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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. Note that this may be challenging, due to the lack of a practical application in the instant application.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims recite details regarding quantum eigensolver calculations that are not taught or suggested in the prior art. The combination of three critical features is the primary factor: non-bosonic perturbation (PT2) correction, a unitary pair coupled cluster double (upCCD) ansatz determining geometry coordinates, and orbital optimization upCCD with an energy calculation, that is corrected based on the second order perturbation theory PT2. The most pertinent prior art is discussed below:
Xie (Xie, Q. X., Zhang, W. G., Xu, X. S., Liu, S., & Zhao, Y. (2022). Qubit unitary coupled cluster with generalized single and paired double excitations ansatz for variational quantum eigensolver. International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 122(24), e27001.) represents one of the two closest prior art references. It discusses using a paired double excitations ansatz for a variational quantum eigensolver. It does not disclose or suggest non-bosonic perturbation (PT2) correction.
Wang (Wang, Q., Li, M., Monroe, C., & Nam, Y. (2021). Resource-optimized fermionic local-hamiltonian simulation on a quantum computer for quantum chemistry. Quantum, 5, 509.) represents the other of the two closest prior art references. discusses using "a juxtaposition of the bosonic circuit written according to the JW transformation and non-bosonic circuit written according to our GT approach.". It does this in the context of "a unitary ansatz evolution operator Uansatz on a quantum computer, an example of which is the well-established unitary coupled cluster (UCC) ansatz". This is similar to the claims, but not the same as the non-bosonic perturbation (PT2) correction claimed, let alone the orbital optimization upCCD claimed. Even when the teachings of Wang are taken in combination with Xie, they still do not disclose or render obvious the features claimed.
US 20230377693 A1 uses a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) method, and employs a second order complete active space perturbation theory (CASPT2) to determine one or more determined values corresponding to the spatial distribution and/or energy of one or more inactive orbitals. This is in contrast to the instant application, which uses upCCD and PT2 correction.
US 20240096452 A1 discusses using an ansatz in the context of determining geometry coordinates, but not with an upCCD or using PT2 correction as claimed.
US 20240054374 A1 uses a variational quantum eigensolver approach. and calculates a potential energy curve for the bond stretching coordinate of the H2 molecule using a QCC entanglement ansatz. It does not use an upCCD or using PT2 correction as claimed.
US 20240428105 A1 discusses ranked Ansatz hardware pairings, but is silent regarding using them for quantum eigensolvers, let alone the other details claimed.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental processes and mathematical relationships) without significantly more. Claim 7 is representative of the substantially similar independent claims, and recites:
A system for enhancing accuracy of electron pair approximation using non-bosonic perturbation (PT2) correction, comprising: (this falls within the statutory categories of invention. Note that the correction recited here is a mathematical operation that falls within the scope of mathematical relationships)
a computing device, comprising: a processor; a memory; and a graphical user interface, wherein: (these are generic computer components recited in a manner equivalent to mere instructions apply an exception, as per MPEP 2106.05(f).)
the processor is configured to generate a unitary pair coupled cluster double (upCCD) Ansatz to determine geometry coordinates of a molecule, (this is specifying a mathematical algorithm which is to be used to execute numerical calculations, and falls within the scope of mathematical relationships.)
the graphical user interface is configured to receive, as input, the geometry coordinates of the molecule, and (this is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, as per MPEP 2106.05(g). The data gathered is geometry coordinates, which are mathematical numerical values, used for further mathematical calculations.)
the processor is further configured to: (as noted above, generic computer components recited in a manner equivalent to mere instructions apply an exception, as per MPEP 2106.05(f).)
perform orbital optimization to generate an orbital optimization upCCD (oo-upCCD) comprising an energy calculation; and (executing a mathematical algorithm according to specific equations to generate calculation results, within the scope of mathematical relationships.)
perform energy correction on the energy calculation of the oo-upCCD based on a second order perturbation theory (PT2), generating a PT2 correction energy value of the molecule. (another mathematical algorithm being used to determine numerical results, also within the scope of mathematical relationships.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements: 1) mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processor/memory), 2) generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of quantum circuits, and 3) insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (receiving data inputs via the user interface), and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (generating a report of the output data as recited in claim 8). The processor/memory is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/memory performing a generic computer function of executing instructions and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The specification that data is input with a user interface and a report is generated is only tangentially linked to the calculation and analysis steps, and does not meaningfully limit the claim. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor/memory to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8, as noted above, further recites a report being output. As analyzed above, this is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, as per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 12 recites that the device is a quantum computer, but this is merely generally linking the use of the exception to the technical field of quantum circuits, as per MPEP 2106.05(h).
Aside from the additional features of claims 8 and 12 discussed above, claims 8-12 recite only further details that fall within the scope of the mathematical relationships as analyzed for claim 7. They remain ineligible.
Claims 1 and 13 are substantially similar to claim 7, and are rejected under the same rationale.
Dependent claims 1-6 and 14-18 are substantially similar to claims 8-12, and are rejected under the same rationale as those claims.
Examiner notes that following a detailed analysis of the specification, no support could be identified for providing a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. The improvement of the invention appears to reside solely within the scope of the abstract and mathematical. To enhance compact prosecution, it is noted that as directly stated by MPEP 2106.05(f), “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Any speed or efficiency benefit of the mathematical algorithm in the instant case falls within the scope of that guidance, and will almost certainly not confer eligibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/BIJAN MAPAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights