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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 01/25/2024 are accepted.
Specification
The specification filed on 01/25/2024 is accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner has considered the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/25/2024 and 06/12/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, line 1, limitation “wherein the wherein the” should read “wherein the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 9-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno et al. (Quantum-Selected Configuration Interaction: classical diagonalization of Hamiltonians in subspaces selected by quantum computers – Applicant provided NPL in the IDS) in view of Smith et al. (US Pub. 2022/0269975).
As per claim 1, Kanno teaches a device [page 5, Fig. 1, Quantum computer and Classical computer], comprising:
a self-consistent configuration recovery (SCR) component configured to:
identify a noisy quantum configuration in a series of quantum configurations associated with a ground state of a system [page 5, Fig. 1, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, “Physical noise can cause a contamination of symmetry sectors: for an input state with fixed (Ne, Sz), sampling on a noisy device can result in electron configurations with unwanted values of (Ne, Sz), due to the bit-flip noise or readout error. Nevertheless, one can mitigate such errors by post-selecting the sampling outcome according to the conserved quantities, as described above”, “When selecting the configurations, one may post-select the configurations by using conserved quantities such as the electron number or spin Sz to mitigate the errors”];
determine a first ground state of the system, wherein the determination includes generating a first Hamiltonian generated from the series of quantum configurations including the first noiseless quantum configuration [page 5, Figs. 1-2, Col. 1, discloses Hamiltonian generation and diagonalization and ground-state, “One then diagonalizes the Hamiltonian in the post-selected subspace … The first algorithm, which we call the single diagonalization scheme, constructs a common subspace for both ground and excited states of interest, and performs the diagonalization in the subspace to simultaneously obtain all the desired eigenstates and energies. On the other hand, the second algorithm, dubbed as the sequential diagonalization scheme, constructs multiple subspaces, each tailored for each energy eigenstate, and sequentially diagonalizes the Hamiltonian in each subspace. Both of the algorithms contain the algorithm specific to the ground state”].
Kanno does not teach
a memory operatively coupled to the system, wherein the memory stores computer executable components; and
a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise:
identify a first noisy quantum configuration (emphasis added);
process the first noisy quantum configuration to remove an effect of noise on the first noisy quantum configuration, wherein processing of the first noisy quantum configuration generates a first noiseless quantum configuration;
Smith teaches
a memory operatively coupled to the system, wherein the memory stores computer executable components [Fig. 2, paragraph 0059, “the quantum controller 20 may include a quantum control circuit 210, a measurement circuit 220, an error analyzer 230 … a memory, for driving the quantum controller 20, or other general-purpose constituent elements”]; and
a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise [Fig. 2, paragraphs 0059-0060, “the quantum controller 20 may include a quantum control circuit 210, a measurement circuit 220, an error analyzer 230 … a memory, for driving the quantum controller 20, or other general-purpose constituent elements … The quantum control circuit 210 may include both a general-purposed or special-purposed processor for executing quantum program codes and a dedicated circuit for controlling the multi-qubit”]:
identify a first noisy quantum configuration [Figs. 8A and 8B show bit-flips are performed on configurations/strings 01…01 and 0010 (each can be interpreted as a first noisy quantum configuration/string) to generate noiseless configurations/strings |11…00> and |11…00> respectively];
process the first noisy quantum configuration to remove an effect of noise on the first noisy quantum configuration, wherein processing of the first noisy quantum configuration generates a first noiseless quantum configuration [paragraph 0063, “The error analyzer 230 may generate an error model for error correction considering a measurement error generated during the measurement of qubits. Noise, an example of such measurement error, is one of the major factors that may reduce the accuracy of quantum operation”; paragraph 0101, “The simulation data of FIG. 10 is data about quantum measurement error reduction using a scheme according to the related art such as full mitigation or a tensor product noise model (TPN) and a scheme according to the present embodiment using a bit-flip such as bit-flip or TPN+bit-flip. The horizontal axis of data shows the number of measurements, and the vertical axis shows the fidelity of a measured response matrix. The closer the fidelity of the matrix to 1, the more the measurement error is removed”; paragraph 0085-0088, “FIGS. 8A and 8B illustrate bit-flips performed on the measured qubit states … the quantum controller 20 may perform a bit-flip on a qubit state measured from at least one qubit of the entire n qubits … FIG. 8A illustrates an example in which "qubit 1" and "qubit n" of n qubits are selected to perform a bit-flip, and FIG. 8B illustrates an example in which "qubit 2" and "qubit n-1" of n qubits are selected to perform a bit-flip … when a bit-flip is arbitrarily performed on the measured qubit state, correlations by entanglement between qubits or error bias of qubit states are removed”; Figs. 8A and 8B show bit-flips are performed on configurations/strings 01…01 and 0010 to generate noiseless configurations/strings |11…00> and |11…00> respectively];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hybrid quantum classical algorithms for calculating the ground- and excited-state energies of many-electron Hamiltonians on noisy quantum devices of Kanno to include identifying a first noisy quantum configuration, and processing the noisy quantum configurations to remove an effect of noise on the noisy quantum configurations, wherein processing of the noisy quantum configuration generates the noiseless quantum configurations of Smith. Doing so would help acquiring an averaged probability of the measurement errors to reduce noise and lowers overall uncertainty (Smith, 0019).
As per claim 2, Kanno and Smith teach the device of claim 1.
Smith further teaches
the first noisy quantum configuration is generated in a quantum computer configured to represent the system [Fig. 1, paragraphs 0049-0051, “quantum system 1 may include a quantum processor 10 and a quantum controller 20. The quantum processor 10 may include a multi-qubit 100 including a first qubit 110-1, a second qubit 110-2, ..., and an n-th qubit 110-n, where n is a natural number … The quantum system 1 is a computing system using the multi-qubit 100 as a unit element, or the information itself, capable of storing information … the quantum system 1 may be implemented by using a superconductive quantum computer”, wherein, Figs. 8A and 8B show configurations/strings 01…01 and 0010 (each can be interpreted as a first noisy quantum configuration/string) which represent “qubit 1” to “qubit n”, therefore, it can be seen that the first noisy quantum configuration/string is generated in the quantum computer].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hybrid quantum classical algorithms for calculating the ground- and excited-state energies of many-electron Hamiltonians on noisy quantum devices of Kanno to include the first noisy quantum configuration is generated in a quantum computer configured to represent the system of Smith. Doing so would help controlling noise level, estimating ideal results from noisy configurations using error mitigation techniques.
As per claim 3, Kanno and Smith teach the device of claim 1.
Smith further teaches
the first noisy quantum configuration includes a first bit string comprising a series of spin orbitals representing respective probabilities of location and spin of an electron in the system, wherein a value 0 in the bit string represents an empty spin orbital and a value of 1 in the bit string represents an occupied spin orbital [Figs. 8A and 8B show configurations/strings 01…01 and 0010 (each can be interpreted as a first noisy quantum configuration/string) each comprising a series of spin orbitals including the values of 0 and 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hybrid quantum classical algorithms for calculating the ground- and excited-state energies of many-electron Hamiltonians on noisy quantum devices of Kanno to include the first noisy quantum configuration includes a first bit string comprising a series of spin orbitals representing respective probabilities of location and spin of an electron in the system, wherein a value 0 in the bit string represents an empty spin orbital and a value of 1 in the bit string represents an occupied spin orbital of Smith. Doing so would help presenting the states of the quantum configuration.
As per claim 4, Kanno and Smith teach the device of claim 3.
Kanno further teaches
diagonalize the first Hamiltonian generated from the noisy quantum configuration to obtain the first ground state [page 5, Figs. 1-2, Col. 1, discloses Hamiltonian generation and diagonalization and ground-state, “One then diagonalizes the Hamiltonian in the post-selected subspace … The first algorithm, which we call the single diagonalization scheme, constructs a common subspace for both ground and excited states of interest, and performs the diagonalization in the subspace to simultaneously obtain all the desired eigenstates and energies. On the other hand, the second algorithm, dubbed as the sequential diagonalization scheme, constructs multiple subspaces, each tailored for each energy eigenstate, and sequentially diagonalizes the Hamiltonian in each subspace. Both of the algorithms contain the algorithm specific to the ground state”].
As per claim 5, Kanno and Smith teach the device of claim 4.
Smith further teaches
generate the first noiseless quantum configuration by flipping a value of one of the spin orbitals to an opposite value, wherein in the event that a spin orbital value in the first noisy quantum configuration is a zero, flipping the spin orbital value to a value of one [paragraph 0085-0088, “FIGS. 8A and 8B illustrate bit-flips performed on the measured qubit states … the quantum controller 20 may perform a bit-flip on a qubit state measured from at least one qubit of the entire n qubits … FIG. 8A illustrates an example in which "qubit 1" and "qubit n" of n qubits are selected to perform a bit-flip, and FIG. 8B illustrates an example in which "qubit 2" and "qubit n-1" of n qubits are selected to perform a bit-flip … when a bit-flip is arbitrarily performed on the measured qubit state, correlations by entanglement between qubits or error bias of qubit states are removed”; Figs. 8A and 8B show bit-flips are performed on configurations/strings 01…01 and 0010 to generate noiseless configurations/strings |11…00> and |11…00> respectively].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hybrid quantum classical algorithms for calculating the ground- and excited-state energies of many-electron Hamiltonians on noisy quantum devices of Kanno to include generating the first noiseless quantum configuration by flipping a value of one of the spin orbitals to an opposite value, wherein in the event that a spin orbital value in the first noisy quantum configuration is a zero, flipping the spin orbital value to a value of one of Smith. Doing so would help acquiring an averaged probability of the measurement errors to reduce noise and lowers overall uncertainty (Smith, 0019).
As per claim 6, Kanno and Smith teach the device of claim 5.
Kanno further teaches
determine the first ground state of the system based on the first Hamiltonian generated from the series of quantum configurations including the first noiseless quantum configuration and the nth noiseless quantum configuration [page 5, Fig. 1, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, “Physical noise can cause a contamination of symmetry sectors: for an input state with fixed (Ne, Sz), sampling on a noisy device can result in electron configurations with unwanted values of (Ne, Sz), due to the bit-flip noise or readout error. Nevertheless, one can mitigate such errors by post-selecting the sampling outcome according to the conserved quantities, as described above”, “When selecting the configurations, one may post-select the configurations by using conserved quantities such as the electron number or spin Sz to mitigate the errors”; Fig. 1 shows the ground state of the system is determined based on the Hamiltonian generated from the selected noiseless quantum configurations which including the first noiseless quantum configuration and the nth noiseless quantum configuration].
Smith further teaches
the first noisy quantum configuration is included in a set of noisy quantum configurations, the set of noisy quantum configurations further comprises an nth noisy quantum configuration [Figs. 8A and 8B show bit-flips are performed on two configurations/strings 01…01 and 00…10, examiner interprets the configuration/string 01…01 as the first noisy quantum configuration, and the configuration/string 00…10 as the nth noisy quantum configuration], and the SCR component is further configured to:
remove an effect of noise on the nth noisy configuration to generate an nth noiseless quantum configuration [Fig. 8B shows bit-flips is performed on configuration/string 00…10 to generate noiseless configuration/string |11…00>];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hybrid quantum classical algorithms for calculating the ground- and excited-state energies of many-electron Hamiltonians on noisy quantum devices of Kanno to include the first noisy quantum configuration is included in a set of noisy quantum configurations, the set of noisy quantum configurations further comprises an nth noisy quantum configuration, and remove an effect of noise on the nth noisy configuration to generate an nth noiseless quantum configuration of Smith. Doing so would help acquiring an averaged probability of the measurement errors to reduce noise and lowers overall uncertainty (Smith, 0019).
As per claim 9, Kanno and Smith teach the device of claim 1.
Kanno further teaches
the system represents one of an atom or a molecule for which at least one or more location or spin probabilities of an atomic particle is being determined [page 1, abstract, “one can identify the electron configurations that are important for reproducing the ground state. The Hamiltonian in the subspace spanned by those important configurations is diagonalized on classical computers to output the ground-state energy and the corresponding eigenvector”; page 21, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, “The Hamiltonian is generated by using the Hartree-Fock orbitals with ST0-3G basis. The active space of n orbitals and n electrons with varying n was employed for the diatomic and aromatic molecules”; page 4, Col. 2, last paragraph, “When there exists symmetry in the Hamiltonian, there are associated conserved quantities, e.g., the total electron number Ne (or the charge of molecule) and the z-component of total electron spin Sz. Given this, one may wish to find the lowest energy state in a specific symmetry sector. In such a case, the method can be similarly applied but by relying on the subspace with fixed conserved quantities. For Ne and Sz, this can be easily achieved as follows since each computational basis state corresponds to a Slater determinant with definite Ne and Sz: one prepares an input state with the desired values of (Ne, Sz), for which the sampling results in configurations each with the desired (Ne, Sz)”; page 16, Col. 2, last paragraph to page 17, Col. 1, 1st paragraph “the number of 1's in the N-bit string, which we denote by n1, corresponds to the number of electrons in the system … One can thus perform the post-selection for a measurement outcome that excludes resulting bit strings with the number of l's not equal to n1. Although one may still get incorrect results, the probability is reduced … More concretely, the probability to get a result with correct n1 is
PNG
media_image1.png
26
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”].
As per claim 10, Kanno teaches a computer-implemented method performed by a device, wherein the method comprising:
receiving, by the device, a set of configurations, wherein the set of configurations are generated in a quantum processor experiencing quantum noise [page 5, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, “Physical noise can cause a contamination of symmetry sectors: for an input state with fixed (Ne, Sz), sampling on a noisy device can result in electron configurations with unwanted values of (Ne, Sz), due to the bit-flip noise or readout error. Nevertheless, one can mitigate such errors by post-selecting the sampling outcome according to the conserved quantities, as described above”, Fig. 1 discloses a set of configurations which may comprise noise/error are received and selected to process, “When selecting the configurations, one may post-select the configurations by using conserved quantities such as the electron number or spin Sz to mitigate the errors”];
diagonalizing, by the device, a first Hamiltonian generated from the set of configurations [page 5, Figs. 1-2, Col. 1, discloses Hamiltonian generation and diagonalization and ground-state, “One then diagonalizes the Hamiltonian in the post-selected subspace … The first algorithm, which we call the single diagonalization scheme, constructs a common subspace for both ground and excited states of interest, and performs the diagonalization in the subspace to simultaneously obtain all the desired eigenstates and energies. On the other hand, the second algorithm, dubbed as the sequential diagonalization scheme, constructs multiple subspaces, each tailored for each energy eigenstate, and sequentially diagonalizes the Hamiltonian in each subspace]; and
generating, by the device, a first ground state from the first Hamiltonian [page 5, Figs. 1-2, Col. 1, discloses Hamiltonian generation and diagonalization and ground-state, “One then diagonalizes the Hamiltonian in the post-selected subspace … The first algorithm, which we call the single diagonalization scheme, constructs a common subspace for both ground and excited states of interest, and performs the diagonalization in the subspace to simultaneously obtain all the desired eigenstates and energies. On the other hand, the second algorithm, dubbed as the sequential diagonalization scheme, constructs multiple subspaces, each tailored for each energy eigenstate, and sequentially diagonalizes the Hamiltonian in each subspace. Both of the algorithms contain the algorithm specific to the ground state”].
Kanno does not explicitly teach
a method performed by a device operatively coupled to a processor.
Smith teaches
a method performed by a device operatively coupled to a processor [Fig. 2, paragraphs 0059-0060, “the quantum controller 20 may include a quantum control circuit 210, a measurement circuit 220, an error analyzer 230 … a memory, for driving the quantum controller 20, or other general-purpose constituent elements … The quantum control circuit 210 may include both a general-purposed or special-purposed processor for executing quantum program codes and a dedicated circuit for controlling the multi-qubit”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hybrid quantum classical algorithms for calculating the ground- and excited-state energies of many-electron Hamiltonians on noisy quantum devices of Kanno to include a method performed by a device operatively coupled to a processor of Smith. Doing so would help executing quantum program codes and a dedicated circuit for controlling the multi-qubit (Smith, Fig. 2, paragraphs 0059-0060).
As per claim 11, Kanno and Smith teach the computer implemented method of claim 10.
Kanno further teaches
identifying, by the device, a first number of electrons for a system represented by the set of configurations [page 16, Col. 2, last paragraph, “the number of 1's in the N-bit string, which we denote by n1, corresponds to the number of electrons in the system”];
determining, by the device, a first configuration in the set of configurations, wherein the first configuration has a second number of electrons, wherein the second number of electrons is not equal to the first number of electrons [Fig. 1, page 16, Col. 2, last paragraph, “One can thus perform the post-selection for a measurement outcome that excludes resulting bit strings with the number of 1's not equal to n1”];
Smith further teaches
modifying, by the device, the first configuration by flipping a value of a first spin-orbital in the spin-orbitals in the first configuration to remove an effect of the quantum noise on the first configuration [paragraph 0085-0088, “FIGS. 8A and 8B illustrate bit-flips performed on the measured qubit states … the quantum controller 20 may perform a bit-flip on a qubit state measured from at least one qubit of the entire n qubits … FIG. 8A illustrates an example in which "qubit 1" and "qubit n" of n qubits are selected to perform a bit-flip, and FIG. 8B illustrates an example in which "qubit 2" and "qubit n-1" of n qubits are selected to perform a bit-flip … when a bit-flip is arbitrarily performed on the measured qubit state, correlations by entanglement between qubits or error bias of qubit states are removed”; Figs. 8A and 8B show bit-flips are performed on configurations/strings 01…01 and 0010 (each can be interpreted as a first noisy quantum configuration/string) to generate noiseless configurations/strings |11…00> and |11…00> respectively].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hybrid quantum classical algorithms for calculating the ground- and excited-state energies of many-electron Hamiltonians on noisy quantum devices of Kanno to include modifying the first configuration by flipping a value of a first spin-orbital in the spin-orbitals in the first configuration to remove an effect of the quantum noise on the first configuration of Smith. Doing so would help acquiring an averaged probability of the measurement errors to reduce noise and lowers overall uncertainty (Smith, 0019).
As per claim 12, Kanno and Smith teach the computer implemented method of claim 10.
Kanno further teaches
updating, by the device, the set of configurations with the modified first configuration [page 5, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, “Physical noise can cause a contamination of symmetry sectors: for an input state with fixed (Ne, Sz), sampling on a noisy device can result in electron configurations with unwanted values of (Ne, Sz), due to the bit-flip noise or readout error. Nevertheless, one can mitigate such errors by post-selecting the sampling outcome according to the conserved quantities, as described above”, Fig. 1 discloses a set of configurations which may comprise noise/error are received and selected to process, “When selecting the configurations, one may post-select the configurations by using conserved quantities such as the electron number or spin Sz to mitigate the errors”; Fig. 1 shows the selected configurations (updated set of configurations) based on post-select the configurations to reduce noise; Kanno teaches the set of configurations is updated by post-select the configurations to mitigate the errors/noise, while Smith teaches the configuration is updated using bit flip (Smith, Fig. 8) to create the modified first configuration, therefore, the combination of Kanno and Smith teaches the above claim limitation];
diagonalizing, by the device, a second Hamiltonian generated from the set of configurations [Figs. 1-2, page 1, abstract, “The Hamiltonian in the subspace spanned by those important configurations is diagonalized on classical computers to output the ground-state energy and the corresponding eigenvector”; page 7, Col. 1, “The sequential diagonalization finds the ground state(s) by sequential diagonalization procedures of the Hamiltonian H in distinct subspaces … obtain the set of important configurations … One then has to find the lowest energy state of H in this subspace, under the restriction that this state is orthogonal to the states already found”; page 8, Col. 2, 1st paragraph, “the QSCI calculation with the idealized sampling introduced in Sec. II B is performed to estimate the ground-state energy ER for a given R, the number of configurations in the subspace SR. This calculation is repeated for all the iterations of VQE with different values of R”; Figs. 1-2 shows the Hamiltonians (including a second Hamiltonian) are generated using select configurations]; and
generating, by the device, a second ground state from the second Hamiltonian [Figs. 1-2, page 1, abstract, “The Hamiltonian in the subspace spanned by those important configurations is diagonalized on classical computers to output the ground-state energy and the corresponding eigenvector”; page 7, Col. 1, “The sequential diagonalization finds the ground state(s) by sequential diagonalization procedures of the Hamiltonian H in distinct subspaces … obtain the set of important configurations … One then has to find the lowest energy state of H in this subspace, under the restriction that this state is orthogonal to the states already found”; page 8, Col. 2, 1st paragraph, “the QSCI calculation with the idealized sampling introduced in Sec. II B is performed to estimate the ground-state energy ER for a given R, the number of configurations in the subspace SR. This calculation is repeated for all the iterations of VQE with different values of R”].
Claim 16 is rejected by the same reason as of claim 10, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Smith further teaches
A computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions, wherein, in response to being executed, the machine-executable instructions cause a machine to perform operations, comprising [paragraph 0110, “The instructions or software to control computing hardware, for example, one or more processors or computers, to implement the hardware components and perform the methods as described above, and any associated data, data files, and data structures, may be recorded, stored, or fixed in or on one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media. Examples of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium include read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM), flash memory … and any other device that is configured to store the instructions or software and any associated data, data files, and data structures in a non-transitory manner and provide the instructions or software and any associated data, data files, and data structures to one or more processors or computers so that the one or more processors or computers can execute the instructions”].
Claim 17 is rejected by the same reason as of claim 11, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
Claim 18 is rejected by the same reason as of claim 12, since these claims recite the similar limitations.
As per claim 19, Kanno and Smith teach the computer program product according to claim 17.
Kanno further teaches
the system is an atom or a molecule, and the set of configurations represent probabilistic location of an atomic particle in the system [page 16, Col. 2, last paragraph to page 17, Col. 1, 1st paragraph “the number of 1's in the N-bit string, which we denote by n1, corresponds to the number of electrons in the system … One can thus perform the post-selection for a measurement outcome that excludes resulting bit strings with the number of l's not equal to n1. Although one may still get incorrect results, the probability is reduced … More concretely, the probability to get a result with correct n1 is
PNG
media_image1.png
26
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”].
As per claim 20, Kanno and Smith teach the computer program product according to claim 17.
Kanno further teaches
the atomic particle is a boson or a fermion [page 5, Figs. 1-2, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, “We find that the post-selection is particularly effective to mitigate the readout error in the Jordan-Wigner mapping, while it is also applicable to other fermion-qubit mapping schemes (see Appendix A for discussions)”; page 8, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, “The electronic Hamiltonians are generated by OpenFermion”].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno et al. in view of Smith et al. and further in view of Streif et al. (Quantum algorithms with local particle number conservation: noise effects and error correction – Applicant provided NPL in the IDS).
As per claim 7, Kanno and Smith teach the device of claim 5.
Smith further teaches
identify the first noisy quantum configuration based on the occupied spin orbitals in the first bit string [Fig. 4 shows the noisy quantum configuration is identified since the “true qubit state” has a value of 1 (occupied spin orbital) at the bold location while the “measured qubit state has a value of 0” (measurement error)];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hybrid quantum classical algorithms for calculating the ground- and excited-state energies of many-electron Hamiltonians on noisy quantum devices of Kanno to include identifying the first noisy quantum configuration based on the occupied spin orbitals in the first bit string of Smith. Doing so would help performing noise removal using bit flipping (Smith, 0010).
Kanno and Smith do not teach
the number of occupied spin orbitals equals a number of electrons identified for the system.
Streif teaches
the number of occupied spin orbitals equals a number of electrons identified for the system [page 2, Col. 1, section II, 1st and 2nd paragraphs, “we analyze quantum algorithms with conserved particle numbers under noise and give an analytical expression for the probably of leaving a fixed particle number subspace. We assume a system composed of n subsystems with k qubits each. We initialize each system with a fixed particle number N, that is each system has N qubits in the |1> state and k - N qubits in the |0> state”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hybrid quantum classical algorithms for calculating the ground- and excited-state energies of many-electron Hamiltonians on noisy quantum devices of Kanno to include the number of occupied spin orbitals equals a number of electrons identified for the system of Streif. Doing so would help performing bit-flip for quantum error correction (Streif, page 8, Col. 1, 1st paragraph).
Claims 8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno et al. in view of Smith et al. and further in view of Nakagawa et al. (ADAPT-QSCI: Adaptive Construction of Input State for Quantum-Selected Configuration Interaction – Applicant provided NPL in the IDS).
As per claim 8, Kanno and Smith teach the device of claim 1.
Kanno further teaches
diagonalize a second Hamiltonian to generate a second ground state based on the series of quantum configurations including the second noiseless quantum configuration [Figs. 1-2, page 1, abstract, “The Hamiltonian in the subspace spanned by those important configurations is diagonalized on classical computers to output the ground-state energy and the corresponding eigenvector”; Figs. 1-2 shows the Hamiltonians (including a second Hamiltonian) are generated using select configurations; page 7, Col. 1, “The sequential diagonalization finds the ground state(s) by sequential diagonalization procedures of the Hamiltonian H in distinct subspaces … obtain the set of important configurations … One then has to find the lowest energy state of H in this subspace, under the restriction that this state is orthogonal to the states already found”; page 8, Col. 2, 1st paragraph, “the QSCI calculation with the idealized sampling introduced in Sec. II B is performed to estimate the ground-state energy ER for a given R, the number of configurations in the subspace SR. This calculation is repeated for all the iterations of VQE with different values of R”];
Smith further teaches
identify a second noisy configuration in the series of quantum configurations [Figs. 8A and 8B show bit-flips are performed on two configurations/strings 01…01 and 00…10, examiner interprets the configuration/string 01…01 as the first noisy quantum configuration, and the configuration/string 00…10 as the second noisy quantum configuration];
process the second noisy quantum configuration to remove an effect of noise on the second noisy quantum configuration, wherein processing of the second noisy quantum configuration generates a second noiseless quantum configuration [Fig. 8B shows bit-flips is performed on configuration/string 00…10 (the second noisy quantum configuration) to generate noiseless configuration/string |11…00>];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hybrid quantum classical algorithms for calculating the ground- and excited-state energies of many-electron Hamiltonians on noisy quantum devices of Kanno to include identifying and processing the second noisy quantum configuration to remove an effect of noise on the second noisy quantum configuration, wherein processing of the second noisy quantum configuration generates a second noiseless quantum configuration of Smith. Doing so would help acquiring an averaged probability of the measurement errors to reduce noise and lowers overall uncertainty (Smith, 0019).
Kanno and Smith do not explicitly teach
compare the first ground state with the second ground state; and
in response to a determination that a difference between the first ground state and the second ground state satisfies a convergence value, present the second ground state as the ground state of the system.
Nakagawa teaches
compare the first ground state with the second ground state [page 4, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, “its smallest eigenvalue Ek … If the energy Ek is converged compared with the energies in some previous iterations, the algorithm stops”; page 5, Col. 2, 1st paragraph, “The convergence of ADAPT-QSCI is detected when the difference between QSCI energies Ek and Ek-1 gets smaller than 10-5 Hartree”]; and
in response to a determination that a difference between the first ground state and the second ground state satisfies a convergence value, present the second ground state as the ground state of the system [page 4, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, “its smallest eigenvalue Ek … If the energy Ek is converged compared with the energies in some previous iterations, the algorithm stops”; page 5, Col. 2, 1st paragraph, “The convergence of ADAPT-QSCI is detected when the difference between QSCI energies Ek and Ek-1 gets smaller than 10-5 Hartree”; page 6, Fig. 1, “Blue lines represent the QSCI energy Ek in ADAPT-QSCI at each iteration … yellow dots do the values at the iteration when Ek converges”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hybrid quantum classical algorithms for calculating the ground- and excited-state energies of many-electron Hamiltonians on noisy quantum devices of Kanno to include in response to a determination that a difference between the first ground state and the second ground state satisfies a convergence value, present the second ground state as the ground state of the system of Nakagawa. Doing so would help measuring quantum performance and solving an optimization problem.
As per claim 13, Kanno and Smith teach the computer implemented method of claim 10.
Kanno and Smith do not explicitly teach
receiving, by the device, a stop criterion;
comparing, by the device, the second ground state with the stop criterion; and
in response to a determination, by the device, that the second ground state complies with the stop criterion, outputting the second ground state as being the ground state of the system represented by the set of configurations.
Nakagawa teaches
receiving, by the device, a stop criterion [page 4, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, “Perform QSCI with the input state |ɸk> with Ns shots and the maximum dimension of the subspace R. QSCI generates the Rk… its smallest eigenvalue Ek … If the energy Ek is converged compared with the energies in some previous iterations, the algorithm stops”; page 5, Col. 2, 1st paragraph, “The convergence of ADAPT-QSCI is detected when the difference between QSCI energies Ek and Ek-1 gets smaller than 10-5 Hartree”];
comparing, by the device, the second ground state with the stop criterion [page 4, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, “its smallest eigenvalue Ek … If the energy Ek is converged compared with the energies in some previous iterations, the algorithm stops”; page 5, Col. 2, 1st paragraph, “The convergence of ADAPT-QSCI is detected when the difference between QSCI energies Ek and Ek-1 gets smaller than 10-5 Hartree”]; and
in response to a determination, by the device, that the second ground state complies with the stop criterion, outputting the second ground state as being the ground state of the system represented by the set of configurations [page 4, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, “its smallest eigenvalue Ek … If the energy Ek is converged compared with the energies in some previous iterations, the algorithm stops”; page 5, Col. 2, 1st paragraph, “The convergence of ADAPT-QSCI is detected when the difference between QSCI energies Ek and Ek-1 gets smaller than 10-5 Hartree”; page 6, Fig. 1, “Blue lines represent the QSCI energy Ek in ADAPT-QSCI at each iteration … yellow dots do the values at the iteration when Ek converges”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hybrid quantum classical algorithms for calculating the ground- and excited-state energies of many-electron Hamiltonians on noisy quantum devices of Kanno to include in response to a determination, by the device, that the second ground state complies with the stop criterion, outputting the second ground state as being the ground state of the system of Nakagawa. Doing so would help measuring quantum performance and solving an optimization problem.
As per claim 14, Kanno, Smith and Nakagawa teach the computer implemented method of claim 13.
Kanno further teaches
the set of configurations represent probabilistic location of an electron in one of an atom or a molecule [page 16, Col. 2, last paragraph to page 17, Col. 1, 1st paragraph “the number of 1's in the N-bit string, which we denote by n1, corresponds to the number of electrons in the system … One can thus perform the post-selection for a measurement outcome that excludes resulting bit strings with the number of l's not equal to n1. Although one may still get incorrect results, the probability is reduced … More concretely, the probability to get a result with correct n1 is
PNG
media_image1.png
26
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”].
As per claim 15, Kanno and Smith teach the computer implemented method of claim 10.
Kanno further teaches
updating, by the device, the set of configurations to include the first noiseless configuration [page 5, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, “Physical noise can cause a contamination of symmetry sectors: for an input state with fixed (Ne, Sz), sampling on a noisy device can result in electron configurations with unwanted values of (Ne, Sz), due to the bit-flip noise or readout error. Nevertheless, one can mitigate such errors by post-selecting the sampling outcome according to the conserved quantities, as described above”, Fig. 1 discloses a set of configurations which may comprise noise/error are received and selected to process, “When selecting the configurations, one may post-select the configurations by using conserved quantities such as the electron number or spin Sz to mitigate the errors”; Fig. 1 shows the selected configurations (updated set of configurations) based on post-select the configurations to reduce noise; Kanno teaches the set of configurations is updated by post-select the configurations to mitigate the errors/noise, while Smith teaches the configuration is updated using bit flip (Smith, Fig. 8) to create the modified first configuration, therefore, the combination of Kanno and Smith teaches the above claim limitation];
diagonalizing, by the device, a second Hamiltonian generated from the updated set of configurations [Figs. 1-2, page 1, abstract, “The Hamiltonian in the subspace spanned by those important configurations is diagonalized on classical computers to output the ground-state energy and the corresponding eigenvector”; Figs. 1-2 shows the Hamiltonians (including a second Hamiltonian) are generated using select configurations; page 7, Col. 1, “The sequential diagonalization finds the ground state(s) by sequential diagonalization procedures of the Hamiltonian H in distinct subspaces … obtain the set of important configurations … One then has to find the lowest energy state of H in this subspace, under the restriction that this state is orthogonal to the states already found”; page 8, Col. 2, 1st paragraph, “the QSCI calculation with the idealized sampling introduced in Sec. II B is performed to estimate the ground-state energy ER for a given R, the number of configurations in the subspace SR. This calculation is repeated for all the iterations of VQE with different values of R”];
generating, by the device, a second ground state from the second Hamiltonian [Figs. 1-2, page 1, abstract, “The Hamiltonian in the subspace spanned by those important configurations is diagonalized on classical computers to output the ground-state energy and the corresponding eigenvector”; page 7, Col. 1, “The sequential diagonalization finds the ground state(s) by sequential diagonalization procedures of the Hamiltonian H in distinct subspaces];
Smith further teaches
identifying, by the device, a first noisy configuration in the set of configurations, wherein a probable position of an atomic particle associated with the first noisy configuration is represented by a bit string of spin orbitals [Figs. 8A and 8B show bit-flips are performed on two configurations/strings 01…01 and 00…10, examiner interprets the configuration/string 01…01 as the first noisy quantum configuration];
modifying, by the device, a first spin orbital in the bit string of spin orbitals from a first value to a second value to convert the first noisy configuration to a first noiseless configuration [Figs. 8A and 8B show bit-flips are performed on configurations/strings 01…01 and 0010 to generate noiseless configurations/strings |11…00> and |11…00> respectively];
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hybrid quantum classical algorithms for calculating the ground- and excited-state energies of many-electron Hamiltonians on noisy quantum devices of Kanno to include identifying the first noisy configuration, and modifying a first spin orbital in the bit string of spin orbitals from a first value to a second value to convert the first noisy configuration to a first noiseless configuration of Smith. Doing so would help acquiring an averaged probability of the measurement errors to reduce noise and lowers overall uncertainty (Smith, 0019).
Kanno and Smith do not explicitly teach
comparing, by the device, the first ground state with the second ground state; and
in response to determining, by the device, the first ground state and the second ground state are converging, outputting the second ground state as a ground state of the system.
Nakagawa teaches
comparing, by the device, the first ground state with the second ground state [page 4, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, “its smallest eigenvalue Ek … If the energy Ek is converged compared with the energies in some previous iterations, the algorithm stops”; page 5, Col. 2, 1st paragraph, “The convergence of ADAPT-QSCI is detected when the difference between QSCI energies Ek and Ek-1 gets smaller than 10-5 Hartree”]; and
in response to determining, by the device, the first ground state and the second ground state are converging, outputting the second ground state as a ground state of the system [page 4, Col. 1, 1st paragraph, “its smallest eigenvalue Ek … If the energy Ek is converged compared with the energies in some previous iterations, the algorithm stops”; page 5, Col. 2, 1st paragraph, “The convergence of ADAPT-QSCI is detected when the difference between QSCI energies Ek and Ek-1 gets smaller than 10-5 Hartree”; page 6, Fig. 1, “Blue lines represent the QSCI energy Ek in ADAPT-QSCI at each iteration … yellow dots do the values at the iteration when Ek converges”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the hybrid quantum classical algorithms for calculating the ground- and excited-state energies of many-electron Hamiltonians on noisy quantum devices of Kanno to include in response to a determination that a difference between the first ground state and the second ground state satisfies a convergence value, present the second ground state as the ground state of the system of Nakagawa. Doing so would help measuring quantum performance and solving an optimization problem.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Gunnels et al. (US Patent 11,048,839) describes a method for adaptive error correction in quantum computing.
Upadhyay (US Pub. 2023/0072535) describes error mitigation for sampling on quantum devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-0103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 AM-5 PM, (CT).
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, OMAR FERNANDEZ can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/TRI T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights