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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not narrative in form. 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 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 1-19 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.
The term “sufficient” in claim 1 and 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term sufficient is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As claim 1 is rejected so too are claims 2-18 rejected under 112(b) as they fail to cure the issue.
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 1-6, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McClean et al. (“The Theory Of Variational Hybrid Quantum-Classical Algorithms” – hereinafter McClean).
In regards to claim 1, McClean teaches an optimization method for generating a reduced expectation value of a quantum state for a group of operators having the same terms as a first operator, the method comprising:
generating the quantum state on a quantum computer; (McClean page 5 section 2.4 bullet 1 cites “
PNG
media_image1.png
66
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
measuring, on the quantum computer, a set of observables for the quantum state sufficient to compute the expectation value; (McClean page 14 teaches measuring the set of Pauli observations that are sufficient to computer expectation values, H. See the picture below.
PNG
media_image2.png
338
938
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
receiving, on a classical computer, the set of quantum measurements; (McClean section 2.4 steps 2-4 teaches the quantum system measuring H, and the classical computer (classical nonlinear optimizer) to determine new value values that decrease H.)
receiving, on the classical computer, a first expectation value of the quantum state for the first operator; (McClean section 2.4 steps 2-4 teaches the quantum system measuring H, and the classical computer (classical nonlinear optimizer) to determine new value values that decrease H, wherein it is a iterative method. On page 14 equation 55 H is operator and <Hψ> is the expectation value as shown in eq. 56.)
generating, on the classical computer, a second operator from the group of operators; (McClean section 2.4 steps 2-4 teaches the quantum system measuring H, and the classical computer (classical nonlinear optimizer) to determine new value values that decrease H, wherein it is a iterative method. On page 14 equation 55 H is operator and <Hψ> is the expectation value as shown in eq. 56. As the method is iterative the second process would a second operator and expectation value.)
and generating, on the classical computer, the reduced expectation value from the set of quantum measurements and the second operator. (McClean page 3 second teaches the optimal choice of θ is that minimizes H.)
In regards to claim 2, McClean discloses the quantum optimization method of claim 1, wherein said generating the quantum state includes generating the quantum state with a parametrized quantum circuit programmable via one or more circuit parameters. (McClean section 2.1 teaches a parameterized state wherein it cites on page 3,
PNG
media_image3.png
78
900
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, and section 2.4 bullet 1 states the state is prepared on the quantum computer wherein θ can be any adjustable experimental or gate parameter, thus it prepared or programmed with a quantum circuit (quantum computer).)
In regards to claim 3, McClean discloses the quantum optimization method of claim 1, further comprising updating the one or more circuit parameters such that the parametrized quantum circuit outputs an updated quantum state that better approximates a ground state of the Hamiltonian. (McClean section 2.4 bullet 3 teaches determining new values for θ that decrease <H>< θ>, this is circuit parameters. Section 2.4 bullets 1, 3, and 4 combine to after optimizer chooses a new ψ, the quantum device prepares a new ψ as it iterative. So going steps 1-4, and repeating step as it is iterative it would choose a new ψ which results in a new state.also page 3 second paragraph teaches the optimal choice of θ minimizes ground state.)
In regards to claim 4, McClean discloses the quantum optimization method of claim 3, further comprising repeating: said generating the quantum state with the parametrized quantum circuit; said measuring each of the observables for the quantum state; said transforming one or both of the Hamiltonian and the quantum state; updating the Hamiltonian based on said transforming; and said updating the one or more circuit parameters; until the one or more circuit parameters have converged. (See McClean page 5 section 2.4 steps 1-4)
In regards to claim 5, McClean discloses the optimization method of claim 1, wherein the group of operators comprises a set of unitary transformations applied to the operator. (McClean disclose operator being unitary transformations applied to the operation on page 4 wherein it cites “
PNG
media_image4.png
218
888
media_image4.png
Greyscale
”.)
In regards to claim 6, McClean discloses the optimization method of claim 1, wherein the group of operators comprises a set of operators transformed under a fermionic transformation. (McClean section 2.2 “Fermionic Hamiltonians and quantum chemistry” page 4 discloses fermionic transformation in the second paragraph, equation 11, third paragraph and equations 16-18. See the exerts below:
PNG
media_image5.png
410
889
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.)
In regards to claim 15, McClean discloses the quantum optimization method of claim 3, wherein said transforming one or both of the Hamiltonian and the quantum state includes applying a spin transformation to said one or both of the Hamiltonian and the quantum state. (McClean teaches spin transformations applied to the Hamiltonian and/or quantum state as part of the reference state preparation. See the exert below:
PNG
media_image6.png
446
954
media_image6.png
Greyscale
, also see page 10 equations 36-44 teach spin-Flip operators in configuration interaction and Unitary coupled clusters.)
In regards to claim 17, McClean discloses the quantum optimization method of claim 3, wherein said transforming one or both of the Hamiltonian and the quantum state includes minimizing the expectation value of the Hamiltonian estimated for the quantum state. (McClean page 3 second teaches the optimal choice of θ is that minimizes H.)
In regards to claim 19, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations. It is therefor rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. The only difference is claim 19 cites a processor and memory, this is disclose on page 5 in section 2.4 wherein it disclose the Hybrid Quantum-Classiscal computer, wherein a quantum computer and classical computer are used together, wherein both contain a processor and memory.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-14, 16, and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the cited references alone or in combination disclose the fermionic transformation including: rotations of active orbitals; transformations out of an active space to incorporate at least one of a core orbital and a virtual orbital; rotations that respect one or more of an open-shell spin symmetry, a closed-shell spin symmetry, and a geometric symmetry as it relates to a hybrid quantum-classical computing. The references also fail to disclose implementing a marginal projection technique; using obtaining the expectation values the observables via orbital frames and transforming one or both of the Hamiltonian and the quantum state includes applying a Majorana fermionic transformation to said one or both of the Hamiltonian and the quantum state; wherein the Hamiltonian is an Ising Hamiltonian configured for solving a combinatorial optimization problem; and using semidefinite programming.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULINHO E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1358. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 10AM-6PM CST.
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, Abdullah Kawsar can be reached at 571-270-3169. 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.
/PAULINHO E SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127