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 .
This action is in response to the original filing of 6/30/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and have considered below
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 10-11, 14-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonciulea et al. (US 12,530,607 B1) in view of Elliott et al. (US 2022/0353109 A1).
Claim 1. Gonciulea discloses a method, comprising:
detecting a quantum gate pattern in a quantum circuit, a quantum circuit is comprised of quantum logic gates (C 3 L 53-57) a parameterized quantum circuit design is obtained (C 11 L 12-24) from a set of pre-determined quantum circuit designs (C 11 43-48) the quantum circuit is generated by providing a list of specific quantum gates acting on a specific number of quantum states (e.g. qubits), providing parameters upon which the quantum gates depend (C 12 L 24-33) the quantum circuit design approximates the normal distribution by applying a series of quantum gates (C 16 L 39-43);
analyzing the quantum gate pattern, calculating a score for a quantum design (C 11 L 53-58);
based on the analyzing, generating a set of rules, evaluating the fitness of potential quantum circuit design, selecting a subset of the most fit potential quantum circuit designs, return to step (ii) with the new population and repeating until a pre-determined level of fitness is achieved (C 17 L 6-14), and
generating a modified quantum gate pattern that comprises a modification of the quantum gate pattern, modifying the potential quantum circuit designs from the subset of the most fit potential quantum circuit designs to create a new population. (C 17 L 3-12);
using the rules … to generate a suggestion concerning modification of the quantum circuit, the output of multiple generated quantum circuits may be presented to allow a user to select a preferred quantum circuit (P 15 C 51-53) an automated process for allowing users to gain access to a quantum circuit that best matches the problem they wish to solve, eliminating cases where the wrong quantum circuit is chosen for a particular application (C 17 L 20-25) a user provides an input that is interpreted to form a set of input attributes, and then a set of selection criteria is generated to match the user’s needs, including one or more quantum circuit designs (C 17 L 39-48).
Gonciulea does not disclose based on the modified quantum gate pattern, generating a set of transpilation output; using the rules and the transpilation output metrics to generate a suggestion concerning modification of the quantum circuit metrics, as disclosed in the claims. However, Gonciulea discloses transpiling the quantum circuit … the transpilation algorithm may use the generated quantum circuit and the set of attributes about the host machine on which the generated quantum circuit will be executed to transpile the circuit for the host device … the transpilation requires information about the attributes of a host device (C 14 L 1-5, L 14-17, L 29-30). That is, while Gonciulea discloses that attributes of the host device are used, along with a user selected quantum circuit design, to transpile the quantum circuit, Gonciulea does not disclose that the pre-determined level of fitness, analogous to the claimed rules, and transpilation output metrics, are used to generate a suggestion concerning modification of the quantum circuit metrics. However, in the same field of invention, Elliott discloses transpiled third-party content may be tested internally by the enterprise organization in a user acceptance environment (P 0059, 0103) a determination is made whether or not computer code achieves a threshold performance level, then the transpiled code is stored (P 0063) transpiled code that does not meet the required performance threshold is removed (P 0067) based on testing and/or logging, one or more of third-party tags are determined that do not meet threshold testing or performance levels (P 0087). Because transpilation metrics are not defined, then the evaluation of transpiled code against performance thresholds in Elliott can be considered a transpilation output metric. Therefore, considering the teachings of Gonciulea and Elliott, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine based on the modified quantum gate pattern, generating a set of transpilation output; using the rules and the transpilation output metrics to generate a suggestion concerning modification of the quantum circuit metrics with the teachings of Gonciulea with the motivation to provide an implementation that overcomes technological challenges and to provide a more efficient system of hosting and testing code (P 0007).
Claim 4. Gonciulea and Elliott disclose the method as recited in claim 1, Gonciulea discloses it may be impossible to realize a quantum circuit that meets all of the conditions of the set of input attributes, and, in such cases, the system may generate the set of selection criteria that best satisfies the input attributes (C 10 L 18-22) the quantum circuit designs from the pool may be evaluated based on the ability of each respective quantum circuit design to meet the set of quantum circuit selection criteria (C 10 L 44-47) the user may, after reviewing the generated quantum circuit output, provide feedback to the system to label the generated quantum circuit as acceptable or not acceptable (C 14 L 58-61) any quantum circuit designs with a score above the threshold score may then be chosen (C 15 L 16-17) Elliott discloses transpiled third-party content may be tested internally by the enterprise organization in a user acceptance environment (P 0059, 0103) a determination is made whether or not computer code achieves a threshold performance level, then the transpiled code is stored (P 0063) transpiled code that does not meet the required performance threshold is removed (P 0067) based on testing and/or logging, one or more of third-party tags are determined that do not meet threshold testing or performance levels (P 0087). Therefore, considering the teachings of Gonciulea and Elliott, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein after the suggestion is implemented in the quantum circuit, a transpilation performance concerning the quantum circuit is improved relative to a transpilation performance observed or expected if the suggestion had not been implemented with the teachings of Gonciulea and Elliott with the motivation to provide an implementation that overcomes technological challenges and to provide a more efficient system of hosting and testing code (P 0007).
Claim 5. Gonciulea and Elliott disclose the method as recited in claim 1, and Gonciulea discloses a quantum circuit is comprised of quantum logic gates (C 3 L 53-57) a parameterized quantum circuit design is obtained (C 11 L 12-24) from a set of pre-determined quantum circuit designs (C 11 43-48) the quantum circuit is generated by providing a list of specific quantum gates acting on a specific number of quantum states (e.g. qubits), providing parameters upon which the quantum gates depend (C 12 L 24-33) the quantum circuit design approximates the normal distribution by applying a series of quantum gates (C 16 L 39-43)and Gonciulea further discloses transpiling the quantum circuit … the transpilation algorithm may use the generated quantum circuit and the set of attributes about the host machine on which the generated quantum circuit will be executed to transpile the circuit for the host device … the transpilation requires information about the attributes of a host device (C 14 L 1-5, L 14-17, L 29-30) and Elliott discloses transpiled third-party content may be tested internally by the enterprise organization in a user acceptance environment (P 0059, 0103) a determination is made whether or not computer code achieves a threshold performance level, then the transpiled code is stored (P 0063) transpiled code that does not meet the required performance threshold is removed (P 0067) based on testing and/or logging, one or more of third-party tags are determined that do not meet threshold testing or performance levels (P 0087). Therefore, considering the teachings of Gonciulea and Elliott, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein set of transpilation output metrics is generated based in part on one or more features extracted from the modified quantum gate pattern with the teachings of Gonciulea and Elliott with the motivation to provide an implementation that overcomes technological challenges and to provide a more efficient system of hosting and testing code (P 0007).
Claim 6. Gonciulea and Elliott disclose the method as recited in claim 1, and Gonciulea discloses wherein the quantum gate pattern is a subset of the quantum circuit, a quantum circuit comprises a series of instructions executed on a quantum computer or simulated quantum computer, performed on qubits, logic gates, initializations and measurements, specifying the exact number of operations on an exact number of qubits, or be based on one parameters (C 3 L 48-61) a quantum circuit is defined based on one or more parameters, number of qubits, other parameters (C 11 L 24-26) a quantum circuit is generated by (i) providing a list of specific quantum gates acting on a specific number of quantum states (e.g. qubits), (ii) providing parameters upon which the quantum gates depend, and (iii) providing other types of information that may be used to configure general purpose quantum computing hardware into a special purpose quantum hardware (C 12 L 27-37).
Claim 7. Gonciulea and Elliott disclose the method as recited in claim 1, and Gonciulea discloses wherein one of the rules specifies how the quantum gate pattern may be modified and still conform with an established restriction, (ii) evaluating the fitness of potential quantum circuit design, selecting a subset of the most fit potential quantum circuit designs, modifying potential quantum circuit designs from the subset of the mot fit potential quantum designs to create a new population, return to step (ii) with the new population and repeating until a pre-determined level of fitness is achieved (C 17 L 6-14) a user defines the purpose of a quantum circuit (approximate a normal distribution) by inputting requirements of the circuit in textual form (prepare a quantum state every 15 minutes based on a dataset found at a specified network address, with moderate accuracy, a quantum computer host at a remote site where the state should be prepared), as set of input attributes are produced to meet the defined purpose and requirements, and a set of quantum circuit designs are generated (designs A, B and C) (C 17 L 39 – C 18 L 10). A set of input attributes are generated from the user provided purpose and requirement, but the input attributes do not represent the quantum circuit design parameters themselves. From the generated input attributes, designs are generated that may or may not achieve the purpose and requirements of the desired quantum circuit. Since the generated input attributes specify ranges, any generated circuit designs may be modified to achieve the user specified purpose and requirements of the circuit.
Claim 10. Gonciulea and Elliott disclose the method as recited in claim 1, and Gonciulea discloses the evaluation of each quantum circuit design may take into account the complexity of the quantum circuit design (C 10 L 47-49) and Elliott discloses transpiled third-party content may be tested internally by the enterprise organization in a user acceptance environment (P 0059, 0103) a determination is made whether or not computer code achieves a threshold performance level, then the transpiled code is stored (P 0063) transpiled code that does not meet the required performance threshold is removed (P 0067) based on testing and/or logging, one or more of third-party tags are determined that do not meet threshold testing or performance levels (P 0087). Therefore, considering the teachings of Gonciulea and Elliott, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein the suggestion concerns a transpilation performance and/or a structure of the modified quantum gate pattern with the teachings of Gonciulea and Elliott with the motivation to provide an implementation that overcomes technological challenges and to provide a more efficient system of hosting and testing code (P 0007).
Claim(s) 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20 is/are directed to non-transitory storage medium claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2-3, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonciulea et al. (US 12,530,607 B1) in view of Elliott et al. (US 2022/0353109 A1) and further in view of Berkhin et al. (US 2017/0208609 A1).
Claim 2. Gonciulea and Elliott disclose the method as recited in claim 1, but Gonciulea does not disclose wherein in an online mode, the suggestion is provided to a developer as the quantum circuit is being constructed, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Berkhin discloses providing improved online explore-exploit policies for query auto-completion (P 0016) using an auto-completion service (P 0043) in an online environment (P 0051). Therefore, considering the teachings of Gonciulea, Elliott and Berkhin, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein in an online mode, the suggestion is provided to a developer as the quantum circuit is being constructed with the teachings of Gonciulea and Elliott with the motivation to provide improved online explore-exploit policies (Berkhin: P 0016) for an online implementation of Conciulea transpilation system.
Claim 3. Gonciulea and Elliott disclose the method as recited in claim 1, but Gonciulea does not disclose wherein in an offline mode, a function is triggered that generates a group that contains all suggestions pertaining to modification of the quantum circuit, and the suggestion is included in the group, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Berkhin discloses in a scaled-down offline implementation of the online query system (P 0053) displays suggestions to a user from a table of logs for queries for the original system (P 0054) for example 3 suggestions of 5 from the original online query (P 0055, 0056). Therefore, considering the teachings of Gonciulea, Elliott and Berkhin, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein in an offline mode, a function is triggered that generates a group that contains all suggestions pertaining to modification of the quantum circuit, and the suggestion is included in the group with the teachings of Gonciulea and Elliott with the motivation to provide improved online explore-exploit policies (Berkhin: P 0016) for an online implementation of Conciulea transpilation system.
Claim(s) 12, 13 is/are directed to non-transitory storage medium claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 2, 3 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Claim(s) 8-9, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonciulea et al. (US 12,530,607 B1) in view of Elliott et al. (US 2022/0353109 A1) and further in view of Xiang et al. (US 2010/0077372 A1).
Claim 8. Gonciulea and Elliott disclose the method as recited in claim 1, but Gonciulea does not disclose wherein the modified quantum gate pattern comprises a simplification of the quantum gate pattern, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Xiang discloses a simplified circuit mode is derived from simulations performed prior to the design generation (P 0012). Therefore, considering the teachings of Gonciulea, Elliott and Xiang, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein in an offline mode, a function is triggered that generates a group that contains all suggestions pertaining to modification of the quantum circuit, and the suggestion is included in the group with the teachings of Gonciulea and Elliott with the motivation to provide improved online explore-exploit policies (Berkhin: P 0016) to reduce time to complete when taking into account the full circuit information considering long range impacts (Xiang: P 0009).
Claim 9. Gonciulea and Elliott disclose the method as recited in claim 1, but Gonciulea does not disclose wherein the transpilation output metrics comprise a prediction as to a transpilation outcome expected from transpilation of the modified quantum gate pattern, as disclosed in the claims. However, in the same field of invention, Xiang discloses a simplified circuit mode is derived from simulations performed prior to the design generation and used to predict circuit performance and adjusting the design of the circuit in dependence on the performance prediction (P 0012). Therefore, considering the teachings of Gonciulea, Elliott and Xiang, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to combine wherein the transpilation output metrics comprise a prediction as to a transpilation outcome expected from transpilation of the modified quantum gate pattern with the teachings of Gonciulea and Elliott with the motivation to provide improved online explore-exploit policies (Berkhin: P 0016) to reduce time to complete when taking into account the full circuit information considering long range impacts (Xiang: P 0009).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are directed to non-transitory storage medium claim(s) similar to the method claim(s) of Claim(s) 8-9 and is/are rejected with the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to JOHN M HEFFINGTON at telephone number (571)270-1696.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M HEFFINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1696. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:30 am to 5:30 pm Eastern.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar B Paula, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4128. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/J.M.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2145 6/20/2026
/CHAU T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights