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 .
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.
(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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jones et al (XP093275103), hereinafter Jones (of record, cited by ISA).
With respect to claim 1, Jones teaches
A method for performing a quantum computation via a quantum algorithm
implemented on quantum computing system, QCS, that includes a set of
qubits (Abstract: "...We propose methods which substantially improve the
performance of a particular form of simulation, ab initio quantum chemistry,
on fault-tolerant quantum computers [...] Quantum teleportation plays a
key role in these improvements and is used extensively as a computing
resource [...] A specific example we analyze is the ground-state energy
calculation for lithium hydride..."), the method comprising:
executing, at a first time and on the QCS, a precompute algorithm that is a
first portion of the quantum algorithm, wherein executing the precompute
algorithm generates a precompute output that includes first quantum
information encoded in a first subset of the set of qubits (2. Fault-tolerant
phase rotations: "...programmable ancilla rotations (PARs), which compute
ancillas in advance using one of the above methods to achieve very low
circuit depth in the algorithm...", 2.3. Programmable ancilla rotation: "...pre-
computes ancillas before they are needed...", Fig. 4);
receiving, at a second time that is subsequent to the first time and at the
QCS, a runtime input for the quantum algorithm (2.3. Programmable
ancilla rotation: ...pre-computes ancillas before they are needed [---] The
cascading series of probabilistic rotations continues until the desired
rotation is produced or the programmed ancillas are exhausted. Fig. 4);
executing, at a third time that is subsequent to the second time and on the
QCS, a runtime algorithm that is a second portion of the quantum
algorithm based on the first quantum information encoded in the first
subset of qubits and the runtime input, wherein executing the runtime
algorithm generates a runtime output that includes second quantum
information encoded in a second subset of the set of qubits (2.3.
Programmable ancilla rotation: ...pre-computes ancillas before they are
needed [...] The cascading series of probabilistic rotations continues until
the desired rotation is produced or the programmed ancillas are
exhausted Fig. 4); and
providing an output of the quantum algorithm, wherein the output of the
quantum algorithm is based on the second quantum information encoded
in the second subset of qubits (2.3. Programmable ancilla rotation: pre-
computes ancillas before they are needed [...] The cascading series of
probabilistic rotations continues until the desired rotation is produced or
the programmed ancillas are exhausted. Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 2, Jones further teaches
at a fourth time that is prior to the
first time, receiving, at the QCS, a precompute input that includes first classical
information; and executing the precompute algorithm based on the first classical
information included in the precompute input, wherein an input to the quantum
algorithm includes each of the precompute input and the runtime input (2.3.
Programmable ancilla rotation, Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 3, Jones further teaches
the first classical information also at least partially
characterizes a quantum circuit associated with the quantum algorithm (2.3.
Programmable ancilla rotation, Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 4, Jones further teaches
the runtime input also includes second classical information
and a combination of the first classical information and the second classical
information fully characterizes the quantum circuit associated with the quantum
algorithm (2.3. Programmable ancilla rotation, Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 5, Jones further teaches
executing the runtime algorithm is also further based on each
of the second classical information (2.3. Programmable ancilla rotation, Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 6, Jones further teaches
the runtime input also includes third quantum information and
executing the runtime algorithm is further based on the third quantum
information (2.3. Programmable ancilla rotation, Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 8, Jones further teaches
the first classical information also encodes a unitary operator,
the first quantum information also encodes a first quantum state, and the
second quantum information also encodes a second quantum state that is a
result of the unitary operator operating on the first quantum state (2.3.
Programmable ancilla rotation, Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 10, Jones further teaches
the quantum algorithm is also a gate teleportation algorithm
and the precompute output includes encodings of Clifford unitary operators (2.3.
Programmable ancilla rotation, Fig. 4).
Claims 11-16, 18, and 20 correspond to claims 1-6, 8, and 10, and are analyzed accordingly.
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 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Leipold et al (US 2020/0105994), hereinafter Leipold.
With respect to claim 7, Jones teaches the method of claim 2, however fails to teach wherein the first classical information encodes a classical description of a Hamiltonian associated with the quantum algorithm and the second quantum information includes a ground state of the Hamiltonian. Leipold teaches wherein the first classical information encodes a classical description of a Hamiltonian associated with the quantum algorithm and the second quantum information includes a ground state of the Hamiltonian ([0616]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Jones which teaches a quantum algorithm computation method with the teaching of Leipold to find the minima of a given function over a given set of candidate solutions using the well known method of Hamiltonian as described representing the solution that is pursued (Leipold, [0616]).
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 7, and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Low et al (US 2020/0349457), hereinafter Low.
With respect to claim 9, Jones teaches the method of claim 1. Jones fails to teach wherein the quantum algorithm is a density matrix exponentiation algorithm that includes a reflection about a quantum state. Low teaches wherein the quantum algorithm is a density matrix exponentiation algorithm that includes a reflection about a quantum state ([0050], [0075], [0084]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of Jones which teaches a quantum algorithm computation method with the teaching of Low of exponentiation of the density matrix to simulate time evolution as described by Low in [0075]).
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 9, and is analyzed accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK D FEATHERSTONE whose telephone number is (571)270-3750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, John Cottingham can be reached at 571-272-1400. 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.
/MARK D FEATHERSTONE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights