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 .
Detail Action
This office action is in response to RCE filed on 5/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (US 10,592,216 Bl) in view of Schmitz et al. (US 20210182723 A1).
Per claim 12,
Richardson discloses
receiving, at a quantum compilation service implemented on one or more computing devices of the service provider network, from a customer of the quantum compilation service, a quantum circuit to be compiled; (c30:48-66, discloses service-oriented architecture, of a provider network providing development environment to multiple clients…enable client to invoke its functionality as a service. c31:50-54, see development environment 1100 may compile…quantum algorithm. Fig. 12, C31: 5-20, discloses a client 140 accessing a development environment locally on a client computing device. In different embodiment, in Fig.11B, c:27: 11:32, disclose development environment 100 for quantum algorithm compilation and optimization discloses development …that assist clients in…compiling quantum algorithms. )
provisioning, by the quantum compilation service, computing resources in the service provider network to compile the received quantum circuit; (c27:11-51, see development environment with resources to building, compiling quantum algorithm, )
orchestrating, by the quantum compilation service, using the provisioned computing resources in the service provider network; (see above explanation) and
providing, to the customer a compiled artifact representing a compiled version of the quantum circuit, wherein the compilation service is configured to perform compilation for quantum circuits received from a plurality of customers as a compilation-as-a-service resource (Fig. 12, C31: 5-20, discloses a client 140 accessing a development environment locally on a client computing device. C27: 15-20, see various components that assist clients in…compiling quantum algorithms. It appears the local client 140 is capable compiling quantum algorithm locally. Therefore the development environment can take client input for quantum compilation and output quantum algorithm/compiled artifact for different platforms on the same environment (c:31, 50-60). Since the development environment is accessible to the client, the generated/compiled artifact is on the development environment accessible to a client and therefore considered provided to client.)
Richardson does not specifically disclose, however, Schmitz discloses
perform a plurality of compilation passes; performance of the respective compilation passes ([0026] Current implementations allow a user to specify any circuit (including poorly designed circuits), to a quantum compiler which must then take several optimization passes through the circuit to identify the optimal schedule and configuration parameters for the hardware, resulting in loss of performance and/or wasted cycles.)
and wherein the quantum compilation service supports compiling quantum circuits for quantum processing units implemented using a plurality of quantum computing technologies. ([0030], see different quantum processors corresponding to a plurality of quantum computing technologies)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Schmitz into the teachings of Richardson to include the limitation disclosed by Schmitz. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to avoid lost of performance and/or wasted cycles as suggested by Schmitz ([0026])
Per claim 19, see rejection of claim 12.
Claim(s) 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (US 10,592,216 Bl) in view of Schmitz et al. (US 20210182723 A1) and further in view of Gambetta et al. (US 20210019132 A1)
Per claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated;
Richardson/Schmitz discloses
wherein the plurality of compilation passes comprise modular compilation passes (Schmitz, [0026], see optimization passes)
Richardson/Schmitz does not, however, Gambetta discloses
selected from a modular compilation pass repository of the quantum compilation service.( [0039], discloses compiler pass of a software developer framework used in cloud therefore offers end users to connect or select [0041], see framework as a service)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Gambetta into the teachings of Richardson/Schmitz to include the limitation disclosed by Gambetta. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to improve speed and obtain specific characteristic as suggested by Gambetta([0040])
Per claim 17, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated.
