DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Abstract
3. The abstract of the disclosure is acceptable for examination purposes.
Oath Declaration
4. The Oath complies with all the requirements set forth in MPEP 602 and therefore is accepted.
Drawings
5. The drawings received on 02/14/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2024 have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO- 1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 14-16, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite “readout mitigation” and for better understating, the Examiner suggests that the phrase of “readout mitigation” would be replaced by “readout error mitigation.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
8. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite “A computer program product” which could be any medium, such as signal wave or software which is a non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 10 depends from independent claim 9 and is rejected under 35 USC 101 for similar reasons.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
The claim recites “A method comprising: calibrating qubit readout for a plurality of device qubits on a given quantum computer using deterministic bit patterns to generate calibration data; running a given algorithm on the given quantum computer to generate qubit readout data; performing a readout mitigation to generate revised qubit readout data based on the qubit readout data, the performance of the readout mitigation including issuing, to a calibration routine, a set of labels identifying qubits used in the running of the given algorithm; and obtaining, from the calibration routine, correction information based on the calibration data, wherein the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information.”
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, see MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes, see MPEP 2106.04. The claim recites “calibrating qubit readout for a plurality of device qubits on a given quantum computer using deterministic bit patterns to generate calibration data; running a given algorithm on the given quantum computer to generate qubit readout data; performing a readout mitigation to generate revised qubit readout data based on the qubit readout data, the performance of the readout mitigation including issuing, to a calibration routine, a set of labels identifying qubits used in the running of the given algorithm,” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation , covers a mathematical relationship of the mathematical concept grouping. The terms of the claims are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls into the mathematical relationship as part of the mathematical grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites additional element/s of “obtaining, from the calibration routine, correction information based on the calibration data, wherein the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because is generic computer function of data mere data gathering. These extra-solution activities do not provide practical application. At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO, see MPEP 2106.05. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 9:
The claim recites “A computer program product, comprising: one or more tangible computer-readable storage media and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible computer-readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor, the program instructions comprising: calibrating qubit readout for a plurality of device qubits on a given quantum computer using deterministic bit patterns to generate calibration data; running a given algorithm on the given quantum computer to generate qubit readout data; performing a readout mitigation to generate revised qubit readout data based on the qubit readout data, the performance of the readout mitigation including issuing, to a calibration routine, a set of labels identifying qubits used in the running of the given algorithm and obtaining, from the calibration routine, correction information based on the calibration data, wherein the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information.”
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, see MPEP 2106.03. The claim is directed to a computer program product, and therefore, a machine/manufacture, and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes, see MPEP 2106.04. The claim recites “calibrating qubit readout for a plurality of device qubits on a given quantum computer using deterministic bit patterns to generate calibration data; running a given algorithm on the given quantum computer to generate qubit readout data; performing a readout mitigation to generate revised qubit readout data based on the qubit readout data, the performance of the readout mitigation including issuing, to a calibration routine, a set of labels identifying qubits used in the running of the given algorithm,” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation , covers a mathematical relationship of the mathematical concept grouping. The terms of the claims are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls into the mathematical relationship as part of the mathematical grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites additional element/s of “obtaining, from the calibration routine, correction information based on the calibration data, wherein the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because is generic computer function of data mere data gathering. These extra-solution activities do not provide practical application. At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO, see MPEP 2106.05. The claim recites additional element/s “A computer program product,” “one or more tangible computer-readable storage media,” “one or more tangible computer-readable storage media,” and “a processor” are generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system.. See the prior art over Van Den Berg at al. (US 2022/0188682 A1) teach well known elements. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 11:
The claim recites “A system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor, coupled to said memory, and operative to perform operations comprising: calibrating qubit readout for a plurality of device qubits on a given quantum computer using deterministic bit patterns to generate calibration data; running a given algorithm on the given quantum computer to generate qubit readout data; performing a readout mitigation to generate revised qubit readout data based on the qubit readout data, the performance of the readout mitigation including issuing, to a calibration routine, a set of labels identifying qubits used in the running of the given algorithm and obtaining, from the calibration routine, correction information based on the calibration data, wherein the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information.”
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, see MPEP 2106.03. The claim is directed to a "storage system" and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes, see MPEP 2106.04. The claim recites “calibrating qubit readout for a plurality of device qubits on a given quantum computer using deterministic bit patterns to generate calibration data; running a given algorithm on the given quantum computer to generate qubit readout data; performing a readout mitigation to generate revised qubit readout data based on the qubit readout data, the performance of the readout mitigation including issuing, to a calibration routine, a set of labels identifying qubits used in the running of the given algorithm,” as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation , covers a mathematical relationship of the mathematical concept grouping. The terms of the claims are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls into the mathematical relationship as part of the mathematical grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites additional element/s of “obtaining, from the calibration routine, correction information based on the calibration data, wherein the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because is generic computer function of data mere data gathering. These extra-solution activities do not provide practical application. At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO, see MPEP 2106.05. The claim recites additional element/s “a system,” “a memory,” and “at least one processor” are generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. See the prior art over Van Den Berg at al. (US 2022/0188682 A1) teach well known elements. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10, and 12-20 are extended elements of the abstract idea of the independent claims and the claims are abstract in nature falling withing the mathematical concept grouping. The dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application rather they are mere instructions for performing the mathematical relationship of the mathematical concept grouping. The dependent claims do not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea to improve the technology or the computer component and fails to add significantly more than the abstracts idea. Therefore, the dependent claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-16, and 18 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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.
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Van Den Berg at al. (US 2022/0188682 A1) "herein after as Van" in view of Nation et al. (US 2022/0358182 A1) "herein after as Nation.”
As per claim 1:
Van substantially teaches or discloses a method comprising: calibrating qubit readout for a plurality of device qubits on a given quantum computer using deterministic bit patterns to generate calibration data (see abstract, paragraph [0034], herein To facilitate implementation of the protocols, the RMC 106 can comprise a calibration component 108 that can perform a calibration process that can produce calibration data that can be used to mitigate readout errors and can provide a benchmark associated with the circuit); running a given algorithm on the given quantum computer to generate qubit readout data (see paragraph [0028], herein generate an error-mitigated readout determination (e.g., a readout result that can have error desirably mitigated) associated with the circuit of interest based on the first random Pauli gates applied to the qubits at the first output of the first circuit and the second random Pauli gates applied to the qubits at the second output of the second circuit); performing a readout mitigation to generate revised qubit readout data based on the qubit readout data, the performance of the readout mitigation including issuing, to a calibration routine, a set of labels identifying qubits used in the running of the given algorithm (see paragraph [0033], herein The error-mitigation techniques employed by the RMC 106 can enable and can implement dynamic adjustments to make the techniques resilient against time-variations in the noise that can otherwise cause readout errors, which can be useful and desirable in enabling the success of a mitigation scheme on a near-term device) and obtaining, from the calibration routine, correction information based on the calibration data (see paragraph [0108], herein In practical systems, gradual changes in systemic gate and readout errors can be expected. That can mean that calibration data can have a limited lifetime. For error mitigation in the disclosed approach, the RMC 106 can traverse the calibration data, for example, whenever the RMC 106 is to be used to compute the correction factor for an individual Pauli-z operator. In practical systems, gradual changes in systemic gate and readout errors can be expected. That can mean that calibration data can have a limited lifetime. For error mitigation in the disclosed approach, the RMC 106 can traverse the calibration data, for example, whenever the RMC 106 is to be used to compute the correction factor for an individual Pauli-z operator).
Van does not explicitly teach wherein the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information. However, Nation in the same the field of endeavor teaches wherein the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information (see paragraph [0016], herein computer program products and/or methods, a computation component can perform error mitigation employing an iterative solver using a truncated set of assignment matrix (A-matrix) elements as the initial input set for the iterative solver). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Van with the teachings of Nation by including wherein the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information would have improved (e.g., enhance, optimize and/or reduce) the execution time and/or quality for performing error mitigation relative to one or more quantum jobs (see paragraph [0039] of Nation).
As per claim 2:
Nation teaches that wherein the readout mitigation comprises a sampling readout mitigation, wherein the correction information comprises a set of matrices and wherein the performing of the readout mitigation further comprises using the set of matrices to solve an algebraic system of equations (see paragraph [0089], herein rather than construct a full A-matrix and/or solve for a full set of A-matrix elements, the computation component 412 can employ one or more calculation models 416, 418, 420 and/or 422 to instead solve for less than a full set of A-matrix elements, such as a truncated set of A-matrix elements 425, and employ the truncated set of A-matrix elements 425 to solve for the one or more error-mitigated results 426).
As per claim 3:
Nation teaches that wherein the readout mitigation comprises an expectation value readout mitigation, wherein the correction information comprises a renormalization factor and wherein the performing of the readout mitigation further comprises using the renormalization factor to generate the revised qubit readout data (see paragraph [0091], herein However, since it can be undesirable or infeasible to construct a full A-matrix (e.g., full A-matrix 700), such as due to available memory, usable memory, allowable quantity of bitstring integers, available processing power and/or available time, instead, the computation component 412 can employ a renormalization factor relative to one or more of the observed bitstrings (e.g., such as the observed bitstring 704). Indeed, the computation component 412 can employ a renormalization factor relative to each of the observed bitstrings).
As per claim 4:
Van teaches that wherein the calibration routine generates the correction information based on the set of labels identifying qubits used in running the given algorithm and an identification of a sampling type of readout mitigation (see paragraph [0108], herein in practical systems, gradual changes in systemic gate and readout errors can be expected. That can mean that calibration data can have a limited lifetime. For error mitigation in the disclosed approach, the RMC 106 can traverse the calibration data, for example, whenever the RMC 106 is to be used to compute the correction factor for an individual Pauli-z operator), the correction information comprising a set of matrices generated by marginalizing a data distribution based on the calibration data (see paragraph [0092], herein Proof. Protocols 1 and 2 can acquire data and estimate different quantities using the function in Eq. (6). For a fixed i and j, each term in the summation can be viewed as an independent ±1 sample from a certain distribution depending on U that can marginalize over Pauli indices p and q).
As per claim 5:
Van teaches that renormalizing the marginalized data distribution (see paragraph [0028], herein the estimation component can determine a normalization scalar value based on the calibration data and a second defined function, and can determine an estimation scalar value based on the estimation data and the second defined function. The estimation component can determine the error-mitigated readout determination (e.g., error-mitigated readout result) associated with the circuit of interest based on (e.g., as a function of) the normalization scalar value and estimation scalar value).
As per claim 6:
Van teaches that wherein the calibration routine generates the correction information based on the set of labels identifying qubits used in running the given algorithm and an identification of an expectation value type of readout mitigation (see paragraph [0108], herein in practical systems, gradual changes in systemic gate and readout errors can be expected. That can mean that calibration data can have a limited lifetime. For error mitigation in the disclosed approach, the RMC 106 can traverse the calibration data, for example, whenever the RMC 106 is to be used to compute the correction factor for an individual Pauli-z operator), the correction information comprising renormalization factor generated by computing expectation values on the qubits identified by the set of labels using Pauli Z observables and the calibration data (see paragraph [0028], herein a readout management component (RMC) that can mitigate readout errors for quantum expectation associated with quantum computing. The RMC can comprise a calibration component that can apply first random Pauli gates (or corresponding first Pauli operators) to qubit components (also referred to herein as qubits) at a first output of a first circuit prior to first readout measurements of the qubits or the first circuit).
As per claim 7:
Van teaches that wherein the type of readout mitigation performed is based on the use case and wherein the type of readout mitigation performed is an expectation value readout mitigation for variational algorithms (see paragraph [0033], herein The RMC 106 can desirably (e.g., efficiently, quickly, and optimally) manage the production of readout results to mitigate (e.g., reduce or minimize) readout errors. For instance, the RMC 106 can manage the production of readout results to mitigate readout errors in partial state tomography and partial process tomography using randomization associated with a circuit, in accordance with defined readout management criteria).
As per claim 8:
Van teaches that wherein the type of readout mitigation performed is based on the use case and wherein the type of readout mitigation performed is a sampling readout mitigation for sampling problems (see paragraph [0034], herein the RMC 106 can utilize various estimation protocols to facilitate mitigating readout errors associated with readout results produced by the quantum computer component 102. The estimation protocols can comprise, for example, an acquire data protocol (also referred to as Protocol AcquireData) that can specify a process for sampling and acquiring data).
As per claim 9:
Van substantially teaches or discloses a computer program product, comprising: one or more tangible computer-readable storage media and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible computer-readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processor (see paragraph [0128], herein One or more embodiments can be a system, a method, an apparatus and/or a computer program product at any possible technical detail level of integration. The computer program product can include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the one or more embodiments. The computer readable storage medium can be a tangible device that can retain and store instructions for use by an instruction execution device), the program instructions comprising: calibrating qubit readout for a plurality of device qubits on a given quantum computer using deterministic bit patterns to generate calibration data (see abstract, paragraph [0034], herein To facilitate implementation of the protocols, the RMC 106 can comprise a calibration component 108 that can perform a calibration process that can produce calibration data that can be used to mitigate readout errors and can provide a benchmark associated with the circuit); running a given algorithm on the given quantum computer to generate qubit readout data (see paragraph [0028], herein generate an error-mitigated readout determination (e.g., a readout result that can have error desirably mitigated) associated with the circuit of interest based on the first random Pauli gates applied to the qubits at the first output of the first circuit and the second random Pauli gates applied to the qubits at the second output of the second circuit); performing a readout mitigation to generate revised qubit readout data based on the qubit readout data, the performance of the readout mitigation including issuing, to a calibration routine, a set of labels identifying qubits used in the running of the given algorithm (see paragraph [0033], herein The error-mitigation techniques employed by the RMC 106 can enable and can implement dynamic adjustments to make the techniques resilient against time-variations in the noise that can otherwise cause readout errors, which can be useful and desirable in enabling the success of a mitigation scheme on a near-term device) and obtaining, from the calibration routine, correction information based on the calibration data (see paragraph [0108], herein In practical systems, gradual changes in systemic gate and readout errors can be expected. That can mean that calibration data can have a limited lifetime. For error mitigation in the disclosed approach, the RMC 106 can traverse the calibration data, for example, whenever the RMC 106 is to be used to compute the correction factor for an individual Pauli-z operator. In practical systems, gradual changes in systemic gate and readout errors can be expected. That can mean that calibration data can have a limited lifetime. For error mitigation in the disclosed approach, the RMC 106 can traverse the calibration data, for example, whenever the RMC 106 is to be used to compute the correction factor for an individual Pauli-z operator). Van does not explicitly teach wherein the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information. However, Nation in the same the field of endeavor teaches wherein the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information (see paragraph [0016], herein computer program products and/or methods, a computation component can perform error mitigation employing an iterative solver using a truncated set of assignment matrix (A-matrix) elements as the initial input set for the iterative solver). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Van with the teachings of Nation by including wherein the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information would have improved (e.g., enhance, optimize and/or reduce) the execution time and/or quality for performing error mitigation relative to one or more quantum jobs (see paragraph [0039] of Nation).
As per claim 10:
Van teaches that wherein the readout mitigation comprises a sampling readout mitigation, wherein the correction information comprises a set of matrices and wherein the performing of the readout mitigation further comprises using the set of matrices to solve an algebraic system of equations (see paragraph [0034], herein the RMC 106 can utilize various estimation protocols to facilitate mitigating readout errors associated with readout results produced by the quantum computer component 102. The estimation protocols can comprise, for example, an acquire data protocol (also referred to as Protocol AcquireData) that can specify a process for sampling and acquiring data).
As per claim 11:
Van substantially teaches or discloses a system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor, coupled to said memory (see paragraph [0011], herein a system comprising a memory that stores computer-executable components; and a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes computer-executable components), and operative to perform operations comprising: calibrating qubit readout for a plurality of device qubits on a given quantum computer using deterministic bit patterns to generate calibration data (see abstract, paragraph [0034], herein To facilitate implementation of the protocols, the RMC 106 can comprise a calibration component 108 that can perform a calibration process that can produce calibration data that can be used to mitigate readout errors and can provide a benchmark associated with the circuit); running a given algorithm on the given quantum computer to generate qubit readout data (see paragraph [0028], herein generate an error-mitigated readout determination (e.g., a readout result that can have error desirably mitigated) associated with the circuit of interest based on the first random Pauli gates applied to the qubits at the first output of the first circuit and the second random Pauli gates applied to the qubits at the second output of the second circuit); performing a readout mitigation to generate revised qubit readout data based on the qubit readout data, the performance of the readout mitigation including issuing, to a calibration routine, a set of labels identifying qubits used in the running of the given algorithm (see paragraph [0033], herein The error-mitigation techniques employed by the RMC 106 can enable and can implement dynamic adjustments to make the techniques resilient against time-variations in the noise that can otherwise cause readout errors, which can be useful and desirable in enabling the success of a mitigation scheme on a near-term device) and obtaining, from the calibration routine, correction information based on the calibration data (see paragraph [0108], herein In practical systems, gradual changes in systemic gate and readout errors can be expected. That can mean that calibration data can have a limited lifetime. For error mitigation in the disclosed approach, the RMC 106 can traverse the calibration data, for example, whenever the RMC 106 is to be used to compute the correction factor for an individual Pauli-z operator. In practical systems, gradual changes in systemic gate and readout errors can be expected. That can mean that calibration data can have a limited lifetime. For error mitigation in the disclosed approach, the RMC 106 can traverse the calibration data, for example, whenever the RMC 106 is to be used to compute the correction factor for an individual Pauli-z operator). Van does not explicitly teach wherein the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information. However, Nation in the same the field of endeavor teaches wherein the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information (see paragraph [0016], herein computer program products and/or methods, a computation component can perform error mitigation employing an iterative solver using a truncated set of assignment matrix (A-matrix) elements as the initial input set for the iterative solver). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the system of Van with the teachings of Nation by including wherein the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information. This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the readout mitigation is performed using the correction information would have improved (e.g., enhance, optimize and/or reduce) the execution time and/or quality for performing error mitigation relative to one or more quantum jobs (see paragraph [0039] of Nation).
As per claim 12:
Van teaches that the system further comprising an interface coupled to the at least one processor and configured to facilitate the running of the given algorithm on the given quantum computer (see paragraph [0126], herein other input devices connect to the processing unit 1014 through the system bus 1018 via interface port(s) 1038., and Fig. 10).
As per claim 13:
Van teaches that the system further comprising the given quantum computer, coupled to the interface and configured to perform the running of the given algorithm (see paragraph [0023], herein Quantum programming can involve the process of assembling sequences of instructions, which can be called quantum programs, that can be capable of running on a quantum computer. Each quantum program can be associated with a collection of quantum circuits. When a quantum program is executed, a result (e.g., an estimated value) can be produced by the quantum computer).
As per claim 14:
Van teaches that wherein the readout mitigation comprises a sampling readout mitigation, wherein the correction information comprises a set of matrices and wherein the performing of the readout mitigation further comprises using the set of matrices to solve an algebraic system of equations (see paragraph [0034], herein the RMC 106 can utilize various estimation protocols to facilitate mitigating readout errors associated with readout results produced by the quantum computer component 102. The estimation protocols can comprise, for example, an acquire data protocol (also referred to as Protocol AcquireData) that can specify a process for sampling and acquiring data).
