DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the preliminary amendment submitted on August 7, 2023.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1-10 have been amended.
For clarity of the prosecution history record, it is noted that, in the “Amendments to the Claims” (submitted on 08/07/2023), Claim 4 was canceled and removed completely from the claim listing. Consequently, Claims 5-11 were amended to be Claims 4-10, respectively. However, despite being canceled, Claim 4 should not be removed. And for the purposes of further examination and avoiding any confusions, Claims 4-10 are not renumbered as Claims 5-11, respectively, by the Examiner. Examiner kindly asks the Applicant to reinstate Claim 4 as being canceled and revert back to the original claim numbering of the other claims in the response to the instant 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Nonetheless, these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because these claim limitations are recited as modules of a quantum computer operating system, which is software. A software can only contain software components, and not hardware components. Such claim limitations are: “a quantum program compiling-optimizing service module, configured for […]” and “a communication module, configured for […]” recited in Claim 1; “a qubit managing service module, configured for […]” recited in Claims 2 and 4; “an automatic calibration service module, configured for […]” recited in Claim 7; and “a quantum computing task scheduling-managing service module configured for […]” recited in Claim 8.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: QUANTUM COMPUTING TASK SCHEDULING BASED ON A TOPOLOGY OF A QUBIT IN A QUANTUM CHIP.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 contains a typographical error: the word “and” should be added after the “obtaining a topology of a qubit […]” limitation.
Claim 1 recites “the topology.” It should read -- the topology of the qubit --.
Claim 1 recites “for quantum computing.” It should read -- for executing quantum computing --.
Claims 1-3 recite “the current topology.” It should read -- the current topology of the available qubit --.
Claim 2 recites “the quantum chip of the second quantum computing hardware device.” It should read -- the quantum chip of the first quantum computing hardware device --.
Claims 2 and 3 recite “the quantum computing task to be processed.” It should read -- the quantum computing task to be processed from the quantum computing tasks --.
Claim 7 recites “the quantum chip.” It should read -- the quantum chip of the first quantum computing hardware device --.
Claim 7 recites “the priorities.” It should read -- the priorities of the quantum computing tasks --.
Claim 9 recites “a first quantum computing hardware device.” It should read -- the first quantum computing hardware device --.
Claim 9 contains a typographical error: the comma (,) after the word “wherein” should be deleted.
Claim 10 recites “the quantum computer executable instructions.” It should read -- the one or more quantum computer executable instructions --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a second quantum computing hardware device” in the “obtaining a topology of a qubit […]” step. The claim is rendered vague and indefinite because the claim does not recite earlier the limitation “a/the first quantum computing hardware device.” In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “a first quantum computing hardware device” for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 2-10 depend on Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-10 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 1.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Claim 1 recites:
The step of “obtaining a quantum program from a non-transitory memory to be executed.” The claim does not impose any limits on how the quantum program is obtained;
The step of “obtaining a topology of a qubit in a quantum chip of a second quantum computing hardware device.” The claim does not impose any limits on how the topology of the qubit is obtained;
The step of “compiling the quantum program into quantum computing tasks based on the topology.” The claim does not limit the plain meaning of “compiling” to its ordinary and customary meaning in the computing art as translating source code from a high-level programming language to a low-level programming language to create an executable program. Furthermore, the specification does not disclose that the compiling is performed by a compiler. Thus, the plain meaning of “compiling” includes assembling, which is consistent with the specification. In addition, the claim does not impose any limits on how the quantum program is compiled; and
The step of “[…] sending the quantum computing tasks to a second quantum computing hardware device for quantum computing.” The claim does not impose any limits on how the quantum computing tasks are sent.
In addition, these steps are recited as being performed by a quantum program compiling-optimizing service module or a communication module. The quantum program compiling-optimizing service module and communication module are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer software components performing generic computer functions.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a quantum computer operating system, which is software and not a machine and/or manufacture, but can be amended to fall within a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitation:
(a) compiling the quantum program into quantum computing tasks based on the topology; […] wherein the topology is a current topology of an available qubit in a quantum chip of the second quantum computing hardware device, and […] compiles the quantum program into the quantum computing tasks based on the current topology.
The recited step, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the step in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) [a] quantum computer operating system, comprising:
(2) a quantum program compiling-optimizing service module, configured for […]; and
(3) a communication module, configured for […],
(4) wherein […] the quantum program compiling-optimizing service module […].
Nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing a quantum program using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to compile (or assemble) the quantum program into quantum computing tasks. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) [a] quantum computer operating system, comprising:
(2) a quantum program compiling-optimizing service module, configured for […]; and
(3) a communication module, configured for […],
(4) wherein […] the quantum program compiling-optimizing service module […].
The additional elements (1) to (4) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer software components. The quantum program compiling-optimizing service and communication modules of the quantum computer operating system are used as tools to perform the obtaining, compiling, and sending steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(5) obtaining a quantum program from a non-transitory memory to be executed;
(6) obtaining a topology of a qubit in a quantum chip of a second quantum computing hardware device; and
(7) […] sending the quantum computing tasks to a second quantum computing hardware device for quantum computing.
The additional elements (5) to (7) are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) [a] quantum computer operating system, comprising:
(2) a quantum program compiling-optimizing service module, configured for […]; and
(3) a communication module, configured for […],
(4) wherein […] the quantum program compiling-optimizing service module […].
The additional elements (1) to (4) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(5) obtaining a quantum program from a non-transitory memory to be executed;
(6) obtaining a topology of a qubit in a quantum chip of a second quantum computing hardware device; and
(7) […] sending the quantum computing tasks to a second quantum computing hardware device for quantum computing.
The additional elements (5) to (7) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to obtain a qubit/quantum program and send quantum computing tasks. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 2 recites the limitations:
(a) a qubit managing service module, configured for:
(b) receiving the quantum computing tasks from the quantum program compiling-optimizing service module,
(c) obtaining a current topology of an available qubit in the quantum chip of the second quantum computing hardware device, and
(d) selecting a quantum computing task to be processed from the quantum computing tasks based on the current topology, wherein qubits required by the quantum computing task to be processed match the current topology;
(e) wherein the communication module sends the quantum computing task to be processed to the second quantum computing hardware device.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the number of the qubits required by the quantum computing task to be processed is less than or equal to the number of qubits in the current topology.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
(a) a qubit managing service module, configured for obtaining a current topology of an available qubit in the quantum chip of the second quantum computing hardware device, and transmitting the current topology to the quantum program compiling-optimizing service module.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the quantum program is a program code in an intermediate language.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the quantum computing tasks comprise quantum circuits.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitation:
(a) an automatic calibration service module, configured for automatically testing and calibrating the quantum chip.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 8 recites the limitation:
(a) a quantum computing task scheduling-managing service module configured for determining a quantum computing task to be assigned according to priorities of the quantum computing tasks, wherein the priorities are determined based on waiting time and executing time of the quantum computing tasks.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 9 recites the limitations:
(a) [a] quantum computer, comprising:
(b) a first quantum computing hardware device, wherein the quantum computer operating system of claim 1 is provided on the first quantum computing hardware device; and
(c) the second quantum computing hardware device being in communication with the first quantum computing hardware device and comprising a quantum chip,
(d) wherein, the communication module of the quantum computer operating system sends the quantum computing tasks to the second quantum computing hardware device for executing quantum computing.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 10 recites the limitation:
(a) [a] quantum computer readable storage medium having one or more quantum computer executable instructions stored thereon, wherein the quantum computer executable instructions, when being executed by a quantum computer, implements the quantum computer operating system of claim l.
The claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1. For instance, Claims 2-10 either recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because: 1) they are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); 2) they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or 3) they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 2-10 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-10 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is directed to a quantum computer operating system. However, the quantum computer operating system does not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the quantum computer operating system and any hardware elements of a computer, which permit the quantum computer operating system’s functionality to be realized. A quantum computer operating system does not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a quantum computer operating system without any structural recitations. While on the contrary, a man-made tangible embodiment storing the quantum computer operating system would permit the quantum computer operating system’s functionality to be realized. Therefore, the claimed quantum computer operating system is ineligible subject matter under § 101. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to recite, for example, “[a] quantum computer operating system stored in a non-transitory memory of a quantum computer” in order to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection.
Claims 2-8 depend on Claim 1 and do not cure the deficiency of Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-8 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 10 is directed to a quantum computer readable storage medium. However, it is noted that the specification does not provide an explicit definition of what constitute a quantum computer readable storage medium. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a quantum computer readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of quantum computer readable storage medium, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP § 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. Therefore, the claimed quantum computer readable storage medium is ineligible subject matter under § 101. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to recite “[a] non-transitory quantum computer readable storage medium” in order to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection.
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, 4-6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0097848 (hereinafter “Woerner”) in view of US 2021/0012233 (hereinafter “Gambetta”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to generating quantum computing tasks based on a topological structure of a quantum computing chip (specification, paragraph [0008]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Woerner is generally directed to a quantum computing circuit that prepares a quantum state that represents a stochastic control problem (Woerner, paragraph [0002]). And Gambetta is generally directed to adaptive compilation of quantum computing jobs (Gambetta, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Woerner and Gambetta are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 1, Woerner discloses:
A quantum computer operating system (Figure 11: 1128; paragraph [0116], “[…] computing system 1000 can be a simplified example of a quantum computer.”; paragraph [0119], “Aspects of operating environment 1100 can be used to implement stochastic-control control logic 1004 and stochastic-control readout control logic 1014 of FIG. 10.”), comprising:
a quantum program compiling-optimizing service module (Figure 11: 1132), configured for:
obtaining a topology of a qubit in a quantum chip of a first quantum computing hardware device (paragraph [0091], “[…] the quantum computing circuit swaps a first information in stored in a first qubit and a second information stored in a second qubit as part of compiling the quantum computing circuit to a nearest-neighbor qubit topology. A nearest-neighbor qubit topology can be one where a qubit is configured to exchange information with the qubit or qubits that it is adjacent to, without being configured to exchange information with other qubits (such as would be possible in an all-to-all qubit topology) [obtaining a topology of a qubit in a quantum chip of a first quantum computing hardware device]. In some examples, the first qubit and the second qubit are physically located next to each other in the quantum computing circuit.”), and
compiling the quantum program into quantum computing tasks based on the topology (paragraph [0091], “[…] the quantum computing circuit swaps a first information in stored in a first qubit and a second information stored in a second qubit as part of compiling the quantum computing circuit to a nearest-neighbor qubit topology [compiling the quantum program into quantum computing tasks based on the topology]. A nearest-neighbor qubit topology can be one where a qubit is configured to exchange information with the qubit or qubits that it is adjacent to, without being configured to exchange information with other qubits (such as would be possible in an all-to-all qubit topology). In some examples, the first qubit and the second qubit are physically located next to each other in the quantum computing circuit.”);
wherein the topology is a current topology of an available qubit in a quantum chip of the second quantum computing hardware device, and the quantum program compiling-optimizing service module compiles the quantum program into the quantum computing tasks based on the current topology (paragraph [0091], “[…] the quantum computing circuit swaps a first information in stored in a first qubit and a second information stored in a second qubit as part of compiling the quantum computing circuit to a nearest-neighbor qubit topology [the quantum program compiling-optimizing service module compiles the quantum program into the quantum computing tasks based on the current topology]. A nearest-neighbor qubit topology can be one where a qubit is configured to exchange information with the qubit or qubits that it is adjacent to, without being configured to exchange information with other qubits (such as would be possible in an all-to-all qubit topology) [wherein the topology is a current topology of an available qubit in a quantum chip of the second quantum computing hardware device]. In some examples, the first qubit and the second qubit are physically located next to each other in the quantum computing circuit.”).
Woerner does not explicitly disclose:
obtaining a quantum program from a non-transitory memory to be executed; and
a communication module, configured for sending the quantum computing tasks to a second quantum computing hardware device for quantum computing.
However, Gambetta discloses:
obtaining a quantum program from a non-transitory memory to be executed (paragraph [0089], “[…] at 702, computer-implemented method 700 can comprise selecting, by a system (e.g., via quantum adaptive compilation system 102 and/or selection component 108) operatively coupled to a processor (e.g., processor 106), a quantum device (e.g., one of quantum device(s) 402) to execute a quantum program (e.g., a quantum program submitted to interface component 302 as described above with reference to FIG. 3 and/or a modified quantum program compilation that can be generated by adaptive compilation component 110 as described above with reference to FIG. 1 [obtaining a quantum program from a non-transitory memory to be executed]) based on one or more run criteria.”); and
a communication module (Figure 1: 102), configured for sending quantum computing tasks to a second quantum computing hardware device for quantum computing (paragraph [0091], “[…] at 706, computer-implemented method 700 can comprise dispatching, by the system (e.g., via quantum adaptive compilation system 102 and/or adaptive compilation component 110), the modified quantum program compilation to a queue of the quantum device to execute the modified quantum program compilation [sending quantum computing tasks to a second quantum computing hardware device for quantum computing].”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Woerner and Gambetta are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Gambetta into the teaching of Woerner to include “obtaining a quantum program from a non-transitory memory to be executed; and a communication module, configured for sending the quantum computing tasks to a second quantum computing hardware device for quantum computing.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to dispatch a quantum program compilation to a queue of a quantum device to execute the quantum program compilation (Gambetta, paragraph [0091]).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Woerner further discloses:
a qubit managing service module (Figure 11: 1132), configured for obtaining a current topology of an available qubit in the quantum chip of the second quantum computing hardware device, and transmitting the current topology to the quantum program compiling-optimizing service module (paragraph [0091], “[…] the quantum computing circuit swaps a first information in stored in a first qubit and a second information stored in a second qubit as part of compiling the quantum computing circuit to a nearest-neighbor qubit topology. A nearest-neighbor qubit topology can be one where a qubit is configured to exchange information with the qubit or qubits that it is adjacent to, without being configured to exchange information with other qubits (such as would be possible in an all-to-all qubit topology). In some examples, the first qubit and the second qubit are physically located next to each other in the quantum computing circuit.”).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Woerner does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the quantum program is a program code in an intermediate language.
However, Gambetta discloses:
wherein a quantum program is a program code in an intermediate language (paragraph [0064], “[…] adaptive compilation component 110 can comprise a compiler as defined above that can modify a quantum program by translating source code from, for instance, a first high-level programming language (e.g., python, a quantum assembly language (qasm) model, a pulse model, etc.) to, for instance, a second high-level programming language (e.g., python, a quantum assembly language (qasm) model, a pulse model, etc.) to create a modified quantum program compilation that can be executed by a quantum device selected by selection component 108.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Woerner and Gambetta are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Gambetta into the teaching of Woerner to include “wherein the quantum program is a program code in an intermediate language.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify a quantum program by translating computer code written in a first programming language (also referred to as the source language) into a second programming language (also referred to as the target language) (Gambetta, paragraph [0064]).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Woerner further discloses:
wherein the quantum computing tasks comprise quantum circuits (paragraph [0036], “Quantum computing circuit 100 can serve as a solution to a problem of efficiently computing solutions to stochastic control problems. Quantum computing circuit 100 can be utilized to represent decisions of a stochastic control problem over multiple time steps, as well as uncertainty, using qubits.”).
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Woerner further discloses:
A quantum computer (paragraph [0116], “[…] computing system 1000 can be a simplified example of a quantum computer.”), comprising:
a first quantum computing hardware device, wherein the quantum computer operating system of claim 1 (Claims 9 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1) is provided on the first quantum computing hardware device (paragraph [0116], “[…] computing system 1000 can be a simplified example of a quantum computer.”; paragraph [0119], “Aspects of operating environment 1100 can be used to implement stochastic-control control logic 1004 and stochastic-control readout control logic 1014 of FIG. 10.”).
Woerner does not explicitly disclose:
the second quantum computing hardware device being in communication with the first quantum computing hardware device and comprising a quantum chip,
wherein, the communication module of the quantum computer operating system sends the quantum computing tasks to the second quantum computing hardware device for executing quantum computing.
However, Gambetta discloses:
a second quantum computing hardware device being in communication with a first quantum computing hardware device and comprising a quantum chip (paragraph [0048], “[…] quantum adaptive compilation system 102 can be coupled (e.g., communicatively, electrically, operatively, etc.) to one or more external systems, sources, and/or devices (e.g., computing devices, communication devices, etc.) via a data cable (e.g., High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), recommended standard (RS) 232, Ethernet cable, etc.). In some embodiments, quantum adaptive compilation system 102 can be coupled (e.g., communicatively, electrically, operatively, etc.) to one or more external systems, sources, and/or devices (e.g., computing devices, communication devices, etc.) via a network.”),
wherein, a communication module (Figure 1: 102) of a quantum computer operating system sends quantum computing tasks to the second quantum computing hardware device for executing quantum computing (paragraph [0091], “[…] at 706, computer-implemented method 700 can comprise dispatching, by the system (e.g., via quantum adaptive compilation system 102 and/or adaptive compilation component 110), the modified quantum program compilation to a queue of the quantum device to execute the modified quantum program compilation.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Woerner and Gambetta are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Gambetta into the teaching of Woerner to include “the second quantum computing hardware device being in communication with the first quantum computing hardware device and comprising a quantum chip, wherein, the communication module of the quantum computer operating system sends the quantum computing tasks to the second quantum computing hardware device for executing quantum computing.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to dispatch a quantum program compilation to a queue of a quantum device to execute the quantum program compilation (Gambetta, paragraph [0091]).
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Woerner and Gambetta further discloses:
A quantum computer readable storage medium (Woerner, Figure 11: 1116; paragraph [0116], “[…] computing system 1000 can be a simplified example of a quantum computer.”; paragraph [0119], “Aspects of operating environment 1100 can be used to implement stochastic-control control logic 1004 and stochastic-control readout control logic 1014 of FIG. 10.”) having one or more quantum computer executable instructions stored thereon, wherein the quantum computer executable instructions, when being executed by a quantum computer, implements the quantum computer operating system of claim 1 (Claims 10 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woerner in view of Gambetta as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0182722 (hereinafter “Kong”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to generating quantum computing tasks based on a topological structure of a quantum computing chip (specification, paragraph [0008]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Kong is generally directed to generating a quantum bit control signal (Kong, paragraph [0003]). Thus, Kong is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Woerner and Gambetta does not explicitly disclose:
an automatic calibration service module, configured for automatically testing and calibrating the quantum chip.
However, Kong discloses:
an automatic calibration service module, configured for automatically testing and calibrating a quantum chip (paragraph [0004], “A quantum chip is a core structure in a quantum computer, and a quantum bit is a basic computing unit in the quantum chip. When the quantum chip is running, it is necessary to provide reliable control signals to quantum bits of the quantum chip to achieve quantum chip tests and quantum computing. Acting on the quantum bit of the quantum chip, a quantum bit control signal may be capable of making a controllable specified change on a quantum state of a target quantum bit, so as to realize a quantum logic gate operation. In the actual computing process, a series of quantum logic gate operations need to be performed on the quantum bit, and thus the number and length of the quantum bit control signals will greatly increase due to the type and number of the quantum logic gate operations.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Kong is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kong into the combined teachings of Woerner and Gambetta to include “an automatic calibration service module, configured for automatically testing and calibrating the quantum chip.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide reliable control signals to quantum bits of a quantum chip to achieve quantum chip tests and quantum computing (Kong, paragraph [0004]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woerner in view of Gambetta as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0165070 (hereinafter “Persikov”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to generating quantum computing tasks based on a topological structure of a quantum computing chip (specification, paragraph [0008]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Persikov is generally directed to dynamically ranking and scheduling monitoring tasks (Persikov, Abstract). Thus, Persikov is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Woerner discloses “quantum computing tasks,” but the combination of Woerner and Gambetta does not explicitly disclose:
a quantum computing task scheduling-managing service module configured for determining a quantum computing task to be assigned according to priorities of the quantum computing tasks, wherein the priorities are determined based on waiting time and executing time of the quantum computing tasks.
However, Persikov discloses:
a computing task scheduling-managing service module configured for determining a computing task to be assigned according to priorities of computing tasks, wherein the priorities are determined based on waiting time and executing time of the computing tasks (paragraph [0018], “Anti-starvation calculations can serve to gradually increase a priority of a task based on its waiting time (e.g., with more delay, a given monitoring task can be assigned a higher priority).”; paragraph [0036], “The resulting score can influence the priority of the monitoring task ranking. For example, a score where monitoring tasks have a value closer to 1 can indicate that the monitoring tasks have a higher priority. Monitoring tasks with a higher priority can receive a higher updated ranking corresponding to an earlier time of execution for the particular monitoring task.”; paragraph [0042], “An assigning module 330 can include MRI that when executed by the processing resource 322 can, for example, assign an initial ranking for each of the number of monitoring tasks.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Persikov is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Persikov into the combined teachings of Woerner and Gambetta to include “a quantum computing task scheduling-managing service module configured for determining a quantum computing task to be assigned according to priorities of the quantum computing tasks, wherein the priorities are determined based on waiting time and executing time of the quantum computing tasks.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose which quantum computing tasks to execute and which quantum computing tasks to postpone (Persikov, paragraph [0001]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim under 35 U.S.C. 103, but would be allowable over the cited prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and overcome any corresponding objections and/or rejections set forth hereinabove.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2020/0272926 (hereinafter “Chaplin”) discloses optimizing quantum circuits built by classical processes.
US 2021/0173660 (hereinafter “Hogaboam”) discloses parallel quantum computations.
US 2021/0216898 (hereinafter “Huffman”) discloses formulating efficient visual representation of qubit stochastic error(s) and analyzing impact on performance of a quantum circuit.
US 2021/0334081 (hereinafter “Chong”) discloses compiling aggregated instructions for quantum computers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191