Richardson/Schmitz discloses
determining, by the quantum compilation service, a set of compilation passes to be performed for at least a portion of a compilation process for compiling the received quantum circuit, (Schmitz, [0026], see optimization passes) wherein said orchestrating performance of the respective compilation passes, comprises:
Richardson/Schmitz does not, however, Gambetta discloses
accessing a modular compilation pass repository to retrieve instructions for performing the respective compilation passes; and executing the instructions for performing the respective compilation passes using the provisioned computing resources. ([0039], discloses compiler pass of a software developer framework used in cloud therefore offers end users to connect or select [0041], see framework as a service)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Gambetta into the teachings of Richardson/Schmitz to include the limitation disclosed by Gambetta. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to improve speed and obtain specific characteristic as suggested by Gambetta([0040])
Per claim 18, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated;
Richardson/Schmitz/Gambetta discloses
receiving, from a customer of the quantum compilation service, a custom compilation pass; and adding the custom compilation pass to the modular compilation pass repository for use in compiling quantum circuits of the customer. ( Richardson, c41: 5-15, see various elements may be added)
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.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (US 10,592,216 Bl), Schmitz et al. (US 20210182723 A1) in view of Gambetta et al. (US 20210019132 A1) and AmazonBasket (Amazon Braket introduces verbatim compilation for quantum circuits posted Sep. 9, 2021)
Per claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated;
Richardson/Schmitz/ Gambetta does not, however, AmazonBasket discloses
receive a first request indicating a verbatim compilation is be performed for the quantum circuit; cause the compiled artifact representing the compiled version of the quantum circuit to be stored; and provide, for one or more subsequently received requests to compile the quantum circuit using the verbatim compilation, the stored compiled artifact.(see paragraph 1 verbatim compilation)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of AmazonBasket into the teachings of Richardson/Schmitz/Gambetta to include the limitation disclosed by AmazonBasket. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to run circuit as defined without any medication as suggested by AmazonBasket (para. 1)
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (US 10,592,216 Bl), Schmitz et al. (US 20210182723 A1), in view of Gambetta et al. (US 20210019132 A1), AmazonBasket (Amazon Braket introduces verbatim compilation for quantum circuits posted Sep. 9, 2021) further in view of Izaac (US 2024/0028943 Al)
Per claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated;
Richardson/Schmitz/ Gambetta does not, however, AmazonBasket discloses
a plurality of qubit allocation and gate mapping compilation passes; ( 2nd paragraph, quantum circuit compilation…qubit allocation…mapping gates)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of AmazonBasket into the teachings of Richardson/Schmitz to include the limitation disclosed by AmazonBasket. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to transform quantum circuit to a specific type of quantum hardware as suggested by AmazonBasket(2nd paragraph)
Richardson/Schmitz/ Gambetta/ AmazonBasket does not specifically discloses, however, Izaac discloses
a plurality of pulse-level compilation passes([0116], see optimization using pulse-level representation.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Isaac into the teachings of Izaac to include the limitation disclosed by Richardson/Schmits/AmazonBasket. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to enact desired state transformation as suggested by Izaac ([0120])
Claims 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richardson et al. (US 10,592,216 Bl), Schmitz et al. (US 20210182723 A1) in view of Gambetta et al. (US 20210019132 A1), AmazonBasket (Amazon Braket introduces verbatim compilation for quantum circuits posted Sep. 9, 2021), Izaac (US 2024/0028943 Al) and further in view of Martin (WO 2020131411 A1,)
Per claim 15, the rejection of claim 14,
Richardson/Schmitz/Gambetta/AmazonBasket/Isaac does not specifically disclose, however, Martin discloses
wherein the plurality of qubit allocation and gate mapping compilation passes comprise two or more of:
a SAT solving-based gate scheduling and mapping compilation pass;
an SMT solving-based gate scheduling and mapping compilation pass; or
a reinforcement-learning model-based gate scheduling and mapping compilation pass. ([0034]. Quantum compiling; [0078] discloses SAT solver, and SMT solver)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Richardson/AmazonBasket/Izaac into the teachings of Martin to include the limitation disclosed by Richardson/AmazonBasket/Izaac. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want have high-quality memory management with large computation as suggested by Martin ([0078])
Per claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated;
Richardson/Schmitz/Gambetta/AmazonBasket/Izaac/Martin
scaling up or down, by the quantum compilation service, a quantity of computing resources provisioned to perform a given qubit gate mapping compilation pass, wherein the quantity of computing resources is scaled such that the gate mapping compilation pass completes within a threshold amount of time or with less than a threshold amount of cost incurred to perform the quit gate mapping compilation pass. (Martin, pp. 63, clause 28, see scale up and down resources allocated;[0021], see thresholds are met)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed except for claims associated with issues identified in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Related to claim 12 and similarly claim 19 applicant argues the quantum compilation service of Richardson is performed on the customer’s computer which is different from a service provider network. (per remark pp. 11) Richardson’s implementation of development environment has more than one embodiment. Richardson col. 5:15-20, specifically discloses “The development environment may be hosted in the cloud or executed locally on client computing device.” When the development environment is hosted in the cloud, it is provided by a service provider network as explained in revised office action. Richardson further discloses the development environment is a service-oriented system that offers its functionality to multiple clients in exchange for fees. (see Richardson, col:30, lines 48 - col. 31:2)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-5934. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:00AM -4:00PM. Any inquiry of general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock, can be reached at 571-272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PHILIP WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights