CTNF 18/468,418 CTNF 98706 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/15/2023, 09/18/2023, 03/19/2024, 09/29/2025 and 04/01/2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-5, 7-13, 14-18 and 19-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-4, 6-13, 15-18 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 18468473 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite limitations substantionally similar to those recited in the copending application . Instant Application Application No. 18468473 1. A system, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise: a quantum circuit generation component that generates a quantum circuit comprising a series of one or more instances of a quantum gate of interest, wherein the quantum circuit generation component further generates the quantum circuit having each instance of the quantum gate of interest being bounded by a pair of Pauli gates, and wherein each pair of Pauli gates comprises two of the same bounding Pauli gate; a selection component that selects, separately for each instance of the quantum gate of interest, and employing a partial randomness, the bounding Pauli gate to employ for each instance of the quantum gate of interest; an insertion component that selects an initial Pauli gate as Pi from a state-based set of Pauli gates where Pi and Pj ∝ A ⊗ BPi both anti-commute with a rotation axis A ⊗ B of the quantum gate of interest, wherein A,B ∈ {X,Y,Z}; and a finalization component that, based on one or more parameters of a curve, to which an expectation value, resulting from (i) a measurement outcome of execution of the quantum circuit at a quantum system and (ii) subsequent readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate, is fitted, generates an element characterizing noise of the quantum gate of interest. 1. A system, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise: a quantum circuit generation component that generates a quantum circuit comprising a series of one or more instances of a quantum gate of interest, wherein the quantum circuit generation component further generates the quantum circuit having each instance of the quantum gate of interest being bounded by a pair of Pauli gates, and wherein each pair of Pauli gates comprises two of the same bounding Pauli gate; a selection component that randomly selects, separately for each instance of the quantum gate of interest, the bounding Pauli gate to employ for each instance of the quantum gate of interest; an insertion component that inserts, according to a determined probability, an initial Pauli gate, that is based on an initial quantum state of the quantum circuit, into the quantum circuit prior to the series of one or more instances of the quantum gate of interest; and a finalization component that, based on one or more parameters of a curve, to which an expectation value, resulting from a measurement outcome of execution of the quantum circuit at a quantum system, is fitted, generates an element characterizing noise of the quantum gate of interest. 5. The system of claim 1, further comprising: a state preparation component that selects the initial quantum state based on a rotation axis A ⊗ B of the quantum gate of interest, wherein the insertion component selects the initial Pauli gate (Pi) from a set of Pauli gates where Pi and Pj ∝ A ⊗ BPi both anti-commute with the rotation axis A ⊗ B, and wherein A,B ∈ {X,Y,Z}. 2. The system of claim 1, further comprising: an execution component that executes the quantum circuit at a quantum processor of the quantum system, resulting in the measurement outcome. 2. The system of claim 1, further comprising: an execution component that executes the quantum circuit at a quantum processor of the quantum system, resulting in the measurement outcome. 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the quantum gate of interest is a 2-qubit, non-Clifford quantum gate. 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the quantum gate of interest is a 2-qubit, non-Clifford quantum gate. 4. The system of claim 1, further comprising: a readout twirling component that directs performance of the readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate at the quantum system to result in output of the measurement outcome by the quantum system. 6. The system of claim 1, further comprising: a readout twirling component that directs performance of readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate at the quantum system to result in output of the measurement outcome by the quantum system. 5. The system of claim 1, wherein the finalization component generates the element absent employment of an amplitude parameter of the curve, resulting in the element being non-biased by state preparation and measurement noise related to operation of the quantum gate of interest. 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the finalization component generates the element absent employment of an amplitude parameter of the curve, resulting in the element being non-biased by state preparation and measurement noise related to operation of the quantum gate of interest. 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the selection component randomly selects the bounding Pauli gate, for at least a portion of the one or more instances of the quantum circuit of interest, from a group of Pauli gates that commute with the rotation axis of the quantum gate of interest, and wherein the selection component employs an even probability distribution for all Pauli gates of the set of Pauli gates from which the random selection of the bounding Pauli gate is made. 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the selection component randomly selects the bounding Pauli gate from a group of Pauli gates that commute with a rotation axis of the quantum gate of interest, and wherein the insertion component inserts the initial Pauli gate according to a 50% probability. 8. The system of claim 1, further comprising: a primary iteration component that directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component and finalization component to perform their respective operations for one or more additional quantum circuits each having a series of a same number of one or more instances of the quantum gate of interest as the quantum circuit. 8. The system of claim 1, further comprising: a primary iteration component that directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component and finalization component to perform their respective operations for one or more additional quantum circuits having a series of a same number of one or more instances of the quantum gate of interest as the quantum circuit. 9. The system of claim 8, further comprising: a curve fitting component that fits the expectation value, and an additional one or more expectation values resulting from the additional quantum circuits, to the curve being a decaying sinusoid curve or decaying exponential curve based on a selected curve-fitting process. 9. The system of claim 8, further comprising: a curve fitting component that fits the expectation value, and an additional one or more expectation values resulting from the additional quantum circuits, to the curve being a decaying sinusoid curve based on a selected curve-fitting process. 10. The system of claim 8, further comprising: a secondary iteration component that directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component, finalization component and primary iteration component to perform their respective operations for one or more further quantum circuits each having a series of a second same number of one or more instances of the quantum gate of interest as the quantum circuit, wherein the second same number is different than the same number; and a state preparation component that selects a second quantum state, different from a first quantum state of the quantum circuit, wherein both the first quantum state and the second quantum state are based on the rotation axis A ⊗ B of the quantum gate of interest, and wherein the state preparation component further directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component, finalization component, primary iteration component and secondary iteration component to perform their respective operations relative to the second quantum state. 10. The system of claim 8, further comprising: a secondary iteration component that directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component, finalization component and primary iteration component to perform their respective operations for one or more further quantum circuits each having a series of a second same number of one or more instances of the quantum gate of interest as the quantum circuit, wherein the second same number is different than the same number; and a state preparation component that selects a second initial quantum state, different from the initial quantum state, and, based on a rotation axis A ⊗ B of the quantum gate of interest, wherein A,B ∈ {X,Y,Z}, and wherein the state preparation component further directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component, finalization component, primary iteration component and secondary iteration component to perform their respective operations relative to the second initial quantum state. 11. A computer-implemented method, comprising: generating, by a system operatively coupled to a processor, a quantum circuit comprising a series of one or more instances of a quantum gate of interest, and further having each instance of the quantum gate of interest being bounded by a pair of Pauli gates, wherein each pair of Pauli gates comprises two of the same bounding Pauli gate; selecting, by the system, separately for each instance of the quantum gate of interest, and employing a partial randomness, the bounding Pauli gate to employ for each instance of the quantum gate of interest; selecting, by the system, an initial Pauli gate as Pi from a state-based set of Pauli gates where Pi and Pj ∝ A ⊗ BPi both anti-commute with a rotation axis A ⊗ B of the quantum gate of interest, wherein A,B ∈ {X,Y,Z}; and based on one or more parameters of a curve, to which an expectation value, resulting from (i) a measurement outcome of execution of the quantum circuit at a quantum system and (ii) subsequent readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate, is fitted, generating, by the system, an element characterizing noise of the quantum gate of interest. 11. A computer-implemented method, comprising: generating, by a system comprising a processor, a quantum circuit comprising a series of one or more instances of a quantum gate of interest, and having each instance of the quantum gate of interest being bounded by a pair of Pauli gates, wherein each pair of Pauli gates comprises two of the same bounding Pauli gate; randomly selecting, by the system, separately for each instance of the quantum gate of interest, the bounding Pauli gate to employ for each instance of the quantum gate of interest; inserting, by the system, according to a determined probability, an initial Pauli gate, that is based on an initial quantum state of the quantum circuit, into the quantum circuit prior to the series of one or more instances of the quantum gate of interest; and based on one or more parameters of a curve, to which an expectation value, resulting from a measurement outcome of execution of the quantum circuit at a quantum system, is fitted, generating, by the system, an element characterizing noise of the quantum gate of interest. 14. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: selecting, by the system, the initial quantum state based on a rotation axis A ⊗ B of the quantum gate of interest; and selecting, by the system, the initial Pauli gate (Pi) from a set of Pauli gates where Pi and Pj ∝ A ⊗ BPi both anti-commute with the rotation axis A ⊗ B, wherein A,B ∈ {X,Y,Z}. 12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: executing, by the system, the quantum circuit at a quantum processor of the quantum system, resulting in the measurement outcome; and directing, by the system, performance of the readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate at the quantum system to result in output of the measurement outcome by the quantum system. 12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: executing, by the system, the quantum circuit at a quantum processor of the quantum system; and directing, by the system, performance of readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate at the quantum system to result in output of the measurement outcome by the quantum system. 13. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: generating, by the system, the element absent employment of an amplitude parameter of the curve, resulting in the element being non-biased by state preparation and measurement noise related to operation of the quantum gate of interest. 15. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: generating, by the system, the element absent employment of an amplitude parameter of the curve, resulting in the element being non-biased by state preparation and measurement noise related to operation of the quantum gate of interest. 15. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: randomly selecting, by the system, the bounding Pauli gate, for at least a portion of the one or more instances of the quantum circuit of interest, from a group of Pauli gates that commute with the rotation axis of the quantum gate of interest, and employing, by the system, an even probability distribution for all Pauli gates of the set of Pauli gates from which the random selection of the bounding Pauli gate is made. 13. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising: randomly selecting, by the system, the bounding Pauli gate from a group of Pauli gates that commute with a rotation axis of the quantum gate of interest; and inserting, by the system, the initial Pauli gate according to a 50% probability. 16. A computer program product facilitating a process to characterize a noisy quantum gate, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to: generate, by the processor, a quantum circuit comprising a series of one or more instances of a quantum gate of interest, and further having each instance of the quantum gate of interest being bounded by a pair of Pauli gates, wherein each pair of Pauli gates comprises two of the same bounding Pauli gate; select, by the processor, separately for each instance of the quantum gate of interest, and employing a partial randomness, the bounding Pauli gate to employ for each instance of the quantum gate of interest; select, by the processor, an initial Pauli gate as Pi from a state-based set of Pauli gates where Pi and Pj ∝ A ⊗ BPi both anti-commute with a rotation axis A ⊗ B of the quantum gate of interest, wherein A,B ∈ {X,Y,Z}; and based on one or more parameters of a curve, to which an expectation value, resulting from (i) a measurement outcome of execution of the quantum circuit at a quantum system and (ii) subsequent readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate, is fitted, generate, by the processor, an element characterizing noise of the quantum gate of interest. 16. A computer program product facilitating a process to characterize a noisy quantum gate, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to: generate, by the processor, a quantum circuit comprising a series of one or more instances of a quantum gate of interest, and having each instance of the quantum gate of interest being bounded by a pair of Pauli gates, wherein each pair of Pauli gates comprises two of the same bounding Pauli gate; randomly select, by the processor, separately for each instance of the quantum gate of interest, the bounding Pauli gate to employ for each instance of the quantum gate of interest; insert, by the processor, according to a determined probability, an initial Pauli gate, that is based on an initial quantum state of the quantum circuit, into the quantum circuit prior to the series of one or more instances of the quantum gate of interest; and based on one or more parameters of a curve, to which an expectation value, resulting from a measurement outcome of execution of the quantum circuit at a quantum system, is fitted, generate, by the processor, an element characterizing noise of the quantum gate of interest. 19. The computer program product of claim 16, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: select, by the processor, the initial quantum state based on a rotation axis A ⊗ B of the quantum gate of interest; and select, by the processor, the initial Pauli gate (Pi) from a set of Pauli gates where Pi and Pj ∝ A ⊗ BPi both anti-commute with the rotation axis A ⊗ B, wherein A,B ∈ {X,Y,Z}. 17. The computer program product of claim 16, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: execute, by the processor, the quantum circuit at a quantum processor of the quantum system, resulting in the measurement outcome; and direct, by the processor, performance of the readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate at the quantum system to result in output of the measurement outcome by the quantum system. 17. The computer program product of claim 16, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: execute, by the processor, the quantum circuit at a quantum processor of the quantum system; and direct, by the processor, performance of readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate at the quantum system to result in output of the measurement outcome by the quantum system. 18. The computer program product of claim 16, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: generate, by the processor, the element absent employment of an amplitude parameter of the curve, resulting in the element being non-biased by state preparation and measurement noise related to operation of the quantum gate of interest. 20. The computer program product of claim 16, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: generate, by the processor, the element absent employment of an amplitude parameter of the curve, resulting in the element being non-biased by state preparation and measurement noise related to operation of the quantum gate of interest. 20. The computer program product of claim 16, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: randomly select, by the processor, the bounding Pauli gate, for at least a portion of the one or more instances of the quantum circuit of interest, from a group of Pauli gates that commute with the rotation axis of the quantum gate of interest, and employ, by the processor, an even probability distribution for all Pauli gates of the set of Pauli gates from which the random selection of the bounding Pauli gate is made. 18. The computer program product of claim 16, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: randomly select, by the processor, the bounding Pauli gate from a group of Pauli gates that commute with a rotation axis of the quantum gate of interest; and insert, by the processor, the initial Pauli gate according to a 50% probability. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Claim 1 is directed to a machine. Step 1: yes. Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? generates a quantum circuit comprising a series of one or more instances of a quantum gate of interest, wherein the quantum circuit generation component further generates the quantum circuit having each instance of the quantum gate of interest being bounded by a pair of Pauli gates, and wherein each pair of Pauli gates comprises two of the same bounding Pauli gate; (limitation is directed to a mathematical concept in view of the specification. See paragraphs 0065-0067, 0192, 0257-0259 and 0453.) selects, separately for each instance of the quantum gate of interest, and employing a partial randomness, the bounding Pauli gate to employ for each instance of the quantum gate of interest; (limitation is directed to a mathematical concept in view of applicant’s specification. See paragraphs 0164, 0383-0386.) selects an initial Pauli gate as Pi from a state-based set of Pauli gates where Pi and Pj ∝ A ⊗ BPi both anti-commute with a rotation axis A ⊗ B of the quantum gate of interest, wherein A,B ∈ {X,Y,Z}; and (limitation is directed to a mathematical concept in view of the specification. See paragraphs 0065-0067.) based on one or more parameters of a curve, to which an expectation value, resulting from (i) a measurement outcome of execution of the quantum circuit at a quantum system and (ii) subsequent readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate, is fitted, generates an element characterizing noise of the quantum gate of interest. (limitation is directed to a mathematical concept in view of the specification. See paragraphs 0103, 0165-0167, 0362 and 0385-0386.) Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea. Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? A system, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise: (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). a quantum circuit generation component, a selection component, an insertion component and a finalization component (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? A system, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise: (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). a quantum circuit generation component, a selection component, an insertion component and a finalization component (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 2, Claim 2 incorporates the analysis of the machine of claim 1. Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B: an execution component that executes the quantum circuit at a quantum processor of the quantum system, (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). resulting in the measurement outcome. (is an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. Under step 2B, this insignificant extra solution activity is well understood routine and conventional activity, see (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362). Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 3, Claim 3 incorporates the analysis of the machine of claim 1. Step 2A, prong 1: wherein the quantum gate of interest is a 2-qubit, non-Clifford quantum gate. (limitation is directed to a mathematical concept, see paragraphs 0035 of specification.) Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea. Regarding claim 4, Claim 4 incorporates the analysis of the machine of claim 1. Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B: a readout twirling component that directs performance of readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate at the quantum system to result in output of the measurement outcome by the quantum system. (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 5 and analogous claims 13 and 18, Claim 5 incorporates the analysis of the machine of claim 1. Step 2A, prong 1: generates the element absent employment of an amplitude parameter of the curve, resulting in the element being non-biased by state preparation and measurement noise related to operation of the quantum gate of interest. (limitation is directed to a mathematical concept in view of the specification. See paragraphs 0043.) Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea. Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B: finalization component (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 6 and analogous claims 14 and 19, Claim 6 incorporates the analysis of the machine of claim 1. Step 2A, prong 1: generates an element of a Pauli transfer matrix of the quantum gate of interest based on the element characterizing noise of the quantum gate of interest. (limitation is directed to a mathematical concept in view of the specification. See paragraphs 0103, 0165-0167, 0362 and 0385-0386.) Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea. Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B: the finalization component (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 7 and analogous claims 15 and 20, Claim 7 incorporates the analysis of the machine of claim 1. Step 2A, prong 1: wherein the selection component randomly selects the bounding Pauli gate, for at least a portion of the one or more instances of the quantum circuit of interest, from a group of Pauli gates that commute with the rotation axis of the quantum gate of interest, and (limitation is directed to a mathematical concept in view of the specification. See paragraphs 0103, 0165-0167, 0362 and 0385-0386.) wherein the selection component employs an even probability distribution for all Pauli gates of the set of Pauli gates from which the random selection of the bounding Pauli gate is made. (limitation is directed to a mathematical concept in view of the specification. See paragraphs 0103, 0165-0167, 0362 and 0385-0386.) Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea. Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B: selection component and insertion component (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 8, Claim 8 incorporates the analysis of the machine of claim 1. Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B: a primary iteration component that directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component and finalization component to perform their respective operations for one or more additional quantum circuits having a series of a same number of one or more instances of the quantum gate of interest as the quantum circuit. (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 incorporates the analysis of the machine of claim 8. Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B: a curve fitting component that fits the expectation value, and an additional one or more expectation values resulting from the additional quantum circuits, to the curve being a decaying sinusoid curve based on a selected curve-fitting process. (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 10, Claim 10 incorporates the analysis of the machine of claim 8. Step 2A, prong 1: selects a second initial quantum state, different from the initial quantum state, and, based on a rotation axis A ⊗ B of the quantum gate of interest, wherein A,B ∈ {X,Y,Z}, and (limitation is directed to a mathematical concept in view of the specification. See paragraphs 0065-0067.) Step 2A, prong 1: If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim “recites” an abstract idea. Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B: a secondary iteration component that directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component, finalization component and primary iteration component to perform their respective operations for one or more further quantum circuits each having a series of a second same number of one or more instances of the quantum gate of interest as the quantum circuit, wherein the second same number is different than the same number; and (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). state preparation component (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). wherein the state preparation component further directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component, finalization component, primary iteration component and secondary iteration component to perform their respective operations relative to the second initial quantum state. (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 12 and analogous claim 17, Claim 12 incorporates the analysis of the method of claim 11. Step 2A, prong 2/Step 2B: executing, by the system, the quantum circuit at a quantum processor of the quantum system (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). resulting in the measurement outcome; and (is an insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering. Under step 2B, this insignificant extra solution activity is well understood routine and conventional activity, see (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362). directing, by the system, performance of the readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate at the quantum system to result in output of the measurement outcome by the quantum system. (e.g., mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Step 2A, prong 2: Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 11, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Claim 11 is directed to a process. Step 1: yes. The rest of the analysis for claim 11 is analogous to claim 1. Regarding claim 16, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Claim 16 is directed to a manufacture. Step 1: yes. The rest of the analysis for claim 16 is analogous to claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US Published Patent Application No. 20210350056, "Chen"), in view of Crooks (Gates, States and Circuits) and Majumdar et al (Error mitigated quantum circuit cutting, "Majumdar") . In regard to claim 1, Chen teaches a memory that stores computer executable components; and ( Chen , paragraph 0073, “Electronic system 1000 includes a bus 1008, processing unit(s) 1012, a system memory 1004, a read-only memory (ROM) 1010,”) a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise: ( Chen , paragraph 0073, “Electronic system 1000 can be a client, a server, a computer, a smartphone, a PDA, a laptop, or a tablet computer with one or more processors embedded therein or coupled thereto, or any other sort of electronic device. Such an electronic system includes various types of computer-readable media and interfaces for various other types of computer-readable media.”) a quantum circuit generation component that generates a quantum circuit comprising a series of one or more instances of a quantum gate of interest, wherein the quantum circuit generation component further generates the quantum circuit having each instance of the quantum gate of interest being bounded by a pair of Pauli gates, and wherein each pair of Pauli gates comprises two of the same bounding Pauli gate; ( Chen , paragraph 0031, “quantum circuit can be used to model quantum computations using quantum gates, which are reversible transformations on a quantum mechanical analog of an n-bit register. This analogous structure can also be referred to as an n-qubit register or a quantum register. In a quantum circuit, the quantum registers store initial quantum states. In typical implementations, the initial quantum states can be all zeros, and each computation can be realized using corresponding quantum gates.” and paragraph 0032, “Common quantum gates can include single- qubit gates (e.g., the Pauli-X (or X) gate, the Pauli-Y (or Y) gate, the Pauli-Z (or Z) gate, the I gate, the T gate, etc.) and two-qubit gates (e.g., the controlled NOT (CNOT) gate, the CZ gate, etc.).”) a selection component that randomly selects, separately for each instance of the quantum gate of interest, and employing partial randomness, the bounding Pauli gate to employ for each instance of the quantum gate of interest; ( Chen , paragraph 0031, “quantum circuit can be used to model quantum computations using quantum gates, which are reversible transformations on a quantum mechanical analog of an n-bit register. This analogous structure can also be referred to as an n-qubit register or a quantum register. In a quantum circuit, the quantum registers store initial quantum states. In typical implementations, the initial quantum states can be all zeros, and each computation can be realized using corresponding quantum gates.” And paragraph 0032, “In a quantum circuit, each quantum gate can represent a unitary matrix U that satisfies condition uu+=I, where I is the identity matrix. Common quantum gates can include single-qubit gates (e.g., the Pauli-X (or X) gate, the Pauli-Y (or Y) gate, the Pauli-Z (or Z) gate, the I gate, the T gate, etc.) and two-qubit gates (e.g., the controlled NOT (CNOT) gate, the CZ gate, etc.).” and paragraph 0058, “the simulation task can be divided into 2m subtasks by removing m vertices that are coupled to CZ-gate pairs. Each such subtask can be more efficient than the situation where a random vertex is removed [[a selection component that randomly selects]] . Tests have shown that, when 12 vertices are removed using this strategy from a quantum circuit of size 8x8x40 , one can effectively reduce the treewidth of the undirected graph by 5, compared to the case where the gates are removed one at a time”) However, Chen does not explicitly teach an insertion component that selects an initial Pauli gate as Pi from a state-based set of Pauli gates where Pi and Pj ∝ A ⊗ BPi both anti-commute with a rotation axis A ⊗ B of the quantum gate of interest, wherein A,B ∈ {X,Y,Z}; and a finalization component that, based on one or more parameters of a curve, to which an expectation value, resulting from (i) a measurement outcome of execution of the quantum circuit at a quantum system and (ii) subsequent readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate, is fitted, generates an element characterizing noise of the quantum gate of interest. Crooks teaches an insertion component that selects an initial Pauli gate as Pi from a state-based set of Pauli gates where Pi and Pj ∝ A ⊗ BPi both anti-commute with a rotation axis A ⊗ B of the quantum gate of interest, wherein A,B ∈ {X,Y,Z}; and ( Crooks, pg. 8, 3.1, paragraph 2, “We will explore the algebra of Pauli operators in more detail in chapter (x11). But for now, note that the Pauli gates are all Hermitian, _ i = _i, square to the identity _2 i = I, and that the X, Y, and Z gates anti-commute with each other.” And pg. 10, 3.2, paragraph 1, “The three Pauli-rotation gates2 Rx, Ry, and Rz rotate the state vector by an arbitrary angle about the corresponding axis in the Bloch sphere, Fig. 3.1. They are generated by taking exponentials of the Pauli operators.” And pg. 8, 3.1, paragraph 2, “XY = -YZ = iZ YZ = -ZY = iX ZX = -ZX = iY XYZ = iI”) Chen and Crooks are related to the same field of endeavor (i.e. quantum circuits). In view of the teachings of Crooks, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Crooks to Chen before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to account for all possibilities of gates. ( Crooks , pg. 8, 3., paragraph 1, “But in quantum mechanics the zero and one states can be placed into superposition, so there are many other interesting possibilities.”) However, Chen and Crooks do not explicitly teach a finalization component that, based on one or more parameters of a curve, to which an expectation value, resulting from (i) a measurement outcome of execution of the quantum circuit at a quantum system and (ii) subsequent readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate, is fitted, generates an element characterizing noise of the quantum gate of interest. Majumdar teaches a finalization component that, based on one or more parameters of a curve, to which an expectation value, resulting from (i) a measurement outcome of execution of the quantum circuit at a quantum system and (ii) subsequent readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate, is fitted, generates an element characterizing noise of the quantum gate of interest. ( Majumdar , pg. 1, Col. 1, Intro., paragraph 2, “In circuit cutting, the quantum circuit is cut into two or more fragments such that each fragment is small enough to be computed on the quantum hardware individually. Note that here the cutting is along the wire only, and all the gates from the original circuit is retained in the ensemble of the fragments (refer to Fig. 1). The expectation value of the original circuit can be retrieved by classically combining the expectation values of the individual fragments obtained in different preparation and measurement bases [2].” And pg. 4, Col. 2, D., paragraph 2, “In order to evaluate the expectation value of a weight [on one or more parameters of a curve, ] d < m Pauli operator for a fragment F with k cut qubits and m qubit measurements from the original circuit, it suffices to evaluate the conditional components Ts only over the d non-identity qubits corresponding to the observable, and marginalize over the rest.” And pg. 2, Col. 1, paragraph 3, “In Section III we introduce tomographic error mitigation techniques for measurement error mitigated conditional fragment tomography and dominant eigenvalue truncation (DEVT) to counter measurement noise in the system. Section IV shows the simulation details of the effect of noise and error mitigation on quantum circuit cutting [generates an element characterizing noise of the quantum gate of interest.], and also compares two tomographic approaches for circuit cutting with partial data.”) Chen, Crooks and Majumdar are related to the same field of endeavor (i.e. quantum circuits). In view of the teachings of Majumdar, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Majumdar to Chen and Crooks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to ensure a more accurate outcome. (Majumdar, pg. 14, Col. 2, paragraph 2, “In typical tomography applications the main trade-off between these two fitters is that linear inversion fitting is significantly faster, while constrained least squares is more accurate, especially when including readout error mitigation via noisy basis elements in the fitting or only using partial tomography data.”) In regard to claim 11, the claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 1, and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 using similar teachings and rationale. In regard to claim 16, the claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 1, and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 using similar teachings and rationale. In regard to claim 2 and analogous claims 12 and 17, Chen, Crooks and Majumdar teaches the system of claim 1. Majumdar further teaches an execution component that executes the quantum circuit at a quantum processor of the quantum system, resulting in the measurement outcome. ( Majumdar , pg. 4, Col. 1, C., paragraph 2, “This is done by choosing a tomographically complete basis fBjg on the k cut qubit subsystem, and also defining an orthonormal (but tomographically incomplete) basis on the m conditional measurement outcome qubits.”) Chen, Crooks and Majumdar are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1. In regard to claim 3, Chen, Crooks and Majumdar teach the system of claim 1. Crooks teaches non-Clifford quantum gate. ( Crooks , pg. 21, 3.7, paragraph 1, “In order to be computational universal, it is necessary to have at least one non-Clifford gate in our gate set, and the most common choice for that non-Clifford gate is the T gate, one eighth of a rotation anti-clockwise about the z axis.”) Chen and Crooks are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1. However, Chen and Crooks do not explicitly teach wherein the quantum gate of interest is a 2-qubit, Majumdar further teaches wherein the quantum gate of interest is a 2-qubit, ( Majumdar , pg. 6, Col. 1, IV, paragraph 1, “For our numerical study we consider a cluster unitary circuit consisting of alternating layers of random 2-qubit unitary gates”) Chen, Crooks and Majumdar are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1. In regard to claim 4, Chen, Crooks and Majumdar teach the system of claim 1. Majumdar further teaches a readout twirling component that directs performance of the readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate at the quantum system to result in output of the measurement outcome by the quantum system. (Majumdar, pg. 14, Col. 2, paragraph 1, “For non-symmetric readout noise this can be made to look symmetric by Pauli twirling of the measurements to randomly flip the expected bit outcomes and then correcting in post-processing [30].”) Chen, Crooks and Majumdar are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1. In regard to claim 6 and analogous claims 14 and 19, Chen, Crooks and Majumdar teach the system of claim 1. Majumdar further teaches wherein the finalization component further generates an element of a Pauli transfer matrix of the quantum gate of interest based on the element characterizing noise of the quantum gate of interest. ( Majumdar , pg. 1, Col. 1, Intro., paragraph 2, “In circuit cutting, the quantum circuit is cut into two or more fragments such that each fragment is small enough to be computed on the quantum hardware individually. Note that here the cutting is along the wire only, and all the gates from the original circuit is retained in the ensemble of the fragments (refer to Fig. 1). The expectation value of the original circuit can be retrieved by classically combining the expectation values of the individual fragments obtained in different preparation and measurement bases [2].” And pg. 4, Col. 2, D., paragraph 2, “In order to evaluate the expectation value of a weight [on one or more parameters of a curve, ] d < m Pauli operator for a fragment F with k cut qubits and m qubit measurements from the original circuit, it suffices to evaluate the conditional components Ts only over the d non-identity qubits corresponding to the observable, and marginalize over the rest.” And pg. 2, Col. 1, paragraph 3, “In Section III we introduce tomographic error mitigation techniques for measurement error mitigated conditional fragment tomography and dominant eigenvalue truncation (DEVT) to counter measurement noise in the system. Section IV shows the simulation details of the effect of noise and error mitigation on quantum circuit cutting [generates an element characterizing noise of the quantum gate of interest.], and also compares two tomographic approaches for circuit cutting with partial data.”) Chen, Crooks and Majumdar are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1. In regard to claim 7 and analogous claims 15 and 20, Chen, Crooks and Majumdar teaches the system of claim 1. Majumdar further teaches wherein the selection component randomly selects the bounding Pauli gate, for at least a portion of the one or more instances of the quantum circuit of interest, from a group of Pauli gates that commute with the rotation axis of the quantum gate of interest, and ( Majumdar, pg. 7, Col. 1, paragraph 3, “Noise was then added to either the 2-qubit gates, 1-qubit gates, or single-qubit measurements using the same noise parameters for all qubits to simplify analysis. Note that in IBM Quantum devices, RZ gate is not physically executed, rather its effect is accounted for in the software by a rotation of axis [26].”) wherein the selection component employs an even probability distribution for all Pauli gates of the set of Pauli gates from which the random selection of the bounding Pauli gate is made. ( Majumdar, pg. 2, Col. 2, A., paragraph 1, “The general goal of circuit cutting is to reconstruct either the full probability distribution P(s) for all measurement outcomes of the original circuit, or some quantity derived from them such as an expectation value.”, Examiner would like to point out that the “some quantity derived” is being interpreted as the even probability. Paragraph 00165 of the applications specification states that the probability is determined. ) Chen, Crooks and Majumdar are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1. In regard to claim 8, Chen, Crooks and Majumdar teach the system of claim 1. Majumdar further teaches a primary iteration component that directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component and finalization component to perform their respective operations for one or more additional quantum circuits having a series of a same number of one or more instances of the quantum gate of interest as the quantum circuit. ( Majumdar, pg. 13, Col. 1, E., paragraph 1, “A k-qubit conditional tomography experiment using the standard Pauli basis and all measurement outcomes requires the execution of 12k quantum circuits from the 4k preparation states and 3k measurement bases respectively. This means that full tomography is typically only practical for 2-3 qubit fragments in the process tomography case, or up 5-6 qubits for state tomography fragments. For larger number of qubits the classical postprocessing required for linear inversion tomography can be significantly faster than for conditional least-squared tomography, which in the basic implementation of linear-least squares requires storing the full basis matrix of all vectorized basis elements.”) Chen, Crooks and Majumdar are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1. In regard to claim 10, Chen and Majumdar teach the system of claim 8. Chen further teaches a state preparation component that selects a second initial quantum state, different from the initial quantum state, and, based on a rotation axis A ⊗ B of the quantum gate of interest, ( Chen, paragraph 0031, “In a quantum circuit, the quantum registers store initial quantum states. In typical implementations, the initial quantum states can be all zeros, and each computation can be realized using corresponding quantum gates. A combination of computations can be represented using a sequence of quantum gates.” paragraph 0038, “Note that, because the T gate and the CZ gate are diagonal, when performing the summation, ( i4 1CZ ⊗ 130I2 1i) can be nonzero only when i3 and i4 are identical strings, ( i3 IT ⊗ 10T 20T ⊗ 3 li2 ) can be nonzero only when i2 and i3 are identical strings, and ( i2 1CZ120,.j°X;li1 ) can be nonzero only when the first two bits of i 1 and i2 are identical.”) However, Chen does not explicitly teach a secondary iteration component that directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component, finalization component and primary iteration component to perform their respective operations for one or more further quantum circuits each having a series of a second same number of one or more instances of the quantum gate of interest as the quantum circuit, wherein the second same number is different than the same number; and wherein A,B ∈ {X,Y,Z}, and wherein the state preparation component further directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component, finalization component, primary iteration component and secondary iteration component to perform their respective operations relative to the second initial quantum state. Crooks teaches wherein A,B ∈ {X,Y,Z}, and ( Crooks, pg. 8, 3.1, paragraph 2, “XY = -YZ = iZ YZ = -ZY = iX ZX = -ZX = iY XYZ = iI”) Chen and Crooks are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1. However, Chen and Crooks does not explicitly teach a secondary iteration component that directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component, finalization component and primary iteration component to perform their respective operations for one or more further quantum circuits each having a series of a second same number of one or more instances of the quantum gate of interest as the quantum circuit, wherein the second same number is different than the same number; and wherein the state preparation component further directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component, finalization component, primary iteration component and secondary iteration component to perform their respective operations relative to the second initial quantum state. Majumdar further teaches a secondary iteration component that directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component, finalization component and primary iteration component to perform their respective operations for one or more further quantum circuits each having a series of a second same number of one or more instances of the quantum gate of interest as the quantum circuit, ( Majumdar, pg. 2, Fig. 1, C., PNG media_image1.png 172 737 media_image1.png Greyscale , examiner would in the figure, that the second subcircuit has multiple iterations. ) wherein the second same number is different than the same number; and ( Majumdar, pg. 2, Fig. 1, C., PNG media_image1.png 172 737 media_image1.png Greyscale , examiner would like to point out that the second iteration in the subcircuit C has a different number from iteration 1. ) wherein the state preparation component further directs the quantum circuit generation component, selection component, insertion component, finalization component, primary iteration component and secondary iteration component to perform their respective operations relative to the second initial quantum state. ( Majumdar, pg. 2, Fig. 1, C., PNG media_image1.png 172 737 media_image1.png Greyscale , examiner would in the figure, that the second subcircuit has multiple iterations having an initial state. ) Chen, Crooks and Majumdar are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1. In regard to claim 12 and analogous claim 17, Chen, Crooks and Majumdar teach the method of claim 11. executing, by the system, the quantum circuit at a quantum processor of the quantum system, resulting in the measurement outcome; and ( Majumdar, pg. 4, Col. 1, C., paragraph 2, “This is done by choosing a tomographically complete basis fBjg on the k cut qubit subsystem, and also defining an orthonormal (but tomographically incomplete) basis on the m conditional measurement outcome qubits.”) directing, by the system, performance of the readout twirling of the initial Pauli gate at the quantum system to result in output of the measurement outcome by the quantum system. ( Majumdar, pg. 14, Col. 2, paragraph 1, “For non-symmetric readout noise this can be made to look symmetric by Pauli twirling of the measurements to randomly flip the expected bit outcomes and then correcting in post-processing [30].”) Chen, Crooks and Majumdar are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5, 9, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Majumdar and Crooks, in further view of Garion et al (Experimental implementation of non-Clifford interleaved randomized benchmarking with a controlled-S gate, "Garion") . In regard to claim 5 and analogous claims 13 and 18, Chen, Crooks and Majumdar teach the system of claim 1. However, Chen, Crooks and Majumdar do not explicitly teach wherein the finalization component generates the element absent employment of an amplitude parameter of the curve, resulting in the element being non-biased by state preparation and measurement noise related to operation of the quantum gate of interest. Garion teaches wherein the finalization component generates the element absent employment of an amplitude parameter of the curve, resulting in the element being non-biased by state preparation and measurement noise related to operation of the quantum gate of interest. ( Garion, pg. 3, Col. 1, III., paragraph 2, “The two-qubit system driven by the CR pulse with amplitude A and phase φ can be approximated by an effective block-diagonal time-independent Hamiltonian [26,27] H CR( A, φ ) = P = I,X,Y,Z ωZP ( A, φ ) 2 Z ⊗ P + Q = X,Y,Z ωIQ ( A, φ ) 2 I ⊗ Q, (7) where the qubit ordering is the control ⊗ target, and ωZP and ωIQ represent the interaction strength of the corresponding Pauli Hamiltonian terms. In the absence of noise, the ideal CR evolution for a constant-amplitude pulse is written as an unitary operator”) Chen, Crooks, Majumdar and Garion are related to the same field of endeavor (i.e. quantum circuits). In view of the teachings of Garion, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Garion to Chen and Majumdar before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to allow for efficient characterization od the gates. ( Garion, pg. 5, Col. 2, paragraph 1, “To benchmark performance of the non-Clifford gate we performed an experimental demonstration of twoqubit interleaved CNOT-dihedral RB, which allows efficient and robust characterization of a universal gate set containing the CS gate.”) In regard to claim 9, Chen, Crooks and Majumdar teach the system of claim 8. However, Chen, Crooks and Majumdar do not explicitly teach a curve fitting component that fits the expectation value, and an additional one or more expectation values resulting from the additional quantum circuits, to the curve being a decaying sinusoid curve based on a selected curve-fitting process. Garion teaches a curve fitting component that fits the expectation value, and an additional one or more expectation values resulting from the additional quantum circuits, to the curve being a decaying sinusoid curve based on a selected curve-fitting process. ( Garion, pg. 4, Col. 1, paragraph 1, “The exponential fit of the decay curves yields α = 9 . 78(1) × 10−1 and α ¯ g = 9 . 73(1) × 10−1, giving an estimated average gate error of the CS gate of r rb g = 5 . 2(7) × 10−3. In addition to RB we also perform quantum process tomography (QPT) [29] and compute the average gate fidelity from the reconstructed process;”) Chen, Crooks, Majumdar and Garion are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 5. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SKYLAR K VANWORMER whose telephone number is (703)756-1571. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00am to 3:00 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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached at (571) 272-4046. 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. /S.K.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2146 /USMAAN SAEED/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 2 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 3 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 4 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 5 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 6 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 7 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 8 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 9 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 10 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 11 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 12 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 13 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 14 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 15 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 16 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 17 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 18 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 19 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 20 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 21 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 22 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 23 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 24 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 25 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 26 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 27 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 28 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 29 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 30 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 31 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 32 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 33 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 34 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 35 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 36 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 37 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 38 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 39 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 40 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 41 Art Unit: 2146 Application/Control Number: 18/468,418 Page 42 Art Unit: 2146
Prosecution Insights