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 .
CRM
Examiner is interpreting computer readable medium as non-transitory in view of paragraph 0113 of the Specification.
Response to Amendment
The previous claim objections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-10 of Remarks dated 06/16/2026 regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 9, Applicant asserts that Asthana does not teach, “determining a simplified pulse schedule of the pulse sequence by removing at least one pulse from the pulse schedule, thereby producing a pulse-based schedule that acts as a pulse-based variational form for the quantum circuit selected.” However, Coury teaches, “determining a simplified pulse schedule of the pulse sequence by removing at least one pulse from the pulse schedule, thereby producing a pulse-based schedule that acts as a pulse-based variational form for the quantum circuit selected” in paragraph [0070]: ““In some embodiments of the invention, these rules include commutation of fundamental operators, removal of empty time units, and removal of redundant pulse sequences or replacement of such pulse sequences by simplified pulse sequences.”)
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, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asthana et al. (Minimizing state preparation times in pulse-level variational molecular simulations); hereinafter Asthana in view of Hwang et al. (US 20220374579 A1); hereinafter Hwang in view of Jin et al. (US 20220027774 A1); hereinafter Jin and in further view of Coury et al. (US 20030169041 A1); hereinafter Coury
Claim 1 is rejected over Asthana, Hwang, Jin and Coury.
Regarding claim 1, Asthana teaches a computer-implemented method for a resource-efficient pulse-based variational quantum circuit running on a selected quantum hardware to solve a given predefined problem, the method comprising: (Asthana [Section I. Introduction]: “better understood and significantly improved by establishing connections with quantum optimal control theory (QOC) [43–47]. VQAs involve the optimization of parameters in discrete quantum circuit logic elements, whereas QOC functions more broadly to optimize a time dependent drive Hamiltonian, typically by determining optimal pulse shapes of applied fields.”)
Asthana does not appear to explicitly teach controlling an execution of a plurality of different quantum circuits using a selected quantum hardware for a given predefined problem to be solved;
evaluating a performance of each of the plurality of different quantum circuits;
selecting a quantum circuit from the plurality of quantum circuits based on the performance;
However, Hwang teaches controlling an execution of a plurality of different quantum circuits using a selected quantum hardware for a given predefined problem to be solved; (Hwang [0020]: “The measuring of the performances of the candidate quantum circuits includes measuring a performance of a first candidate quantum circuit. The measuring of the performance of the first candidate quantum circuit includes measuring attenuations of fidelity between inputs and outputs of the first candidate quantum circuit and selecting the greatest attenuation of the fidelity as a performance of the first candidate quantum circuit.”; and [0021]: “In an embodiment, the measuring of the performances of the candidate quantum circuits includes measuring a performance of a first candidate quantum circuit. The measuring of the performance of the first candidate quantum circuit includes measuring passages of time between inputs and outputs of the first candidate quantum circuit and selecting the longest passage of the time as a performance of the first candidate quantum circuit.”)
evaluating a performance of each of the plurality of different quantum circuits; (Hwang [0019]: “the operating method of a computing device further includes measuring performances of the candidate quantum circuits and determining a candidate quantum circuit, which has the highest performance, from among the candidate quantum circuits as a quantum circuit.”)
selecting a quantum circuit from the plurality of quantum circuits based on the performance; (Hwang [0019]: “the operating method of a computing device further includes measuring performances of the candidate quantum circuits and determining a candidate quantum circuit, which has the highest performance, from among the candidate quantum circuits as a quantum circuit.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the optimal pulses of Asthana with the candidate selection of quantum circuits of Hwang for high and uniform performance (Hwang [0005]). Asthana and Hwang are analogous art because they both concern quantum computing.
