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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18432700 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REFERENCES CITED BY APPLICANT
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P 609(c), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 8/20/26, 2/6/24, and 2/2524 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending except where lined through. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Lined through references were either not provided or did not provide dates for the publication of the reference.
II. REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiners Note: Some rejections will be followed by an ‘EN’ that will denote an examiners note. This will be placed to further explain a rejection.
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.
(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 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guimaraes et al (“Noise-Assisted Digital Quantum Simulation of Open Systems Using Partial Probabilistic Error Cancellation”).
As per claims 1, 8 and 15, Guimaraes discloses, “a system comprising: a memory that stores computer executable instructions” (abstract; EN; this denotes the process being run on real and quantum computers).
“a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise” (abstract; EN; this denotes the process being run on real and quantum computers).
“an error detection component that determines portions of a quantum circuit susceptible to noise errors” (Pg.4, particularly C2, the Noise Characterization Section; EN: this denotes characterizing noise and errors based on that noise in quantum circuits).
“an error reduction component that compiles” (Pg.4, particularly C2, second paragraph; EN: this denotes the use of randomized compiling to deal with the noise). “ an inverse of the noise errors” (Pg.7, particularly section A; EN: this denotes inverting the noise to cancel out the noise). “into the quantum circuit based on context of the quantum circuit and the one or more determined portions of the quantum circuit” (pg.16-17, particularly Appendix A: Randomized Compiling, and Figure 11; EN: this denotes using the compiling to absorb the pauli strings in the circuit into nearby single-qubit quantum gates).
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, Guimaraes discloses, “selecting one or more quantum gates preceding occurrence of the noise errors” (pg.16-17, particularly Appendix A: Randomized Compiling, and Figure 11; EN: this denotes using the compiling to absorb the pauli strings in the circuit into nearby single-qubit quantum gates).
“Absorbing the inverse of the noise errors transformed” (Pg.7, particularly section A; EN: this denotes inverting the noise to cancel out the noise) “Into the selected one or more quantum gates” (pg.16-17, particularly Appendix A: Randomized Compiling, and Figure 11; EN: this denotes using the compiling to absorb the pauli strings in the circuit into nearby single-qubit quantum gates).
As per claims 3, 10, and 17, Guimaraes discloses, “selecting one or more quantum gates succeeding occurrence of the noise errors” (pg.16-17, particularly Appendix A: Randomized Compiling, and Figure 11; EN: this denotes using the compiling to absorb the pauli strings in the circuit into nearby single-qubit quantum gates).
“Absorbing the inverse of the noise errors transformed” (Pg.7, particularly section A; EN: this denotes inverting the noise to cancel out the noise) “Into the selected one or more quantum gates” (pg.16-17, particularly Appendix A: Randomized Compiling, and Figure 11; EN: this denotes using the compiling to absorb the pauli strings in the circuit into nearby single-qubit quantum gates).
As per claims 5, 12, and 18, Guimaraes discloses, “wherein the context of the quantum circuit comprises temporal” (Pg.4, particularly C2, the B. Noise characterization section; EN: this denotes the calculations performing over time (i.e. temporal)). “ and spatial configuration of the quantum circuit” (Pg.4, particularly C2, last paragraph; EN: this denotes dealing with neighbor qubits, which shows it is spatial as well).
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.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guimaraes et al (“Noise-Assisted Digital Quantum Simulation of Open Systems Using Partial Probabilistic Error Cancellation”) in view of Ding et al (“High-Fidelity, Frequency-Flexible Two-Qubit Fluxonium Gates with a Transmon Coupler”).
As per claims 4 and 11, Guimaraes discloses, “determining, by the system, if one or more noise errors cannot be compensated by absorbing the inverse of the one or more noise errors, and in response to a determination that the one or more noise errors cannot be compensated by absorbing the inverse of the one or more noise errors…” (Pg.16, particularly C2, second paragraph; EN: this denotes the system not working with non-markovian environments, but that it could be used with additional resources).
However, Guimaraes fails to explicitly disclose, “Adding, by the system, one or more quantum gates to the quantum circuit to compensate for the one or more noise errors.”
Ding discloses, “Adding, by the system, one or more quantum gates to the quantum circuit to compensate for the one or more noise errors” (abstract; EN: this denotes including the FTF gate set with systems in order to improve error rates).
Guimaraes and Ding are analogous art because both involve quantum computing.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of quantum computing to combine the work of Guimaraes and Ding in order to make use of additional gates to improve noise errors in quantum systems.
The motivation for doing so would be to “FTF enables stronger couplings for gates using noncomputational states while simultaneously suppressing the static controlled-phase entangling rate (ZZ) down to Kilohertz levels, all without requiring strict parameter matching” or in the case of Guimaraes, allow the system to improve noise when their current system cannot improve noise further with their methods.
Therefore before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of quantum computing to combine the work of Guimaraes and Ding in order to make use of additional gates to improve noise errors in quantum systems.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guimaraes et al (“Noise-Assisted Digital Quantum Simulation of Open Systems Using Partial Probabilistic Error Cancellation”) in view of Hashim et al (“Randomized Compiling for scalable quantum computing on a noisy superconducting quantum processor”).
As per claims 6, 13, and 19, Guimaraes fails to explicitly disclose, “wherein the noise errors comprise ZZ and Stark Shift errors.”
Hashim discloses, “wherein the noise errors comprise ZZ” (Pg.17, last paragraph; EN: this denotes ZZ coupling errors with random compilation such as seen in the Guimaraes reference). “and Stark Shift errors” (Pg.14, particularly the first paragraph; EN: This denotes using random compilation to help minimize unwanted AC stark shifts).
Guimaraes and Hashim are analogous art because both involve quantum computing.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of quantum computing to combine the work of Guimaraes and Hashim in order to use random compilation to improve ZZ and stark shift errors.
The motivation for doing so would be because “randomized compiling is a protocol designed to overcome these performance limitations by converting coherent errors into stochastic noise, dramatically reducing unpredictable errors in quantum algorithms and enabling accurate predictions of algorithmic performance form error rates measured via cycle benchmarking” (Hashim, Abstract) or in the case of Guimaraes, allow the Random Compilation being used to help improve ZZ and Stark shift errors.
Therefore before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of quantum computing to combine the work of Guimaraes and Hashim in order to use random compilation to improve ZZ and stark shift errors.
As per claims 7, 14, and 20, Guimaraes discloses, “wherein compiling of the inverse of the noise errors” (Pg.7, particularly section A; EN: this denotes inverting the noise to cancel out the noise). “… reduces overhead of error mitigation”
However, Guimaraes fails to explicitly disclose, “improves fidelity of execution of the quantum circuit”
Hashim discloses, “improves fidelity of execution of the quantum circuit” (Pg.6, particularly C2; EN: this denotes randomized compilation providing more benefits as infidelity decreases, and the improvements in error rates will further improve the fidelity).
Guimaraes and Hashim are analogous art because both involve quantum computing.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of quantum computing to combine the work of Guimaraes and Hashim in order to improve fidelity of the system.
The motivation for doing so would be because “randomized compiling is a protocol designed to overcome these performance limitations by converting coherent errors into stochastic noise, dramatically reducing unpredictable errors in quantum algorithms and enabling accurate predictions of algorithmic performance form error rates measured via cycle benchmarking” (Hashim, Abstract) or in the case of Guimaraes, allow the random compilation of the reference to further improve the system.
Therefore before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of quantum computing to combine the work of Guimaraes and Hashim in order to improve fidelity of the system.
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEN M RIFKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9768. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Alexey Shmatov can be reached at (571) 270-3428. 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.
/BEN M RIFKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2123
Prosecution Insights