As per claim 15:
Van teaches that wherein the readout mitigation comprises an expectation value readout mitigation, wherein the correction information comprises a renormalization factor and wherein the performing of the readout mitigation further comprises using the renormalization factor to generate the revised qubit readout data (see paragraph [0091], herein However, since it can be undesirable or infeasible to construct a full A-matrix (e.g., full A-matrix 700), such as due to available memory, usable memory, allowable quantity of bitstring integers, available processing power and/or available time, instead, the computation component 412 can employ a renormalization factor relative to one or more of the observed bitstrings (e.g., such as the observed bitstring 704). Indeed, the computation component 412 can employ a renormalization factor relative to each of the observed bitstrings).
As per claim 16:
Van teaches that wherein the calibration routine generates the correction information based on the set of labels identifying qubits used in running the given algorithm and an identification of a sampling type of readout mitigation (see paragraph [0108], herein in practical systems, gradual changes in systemic gate and readout errors can be expected. That can mean that calibration data can have a limited lifetime. For error mitigation in the disclosed approach, the RMC 106 can traverse the calibration data, for example, whenever the RMC 106 is to be used to compute the correction factor for an individual Pauli-z operator),, the correction information comprising a set of matrices generated by marginalizing a data distribution based on the calibration data (see paragraph [0092], herein Proof. Protocols 1 and 2 can acquire data and estimate different quantities using the function in Eq. (6). For a fixed i and j, each term in the summation can be viewed as an independent ±1 sample from a certain distribution depending on U that can marginalize over Pauli indices p and q).
As per claim 17:
Van teaches that the operations further comprising renormalizing the marginalized data distribution (see paragraph [0028], herein the estimation component can determine a normalization scalar value based on the calibration data and a second defined function, and can determine an estimation scalar value based on the estimation data and the second defined function. The estimation component can determine the error-mitigated readout determination (e.g., error-mitigated readout result) associated with the circuit of interest based on (e.g., as a function of) the normalization scalar value and estimation scalar value).
As per claim 18:
Van teaches that wherein the calibration routine generates the correction information based on the set of labels identifying qubits used in running the given algorithm and an identification of an expectation value type of readout mitigation (see paragraph [0108], herein in practical systems, gradual changes in systemic gate and readout errors can be expected. That can mean that calibration data can have a limited lifetime. For error mitigation in the disclosed approach, the RMC 106 can traverse the calibration data, for example, whenever the RMC 106 is to be used to compute the correction factor for an individual Pauli-z operator),, the correction information comprising renormalization factor generated by computing expectation values on the qubits identified by the set of labels using Pauli Z observables and the calibration data (see paragraph [0028], herein a readout management component (RMC) that can mitigate readout errors for quantum expectation associated with quantum computing. The RMC can comprise a calibration component that can apply first random Pauli gates (or corresponding first Pauli operators) to qubit components (also referred to herein as qubits) at a first output of a first circuit prior to first readout measurements of the qubits or the first circuit).
As per claim 19:
Van teaches that wherein the type of readout mitigation performed is based on the use case and wherein the type of readout mitigation performed is an expectation value readout mitigation for variational algorithms (see paragraph [0033], herein The RMC 106 can desirably (e.g., efficiently, quickly, and optimally) manage the production of readout results to mitigate (e.g., reduce or minimize) readout errors. For instance, the RMC 106 can manage the production of readout results to mitigate readout errors in partial state tomography and partial process tomography using randomization associated with a circuit, in accordance with defined readout management criteria).
As per claim 20:
Van teaches that wherein the type of readout mitigation performed is based on the use case and wherein the type of readout mitigation performed is a sampling readout mitigation for sampling problems (see paragraph [0034], herein the RMC 106 can utilize various estimation protocols to facilitate mitigating readout errors associated with readout results produced by the quantum computer component 102. The estimation protocols can comprise, for example, an acquire data protocol (also referred to as Protocol AcquireData) that can specify a process for sampling and acquiring data).
Examiner Notes
11. When amending the claims, applicants are respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Prior Art
12. The prior art of record, considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSMAN ALSHACK whose telephone number is (571)272-2069. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:30 AM-5:00 PM EST, also please fax interview request to (571) 273- 2069. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALBERT DECADY can be reached on 5712723819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OSMAN M ALSHACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights