DETAILED 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 .
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2026 and 10/06/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chaplin et al. (Chaplin), US Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/02729926 A1.
As to independent claim 1, Chaplin discloses a method for contextually calibrating quantum hardware (Title: quantum circuit optimization), the method comprising:
selecting or identifying one or more contextual calibrations to minimize a contextual cost function of a quantum circuit (paragraphs [0027]-[0029], [0032]: find sub-lists of gates, i.e., patterns in the main circuit whose operation may be improved); and
calibrating said quantum hardware to perform an execution of said quantum circuit using said selected or said identified one or more contextual calibrations (paragraph [0032]: replacing the patterns with a set of gates that achieve better physical result, i.e., with reduced quantum cost. These search-and-replace are presentations of a previously generated template identity, i.e., a template).
As to dependent claim 2, Chaplin discloses determining whether said quantum hardware has been previously contextually calibrated defined by said contextual cost function (paragraph [0032]).
As to dependent claim 3, Chaplin discloses representing said quantum circuit as a first directed acyclic graph (paragraph [0037]).
As to dependent claim 4, Chaplin discloses comparing said first directed acyclic graph with a plurality of directed acyclic graphs (paragraphs [0037]-[0041]); and
identifying said one or more contextual calibrations associated with a second directed acyclic graph of said plurality of directed acyclic graphs in response to said first directed acyclic graph matching said second directed acyclic graph (paragraphs [0037]-[0041], [0043])).
As to dependent claim 5, Chaplin discloses determining said one or more contextual calibrations to minimize said contextual cost function of said quantum circuit in response to said quantum hardware not previously been contextually calibrated (paragraph [0040]).
As to dependent claim 6, Chaplin discloses measuring a fidelity for a layer of quantum gates of said quantum circuit (paragraph [0045]); and measuring individual quantum gate fidelities for quantum gates located in said layer of quantum gates of said quantum circuit (paragraphs [0042]-[0043]).
As to dependent claim 7, Chaplin discloses selecting said one or more contextual calibrations to calibrate said layer of quantum gates of said quantum circuit in response to a difference between said measured individual quantum gate fidelities for quantum gates located in said layer of quantum gates of said quantum circuit and said measured fidelity for said layer of quantum gates of said quantum circuit exceeding a threshold value (paragraphs [0070], [0078]).
As to dependent claim 9, Chaplin discloses wherein said selected or said identified one or more contextual calibrations comprise one or more of the following in the group consisting of: tuning amplitude, tuning frequency duration, tuning envelopes, recalibrating error correction for specific qubits, and recalibrating a measurement discriminator (paragraph [0046]).
Claims 10-16 and 18-24 are product and system claims, respectively. Claims 10-16 and 18-24 contain similar limitations of claims 1-7. Therefore, claims 10-16 and 18-24 are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 8, 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaplin as applied to claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18-24 above, and further in view of Flammia, US Patent No. US 12,488,170 B1.
As to dependent claim 8, Chaplin discloses wherein an increase in said fidelity for said layer of quantum gates of said quantum circuit is associated with a decrease in said contextual cost function (paragraph [0028]). Chaplin, however, does not disclose wherein said fidelity for said layer of quantum gates of said quantum circuit is measured by randomly sampling eigenstates of Pauli operators measuring said sampled eigenstates of Pauli operators,.
In the same field of endeavor, Flammia discloses a method of estimating noise for individual gates of a quantum circuit uses averaged circuit eigenvalue sampling to determine an overall eigenvalue for the circuit (Abstract). Flammia further discloses Pauli channels for a stochastic model are determined for gates of a quantum circuit (col. 4, lines 40-51). Flammia further discloses a Pauli twirl is applied to the quantum gates such that the quantum gates are only subject to noise which is in one of the Pauli channels (col. 4, lines 52-55). Flammia further discloses respective eigenstates are applied to the Pauli channels corresponding to the respective quantum gates via Pauli operators of selected ones of the Pauli channels corresponding to the respective quantum gates (col. 4, line 56 – col. 5, line 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Chaplin to include wherein said fidelity for said layer of quantum gates of said quantum circuit is measured by randomly sampling eigenstates of Pauli operators measuring said sampled eigenstates of Pauli operators, as taught by Flammia for the purpose of determining an overall eigenvalue for the circuit.
Claims 17 and 25 are product and system claims, respectively. Claims 17 and 25 contain similar limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claims 17 and 25 are rejected under the same rational.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to CHAU T NGUYEN at telephone number (571)272-4092. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8am to 5pm (PT).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cesar Paula, can be reached at telephone number 5712724128. 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 and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHAU T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145
Prosecution Insights