CTNF 18/401,103 CTNF 100125 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-4, 7-10, 13, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Zhang “Scalable fast benchmarking for individual quantum gates with local twirling” (published 03/19/2022) . Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches: A method, comprising: preparing, by one or more quantum computing devices, one or more qubits in a selected initial state of a set of initial states (see pg. 4, Box 1, step 1: Sample a gate sequence (C,P(1),P(2),··· ,P(2m)), where C and P^(i)(1 ≤ i ≤ 2m) are sampled uniformly at random from the local groups, C_1^( ⊗ n), Pn, respectively. And step 2: Initialize the state |ψ> = |0>^( ⊗ n) and apply the gate sequence as shown in Fig. 1(b). Also see pg. 3, fig. 1(b): a plurality of qubits prepared in state |0> are further prepared into selected initial states via Clifford gates.) ; implementing, by the one or more quantum computing devices, a first quantum circuit for n repetitions on the one or more qubits, the first quantum circuit comprising one or more quantum gates; (see pg. 3, fig. 1B, the light blue box titled “sequences of m gate layers” is considered to be a first circuit, comprising quantum gates such as random pauli gates, target gate U and inverse gate U^-1. Each of the m layers is considered to be one of the n repetitions. For further description, please see pg. 4, Box 1, step 2.) implementing, by the one or more quantum computing devices, a second quantum circuit to map a state of the one or more qubits towards a target state, the second quantum circuit based on a unitary associated with the first quantum circuit; (see pg. 3, fig 1B, U_inv with C_1-n^-1 considered to be the second quantum circuit, which maps a state of the qubits to resultant state (initial state), considered to be a target state. See fig. 1B, description: The yellow boxes (U_inv) denote the inverse gate for the m inner gate layers in the light blue box.) The second quantum circuit uses the inverse of the unitary of the first quantum circuit, and is therefore considered to be based on a unitary associated with the first quantum circuit. performing, by the one or more quantum computing devices, a measurement of the one or more qubits; (see pg. 4, Box 1, Step 3: Measure in Z^( ⊗ n) basis and compute the survival probability for each measurement observable Q_k ∈ {I,Z}^( ⊗ n), f_k(m, S_fb) = Tr[Q_k S_fb (ρψ)], where ρψ is the noisy preparation of the initial state |ψ. And see fig. 3B, qubits are measured at Z_1, Z_2,… Z_n). determining, by the one or more quantum computing devices, a fidelity between the first quantum circuit and the unitary based at least in part on the measurement of the one or more qubits. (see pg. 4, Box 1, Steps 4-6. Step 6: estimate the FB (fast benchmarking) fidelity.) This is based at least in part on the measurement of qubits in step 3. Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. Zhang further teaches: wherein implementing the first quantum circuit comprises implementing one or more contextual quantum gates in temporal proximity to the first quantum circuit. (see fig. 3B: Clifford gates C_1, C_2, C_n are performed before first quantum circuit, U_inv inverse quantum gate is performed after the first quantum circuit. Any of these gates could be interpreted as contextual quantum gates in temporal proximity to the first quantum circuit.) Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. Zhang further teaches: wherein the set of initial states approximates a Haar random state. (see pg. 4, Box 1, step 1: Sample a gate sequence (C,P(1),P(2),··· ,P(2m)), where C and P(i)(1 ≤ i ≤ 2m) are sampled uniformly at random from the local groups, C_1^( ⊗ n) ,Pn, respectively.) These Clifford gates prepare the qubits in their initial states, the uniform, random sampling of Clifford gates (and thus uniform, random sampling of the states) shares many properties in common with Haar randomness. Therefore, the states generated by Clifford gates that have been sampled uniformly at random are considered to “approximate” a Haar random state. Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. Zhang further teaches: wherein determining the fidelity comprises averaging a probability of measuring the target state over the set of initial states. (see pg. 4, Box 1, steps 3: Measure in Z^( ⊗ n) basis and compute the survival probability for each measurement observable Q_k ∈ {I,Z}^( ⊗ n), f_k(m, S_fb) = Tr[Q_k S_fb (ρψ)], where ρψ is the noisy preparation of the initial state |ψ. And see step 4: Repeat for a sufficient number of sequences and estimate the average value.) Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. Zhang further teaches: wherein the one or more qubits comprise two qubits, and the target state is 00. (see fig. 3B, effectively disclosing an embodiment where n=2 and there are 2 qubits. The second quantum circuit applies the U_inv (the inverse of the m gate layers), and C_n^-1 (the inverse of state initializing Clifford gate). This means that the target state per qubit is |0>. In the embodiment where there are 2 qubits, it is obvious that the target state would be |00>, representing that each of the two qubits are in state |0>.) Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. Zhang further teaches: wherein implementing, by the one or more quantum computing devices, a second quantum circuit to map a state of the one or more qubits towards a target state comprises implementing, by the one or more quantum computing devices, the second quantum circuit to map the state of the one or more qubits towards the target state in a single operation. (see fig. 3B, second circuit is considered to be the combination of U_inv and C_1-n^-1. The combination of these two gates is considered to be a single operation, mapping the state of the qubits toward the target state.) Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. Zhang further teaches: wherein the method comprises repeating the method of claim 1 for a plurality of different values of n to generate fidelity data across the different values of n. (see pg. 4, Box 1, step 5: Repeat for different m. Also see pg. 3, fig. 1B: sequences of m gate layers). Regarding claim 13, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. Zhang further teaches: Wherein the one or more quantum gates of the first quantum circuit comprises a composite quantum gate. (see fig. 1B: gate U acts on multiple qubits, and is therefore considered to be a composite quantum gate.) Claims 15, 18, and 19 correspond to claims 1, 3, and 1 (respectively) and are rejected accordingly . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Satzinger (WO 2020/263301 A1) . Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose: wherein implementing the first quantum circuit comprises implementing one or more contextual quantum gates on one or more contextual qubits in spatial proximity to the one or more qubits. In the analogous art of quantum benchmarking, Satzinger teaches: wherein implementing the first quantum circuit comprises implementing one or more contextual quantum gates on one or more contextual qubits in spatial proximity to the one or more qubits. (see fig. 2B, depicting multiple benchmarking circuits that all implement contextual quantum gates on contextual qubits in spatial proximity to other qubits.) The gate and the qubits are considered contextual because they perform their functions with regard to a spatial proximity context. Satzinger shows that it is well known in the general state of the art to apply quantum gates on qubits in spatial proximity to each other in quantum benchmarking systems. Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the contextual two-qubit gate operating on qubits in spatial proximity with each other (Satzinger) into the fast benchmarking system (Zhang), to allow for benefits such as: reduced computational cost and better scaling (Satzinger, para. 51). Regarding claim 14, Zhang teaches the method of claim 1. However, Zhang does not explicitly teach: wherein the method comprises modifying one or more control signals of the quantum computing system based at least in part on the fidelity. Satzinger teaches: wherein the method comprises modifying one or more control signals of the quantum computing system based at least in part on the fidelity. (para. 18: benchmarking results (fidelity) can be used to adjust control models used to implement quantum gates.) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate using the resultant fidelity from benchmarking to adjust control signals of the quantum system (Satzinger) into the fast benchmarking system (Zhang), to allow for benefits such as: reduced drift sensitivity and increased accuracy (Satzinger, para. 18). Claims 16, 17, and 20 correspond to claims 2, 14, and 14 (respectively), and are rejected accordingly . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Sosa-Martinez (“Experimental Study of Optimal Measurements for Quantum State Tomography”, published 10/13/2017) . Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the method of claim 4. However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose: Wherein the set of initial states is associated with a 2-design. In the analogous art of quantum computing, Sosa-Martinez teaches: Wherein the set of initial states is associated with a 2-design. (see pg. 1, RHC, para. 2: A fully IC POVM (informationally complete positive-operator valued measure) allows one to identify an arbitrary unknown density matrix from measurement data (in the absence of noise and errors). The most efficient fully IC POVM is the SIC (symmetric, informationally complete) POVM.) It is well known that a SIC POVM is a 2-design. Sosa-Martinez shows that using states associated with SIC POVMs are well known in the art for applications requiring state measurement (such as quantum state tomography and quantum benchmarking). Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate preparing qubits into initial states associated with a SIC POVM (Sosa-Martinez) into the fast benchmarking system (Zhang), to allow for benefits such as: accuracy and reliability even in the presence of errors (Sosa-Martinez, abstract), and efficiency (Sosa-Martinez, pg.1, RHC, para. 2). Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zhang and Sosa-Martinez teaches the method of claim 5. Sosa-Martinez further teaches: wherein the 2-design is a symmetric, informationally complete, positive operator-valued measure.. (see pg. 1, RHC, para. 2: A fully IC POVM (informationally complete positive-operator valued measure) allows one to identify an arbitrary unknown density matrix from measurement data (in the absence of noise and errors). The most efficient fully IC POVM is the SIC (symmetric, informationally complete) POVM.) It is well known that a SIC POVM is a 2-design. Sosa-Martinez shows that using states associated with SIC POVMs are well known in the art for applications requiring state measurement (such as quantum state tomography and quantum benchmarking). Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate preparing qubits into initial states associated with a SIC POVM (Sosa-Martinez) into the fast benchmarking system (Zhang), to allow for benefits such as: accuracy and reliability even in the presence of errors (Sosa-Martinez, abstract), and efficiency (Sosa-Martinez, pg.1, RHC, para. 2) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Henry (“Signatures of incoherence in a quantum information processor”, published 08/21/2007) . Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches the method of claim 10. However Zhang does not explicitly teach: wherein the method comprises extracting coherent error information from the fidelity data. In the analogous art of quantum computing, Henry teaches: wherein the method comprises extracting coherent error information from the fidelity data. (see abstract: Here we explore incoherence during an entangling operation, such as is relevant in quantum information processing. As expected, it is more difficult to separate incoherence and decoherence over such processes. However, by studying the fidelity decay under a cyclic entangling map we are able to identify distinctive experimental signatures of incoherence. And see pg. 5, para. 3 – pg. 6, para. 1: The possibility of fully refocusing errors in the incoherent case is the essential difference between decoherent and incoherent dynamics, and this difference is what leads to observable signatures of incoherence. There is also a third type of noise that is often discussed for QIPs: coherent noise causes non-ideal unitary errors that are uniform over the ensemble and do not cause a loss of purity in the individual ensemble members or in the ensemble-averaged state. Like incoherence, coherent noise can cause recurrences in fidelity decay. However, there is little motivation to distinguish these two noise processes in the setting of quantum information processing since they both can be treated with the same techniques, which do not require access to a larger Hilbert space.) Henry treats incoherent and coherent errors as the same because they are both errors that are reversible, whereas decoherent errors are irreversible. The instant application’s specification, para. 19 describes “Coherent errors are errors that apply a reversible (but potentially unknown) transformation. Incoherent errors are errors that cause decoherence of the quantum state and are irreversible.” Therefore, the coherent/incoherent (reversible) errors of Henry are equivalent to the coherent (reversible) errors of the instant application, and the decoherent (irreversible) errors of Henry are equivalent to the incoherent (irreversible) errors of the instant application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the separation of reversible and irreversible error information from fidelity data (Henry) into the fast benchmarking system (Zhang) to allow for benefits such as: improved ability to choose an effective error correction scheme (Henry, pg. 2, para. 1). Regarding claim 12, Zhang teaches the method of claim 10. However Zhang does not explicitly teach: wherein the method comprises extracting incoherent error information from the fidelity data. In the analogous art of quantum computing, Henry teaches: wherein the method comprises extracting incoherent error information from the fidelity data. (see abstract: Here we explore incoherence during an entangling operation, such as is relevant in quantum information processing. As expected, it is more difficult to separate incoherence and decoherence over such processes. However, by studying the fidelity decay under a cyclic entangling map we are able to identify distinctive experimental signatures of incoherence. And see pg. 5, para. 3 – pg. 6, para. 1: The possibility of fully refocusing errors in the incoherent case is the essential difference between decoherent and incoherent dynamics, and this difference is what leads to observable signatures of incoherence. There is also a third type of noise that is often discussed for QIPs: coherent noise causes non-ideal unitary errors that are uniform over the ensemble and do not cause a loss of purity in the individual ensemble members or in the ensemble-averaged state. Like incoherence, coherent noise can cause recurrences in fidelity decay. However, there is little motivation to distinguish these two noise processes in the setting of quantum information processing since they both can be treated with the same techniques, which do not require access to a larger Hilbert space.) Henry treats incoherent and coherent errors as the same because they are both errors that are reversible, whereas decoherent errors are irreversible. The instant application’s specification, para. 19 describes “Coherent errors are errors that apply a reversible (but potentially unknown) transformation. Incoherent errors are errors that cause decoherence of the quantum state and are irreversible.” Therefore, the coherent/incoherent (reversible) errors of Henry are equivalent to the coherent (reversible) errors of the instant application, and the decoherent (irreversible) errors of Henry are equivalent to the incoherent (irreversible) errors of the instant application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the separation of reversible and irreversible error information from fidelity data (Henry) into the fast benchmarking system (Zhang) to allow for benefits such as: improved ability to choose an effective error correction scheme (Henry, pg. 2, para. 1). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK K BARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0431. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5, F 8-4 EST. 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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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. /JACK KENSINGTON BARNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2111 /MARK D FEATHERSTONE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/401,103 Page 2 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/401,103 Page 3 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/401,103 Page 4 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/401,103 Page 5 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/401,103 Page 6 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/401,103 Page 7 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/401,103 Page 8 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/401,103 Page 9 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/401,103 Page 10 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/401,103 Page 11 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/401,103 Page 12 Art Unit: 2111 Application/Control Number: 18/401,103 Page 13 Art Unit: 2111
Prosecution Insights