Asthana does not appear to explicitly teach generating a pulse sequence having a pulse schedule tailored to the selected quantum hardware and the given problem for the quantum circuit selected from the [plurality of quantum circuits; and]
However, Jin teaches generating a pulse sequence having a pulse schedule tailored to the selected quantum hardware and the given problem for the quantum circuit selected from the [plurality of quantum circuits; and] (Jin [0039]: “an optimal pulse database of multiple quantum hardware structures is established in advance, and after the target quantum hardware structure is determined, the optimal control pulse set matching the relevant physical parameters of the target quantum hardware structure may be selected from the preset mapping information”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the optimal pulses of Asthana with the optimal pulse control of Jin to improve the fidelity of a target control pulse sequence (Jin, [0040]). Asthana and Jin are analogous art because they both concern pulses in quantum computing.
Asthana does not appear to explicitly teach determining a simplified pulse schedule of the pulse sequence, by removing at least one pulse from the schedule, thereby producing a pulse-based schedule that acts as a pulse-based variational form for the quantum circuit selected.
However, Coury teaches determining a simplified pulse schedule of the pulse sequence, by removing at least one pulse from the schedule, thereby producing a pulse-based schedule that acts as a pulse-based variational form for the quantum circuit selected. (Coury [0070]: “In some embodiments of the invention, these rules include commutation of fundamental operators, removal of empty time units, and removal of redundant pulse sequences or replacement of such pulse sequences by simplified pulse sequences.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the optimal pulses of Asthana with the removal of redundant pulse sequences of Coury to optimize the sequence of fundamental operations (Coury, [0070]). Asthana and Coury are analogous art because they both concern pulses in quantum computing.
Claim 2 is rejected over Asthana, Hwang, Jin and Coury with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Asthana teaches simplifying the given predefined problem. (Asthana [Abstract]: “Here, we find the shortest possible pulses for ctrl-VQE to prepare target molecular wavefunctions for a given device Hamiltonian describing coupled transmon qubits.”; Note: The Hamiltonian is the given predefined problem.)
Claim 3 is rejected over Asthana, Hwang, Jin and Coury with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Asthana does not appear to explicitly teach at least one selected out of a group comprising:
removing at least a pulse from the pulse schedule;
adding pulses to the pulse schedule; and
changing a shape of the pulse, wherein changing of the shape of the pulse includes reducing a signal length.
However, Coury teaches at least one selected out of a group comprising:
removing at least a pulse from the pulse schedule; (Coury [0070]: “In some embodiments of the invention, these rules include commutation of fundamental operators, removal of empty time units, and removal of redundant pulse sequences or replacement of such pulse sequences by simplified pulse sequences.”)
adding pulses to the pulse schedule; and (Coury [0070]: “In some embodiments of the invention, these rules include commutation of fundamental operators, removal of empty time units, and removal of redundant pulse sequences or replacement of such pulse sequences by simplified pulse sequences.”; Note: Replacement of pulse sequences is also adding.)
changing a shape of the pulse, wherein changing of the shape of the pulse includes reducing a signal length. (Coury [0070]: “In some embodiments of the invention, these rules include commutation of fundamental operators, removal of empty time units, and removal of redundant pulse sequences or replacement of such pulse sequences by simplified pulse sequences.”; Note: The removal of redundant pulse sequences will also reduce the signal length.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the optimal pulses of Asthana with the removal of redundant pulse sequences of Coury to optimize the sequence of fundamental operations (Coury, [0070]). Asthana and Coury are analogous art because they both concern pulses in quantum computing.
Claim 5 is rejected over Asthana, Hwang, Jin and Coury with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Asthana teaches reducing an active time for the pulse schedule. (Asthana [Figure 2]: “(a) How the optimized pulse shape changes for a two-qubit system as the pulse duration is reduced from 20.00 ns to 15.00 ns.”)
Claim 6 is rejected over Asthana, Hwang, Jin and Coury with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Asthana teaches wherein the selected quantum hardware comprises a physical two-qubit gate (Asthana [Figure 2]: “(a) How the optimized pulse shape changes for a two-qubit system as the pulse duration is reduced from 20.00 ns to 15.00 ns.”)
Asthana does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the physical two-qubit gate is utilized in performing a Controlled-NOT (CNOT) operation.
However, Coury teaches wherein the physical two-qubit gate is utilized in performing a Controlled-NOT (CNOT) operation. (Coury [0093]: “FIG. 6A illustrates an example of a quantum program that implements a 2-qubit quantum CNOT operation. The quantum CNOT operation involves two qubits ( 620-1 and 620-2).”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the optimal pulses of Asthana with the removal of redundant pulse sequences of Coury to optimize the sequence of fundamental operations (Coury, [0070]). Asthana and Coury are analogous art because they both concern pulses in quantum computing.
Claim 7 is rejected over Asthana, Hwang, Jin and Coury with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Asthana does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the selected quantum hardware uses error correction and/or error mitigation.
However, Coury teaches wherein the selected quantum hardware uses error correction and/or error mitigation. (Coury [0072]: “wherein a plurality of physical qubits can be used to encode a single qubit state, such that the state is protected from errors during the computation. Such algorithms can include aspects similar to classical error correction algorithms”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the optimal pulses of Asthana with the removal of redundant pulse sequences of Coury to optimize the sequence of fundamental operations (Coury, [0070]). Asthana and Coury are analogous art because they both concern pulses in quantum computing.
Claim 8 is rejected over Asthana, Hwang, Jin and Coury with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Asthana teaches wherein the quantum circuit is used for a simplified and optimized physical two-qubit gate and (Asthana [Figure 2]: “(a) How the optimized pulse shape changes for a two-qubit system as the pulse duration is reduced from 20.00 ns to 15.00 ns.”)
a determination of a molecular energy level of a molecule. (Asthana [Section III. Computational Details]: “As a test system for our simulations, we have chosen the problem of finding the ground state energy of the H2 molecule at a bond distance of 1.5
A
˙
, which has relatively strong correlations. Molecular integrals are generated using PySCF [56] and STO-3G basis set is used in this work.”)
Claim 11 is rejected over Asthana, Hwang, Jin and Coury.
Regarding claim 11, Asthana teaches a quantum information processing system for executing a resource-efficient pulse-based variational quantum the system comprising:
The remainder of claim 11 is claim 1 in the form of a processing system and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 stated above.
Dependent claim 12 is claim 2 in the form of a processing system and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the processing system of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Dependent claim 13 is claim 3 in the form of a processing system and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the processing system of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Dependent claim 15 is claim 5 in the form of a processing system and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the processing system of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Dependent claim 16 is claim 6 in the form of a processing system and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the processing system of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Dependent claim 17 is claim 7 in the form of a processing system and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the processing system of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Dependent claim 18 is claim 8 in the form of a processing system and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the processing system of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Claim 20 is rejected over Asthana, Hwang, Jin and Coury.
Regarding claim 20, Asthana teaches a computer program product for a resource-efficient pulse-based variational quantum circuit running on a selected quantum hardware to solve a given predefined problem, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions being executable by one or more computing systems or controllers to cause the one or more computing systems to perform a method comprising: (Asthana [Section I. Introduction]: “better understood and significantly improved by establishing connections with quantum optimal control theory (QOC) [43–47]. VQAs involve the optimization of parameters in discrete quantum circuit logic elements, whereas QOC functions more broadly to optimize a time dependent drive Hamiltonian, typically by determining optimal pulse shapes of applied fields.”)
The remainder of claim 20 is claim 1 in the form of a computer program product and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 stated above.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asthana, Hwang, Jin and Coury and in further view of Meng et al. (US20230087100A1); hereinafter Meng
Claim 4 is rejected over Asthana, Hwang, Jin, Coury and Meng with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Asthana does not appear to explicitly teach using a single Gaussian pulse as a replacement for more complex pulse shapes.
However, Meng teaches using a single Gaussian pulse with a parametric phased and amplitude as a replacement for more complex pulse shapes. (Meng [0049]: “Therefore, it can be seen that C.sub.1 decides the relationship between the single pulse duration and the pulse amplitude, and also fixes the shape of the pulses to a certain extent. If a proper C.sub.1 is selected, it can be ensured that the shape of the Gaussian pulses is relatively regular, and thus it is easier to realize in experiments. In the method according to the present disclosure, the impact of the single pulse duration T.sub.k(l) is considered, and thus a total pulse duration may be dynamically adjusted through parameter optimization to be as short as possible.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the optimal pulses of Asthana with the gaussian pulse of Meng for effective parameter optimization for pulse duration (Meng [0049]). Asthana and Meng are analogous art because they both concern pulse and quantum computing.
Dependent claim 14 is claim 4 in the form of a processing system and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4 stated above. For the rejection of the limitations specifically pertaining to the processing system of claim 11, see the rejection of claim 11 above.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asthana, Hwang, Jin and Coury and in further view of Antonio et al. (US20190095811A1); hereinafter Antonio
Claim 9 is rejected over Asthana, Hwang, Jin, Coury and Antonio with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Asthana does not appear to explicitly teach wherein a COBYLA optimization algorithm or a SPSA optimization algorithm is used for a determination of parameters of the simplified pulse schedule.
However, Antonio teaches wherein a COBYLA optimization algorithm or a SPSA optimization algorithm is used for a determination of parameters of the simplified pulse schedule. (Antonio [0058]: “The energy estimates are then used, in one or more examples, by a gradient descent algorithm that relies on a simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation (SPSA) to update the control parameters. The SPSA algorithm approximates the gradient using only two energy measurements, regardless of the dimensions of the parameter space p, achieving a level of accuracy comparable to standard gradient descent methods, in the presence of stochastic fluctuations. The technical solutions thus facilitate optimizing over multiple qubits and long depths for trial state preparation, thus facilitating optimizations over a number of parameters, for example p=30.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the optimal pulses of Asthana with the simultaneous perturbation stochastic approximation (SPSA) of Antonio for accurate optimization (Antonio [0076]). Asthana and Antonio are analogous art because they both concern pulses in quantum computing.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asthana, Hwang, Jin and Coury and in further view of Meitei et al. (Gate-free state preparation for fast variational quantum eigensolver simulations); hereinafter Meitei
Claim 21 is rejected over Asthana, Hwang, Jin, Coury and Meitei with the incorporation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Asthana teaches running a Variational Quantum Eigensolvers (VQE) on the given predefined problem using the simplified pulse schedule including the one or more pulses with the parameters. (Asthana [page 3]: “Ctrl-VQE generates controllable evolutions in the control theory sense, as the entire Hilbert space can be spanned to arbitrary precision by varying unconstrained parameters of the driving pulses. In ctrl-VQE, as the total pulse duration (T) increases, the Hilbert space accessible to the qubit system increases as well”)
Asthana does not appear to explicitly teach adding, following controllability arguments, one or more pulses with parameters to the simplified pulse schedule, wherein the one or more pulses with parameters are encapsulated in quantum circuit instructions; and
However, Meitei teaches adding, following controllability arguments, one or more pulses with parameters to the simplified pulse schedule, wherein the one or more pulses with parameters are encapsulated in quantum circuit instructions; and (Meitei [page 9, G. Adaptive update of pulse parameterization]: “The manner in which a pulse is parameterized (in particular, the number of variational parameters) will significantly impact experimental performance. An overparameterization of the pulse leads to difficulties in experimental optimization. In response, we seek a means to limit the number of parameters. In this section, we describe a scheme to avoid over-parameterizations and arrive at the minimal number of pulse parameters to achieve a target accuracy. Unlike in the previous sections where we chose a fixed number of time segments, in this section we propose an adaptive algorithm which slowly grows the number of segments (and thus parameters). We begin with a single time-segment square pulse (constant amplitude throughout the time evolution), the pulse is then iteratively sliced at random intervals such that the number of time segments systematically increases.”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to combine the optimal pulses of Asthana with growing the number of segments of Meitei to optimize pulses and parameters (Meitei, page 10). Asthana and Meitei are analogous art because they both concern pulses in quantum computing.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/DAVID H TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2147
/VIKER A LAMARDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Prosecution Insights