
14. Regarding claim 3, in addition to that mentioned for claim 2, Kanno and Dridi and Rigetti do not explicitly show calculating a number of shots each quantum bit needs to confidently determine a result. However, Durazzo does show calculating a number of shots each quantum bit needs to confidently determine a result (para 27-28 show calculating a number of shots necessary to obtain a sufficient confidence score for each qubit result). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do this in the quantum computer of Kanno, especially as modified by Dridi and Rigetti, because it would provide an efficient way to acquire a useable result for the measurement.
15. Regarding claim 4, in addition to that mentioned for claim 3, Kanno para 88, 115-117 show counting the state values obtained for each qubit (0 or 1) continually as the shots are executed, and hence updates a count of Os and 1s based on the value of the result. Furthermore, Rigetti para 154 shows the qubits may be in control nodes. Neither Kanno nor Dridi nor Rigetti though show that the shot execution (and thus count update) keeps happening based on a value of said first result for those nodes that have not reached said number of shots its represented quantum bit needs to confidently determine a result – aka that the number of shots is determined based on calculating the number each qubit needs to confidently determine a result. Durazzo however does show that the number of shots is determined based on calculating the number each qubit needs to confidently determine a result (para 27-28 show calculating a number of shots necessary to obtain a sufficient confidence score for each qubit result at which point no more shot executions are made). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the number of shots based on calculating the number each qubit needs to confidently determine a result as is done in Durazzo, in the quantum computer of Kanno, especially as modified by Dridi, and as modified by Rigetti in which the qubits are in the nodes, because it would provide an efficient way to acquire a useable result for the measurement. Given the combination, the shots will keep being executed and thus the count will keep being updated for the nodes that have not yet reached the number of shots its qubit needs to confidently determine a result.
16. Claims 10-11 show the same features as claims 3-4 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons.
17. Claims 17-18 show the same features as claims 3-4 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons.
18. Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno and Dridi and Durazzo.
19. Regarding claim 6, in addition to that mentioned for claim 1, Kanno shows discarding said first result of said plurality of results in response to a count of said first result appearing less often than a threshold number of times (para 91, 105 shows that R measurement values that occur more frequently or more than a predetermined/threshold number of times are selected, and thus the results appearing less often are not selected but instead discarded). Kanno and Dridi do not explicitly show the count of the first result is within a designated number of shots per se. Durazzo however does show that a designated number of shots is determined, and this is accomplished based on calculating the number each qubit needs to confidently determine a result (para 27-28 show calculating a number of shots necessary to obtain a sufficient confidence score for each qubit result at which point no more shot executions are made). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a designated number of shots, based on calculating the number needed to confidently determine a result as is done in Durazzo, in the quantum computer of Kanno, especially as modified by Dridi, because it would provide an efficient way to acquire a useable result for the measurement.
20. Claim 13 shows the same features as claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
21. Claim 20 shows the same features as claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
22. Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno and Dridi and Jai et al “Jai” (EP 3971795 A1) and Shields (US 11,868,846 B1).
(Please also see the previously attached copies of Jai and Shields that number paragraphs in the same format as that used in this Action).
23. Regarding claim 7, in addition to that mentioned for claim 1, Kanno shows categorizing a result of each measured quantum bit of said quantum calculations as a feature (para 88, 115-117 show the measured qubit results of the quantum calculations are categorized into states which are sampled as data features). Kanno and Dridi do not explicitly show performing a multiple correspondence analysis on the features to map to a lower-dimensional continuous dataset. Jai shows multiple correspondence analysis on features in a quantum computing system to map to a lower-dimensional continuous dataset (para 122, 127, 133, 143 show multi-correspondence analysis being applied to the feature dataset in the quantum computing system to map to a lower dimensional dataset. Note also in para 143-144 that the lower dimensional result is a convolution which is a continuous data set). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a multiple correspondence analysis on the features to map to a lower-dimensional continuous dataset as is done in Jai, to the measured qubit results in the quantum computer of Kanno, especially as modified by Dridi, because it would provide an efficient way to interpret patterns in the data in order to determine which results to keep and which to discard. Kanno and Dridi and Jai do not explicitly show clustering the dataset to form clusters and storing a closest percentage of data in each cluster, and discarding remaining data in each cluster, but Kanna para 91, 105 shows that R measurement values that occur more frequently or more than a predetermined/threshold number of times are selected and stored, and the other measurement data is discarded. Furthermore, Shields show clustering a measurement dataset in a quantum computing system to form clusters and storing a closest percentage of data in each cluster, and discarding remaining data in each cluster (para 151-154 show the measurement data is clustered to form data clusters, and high quality data within a closest predetermined probability threshold is stored for each cluster. Para 147, 150 show then discarding the remaining data that is not within the particular level of threshold). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cluster the measurement data of Kanno in clusters and store the closest percentage of data in each cluster and discard the remaining data in each cluster, and as is done in Shields, in the quantum computer of Kanno, especially as modified by Dridi and Jai, because it would provide an efficient way to analyze the measurement data, especially after having multiple correspondence analysis applied to it, in order to store high quality measurement data and discard the rest.
24. Claim 14 shows the same features as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
25. Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the that the prior art cited in the previous Action do not show the newly amended feature that the expected value is identified based on a highest count of measured states for the quantum bit after reaching a threshold number of shots. However, Dridi is brought in to show this feature.
Conclusion
26. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a) Babbush (CA 3146219 A1) shows various post selection techniques in a quantum computing system to discard measurement results that do not match an expected value.
b) Johri (US 2022/0172098 A1) validates measurement results in a quantum computing system.
c) Steiger (US 2022/0067245 A1) groups qubits according to quality.
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN PAUL SAX whose telephone number is (571)272-4072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 - 6:00 Est.
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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached at 571-272-4046. 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.
/STEVEN P SAX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights