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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant has argued that Kandala fails to disclose the generation of a set of entanglers using the provided Hamiltonian as claimed. The relevant claim limitations are:
providing, at the classical computing system, a provided Hamiltonian, wherein an expectation value of the provided Hamiltonian provides a variational upper bound for a target eigenvalue thereof;
generating, at the classical computing system, a set of entanglers using the provided Hamiltonian;
In rejecting these limitations, the Office points to Algorithm 1 and Figure 1(c), which are reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
622
1254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
500
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the rejection of (a), the Office cites “Algorithm 1, step 1, also see Equation 1, and Page 1, column 2, 3rd full paragraph where VQE is described”. From Algorithm 1, step 1, it is clear that a Hamiltonian is provided. From Equation (1), H|Φ⟩ = EG|Φ⟩, we see that an expectation value of the Hamiltonian is a variational upper bound for EG, i.e. a target eigenvalue, see line 12 of Algorithm 1 as well. From Figure 1(c), UENT with depth d is shown. Per the text, UENT=exp(-iH0τ) and H0 “…generates the entanglers UENT”. From this, it is clear that “generating,…, a set of entanglers using the provided Hamiltonian” is disclosed. In the 3rd full paragraph of page 1, it is recited, “In this approach, the quantum computer is used to prepare variational trial states that depend on a set of parameters. Then, the expectation value of the energy is estimated and used by a classical optimizer to generate a new set of improved parameters.” This shows that a classical computing system is used to generate the parameters for controlling the quantum computing hardware, i.e. the entangler’s parameters are generated via the classical computing system and therefore the entangler can be considered to be generated by the classical computing system.
Applicant argues that Kandala does not generate the entanglers with the provided Hamiltonian, but with a drift Hamiltonian H0. However, the drift Hamiltonian is a part of the provided Hamiltonian because the provided Hamiltonian is a mapping of the quantum Hamiltonian to the qubit Hamiltonian and the quantum Hamiltonian is a Hamiltonian which describes the quantum evolution of the system, which includes the drift Hamiltonian. Page 3, first column of Kandala describes how UENT are composed of cross-resonance (CR) gates. Therefore, the drift Hamiltonian is implemented using CR gates, which would be encoded in line 1 of Algorithm 1.
Applicant has argued that Kandala does not select a subset of entanglers from the set. The relevant claim language is
selecting, at the classical computing system, a subset of entanglers from the set
Kandala discloses at line 2 of Algorithm 1 that the depth “d” of the quantum circuit that prepares the trial state is selected. Furthermore, Figure 1(c) shows that “d” indicates the number of UENT, or entanglers, which are involved. Furthermore, Figure S4 describes the selection of “d” to arrive at a desired accuracy. From this, it is clear that a set of entanglers is selected in Kandala. Any set is a subset of itself and therefore strictly speaking any selection of entanglers is a subset of a set of entanglers. More practically, Figure S4 shows different “d” selections, i.e. different subset selections of a given maximum UENT selection.
Applicant argues that claim 1 requires the selection of a set of entanglers from a larger set of entanglers. This is not claimed.
Applicant argues that claim 1 requires the generation of a pool of entanglers from the Hamiltonian from which a specific subset is selected. However, the claim does not recite the generation of such a pool – the claim recites generating entanglers with a Hamiltonian and selecting a subset of the set which, as discussed above, can simply be the generated set itself.
In general, the claim does not recite the generation of an entangler candidate set from which a subset smaller than the candidate set is selected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 30, “the qubit Hamiltonian” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 30, “the provided Hamiltonian is a qubit Hamiltonian” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedent is intended to the previously recited “the qubit Hamiltonian”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-10, 12-13, 17-18, 25, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kandala (Kandala, A.; Mezzacapo, A.; Temme, K.; Takita, M.; Brink, M.; Chow, J. M.; Gambetta, J. M. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. Nature 2017, 549, 242−246.)
Regarding claim 1, Kandala teaches a method of solving a problem, using a quantum computer operably coupled with a classical computing system, comprising actions of:
providing, at the classical computing system, a provided Hamiltonian, wherein an expectation value of the provided Hamiltonian provides a variational upper bound for a target eigenvalue thereof (Algorithm 1, step 1, also see Equation 1, and Page 1, column 2, 3rd full paragraph where VQE is described);
generating, at the classical computing system, a set of entanglers using the provided Hamiltonian (Figure 1(c), UENT with depth d);
selecting, at the classical computing system, a subset of entanglers from the set (Algorithm 1: step 2);
determining, at the quantum computer, corresponding amplitudes of the selected entanglers, as a first iteration of the method (see §IV, driving amplitudes for the entanglers are determined);
repeating the action of determining, in a first iteration, with the determined amplitudes of the selected entanglers, until a first stopping condition has been met (see Algorithm 1, where the stopping condition is convergence of Ef);
wherein the provided Hamiltonian is a qubit Hamiltonian (Algorithm 1, step 1).
Regarding claim 2, Kandala teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein
the action of determining comprises an action of, if the first stopping condition has been met, obtaining an expectation value of the provided Hamiltonian based on the selected entanglers and the determined amplitude obtained in a last repetition of the action of determining in the first iteration, wherein the expectation value gives an estimate of the target eigenvalue of the provided Hamiltonian as a solution to the problem (Algorithm 1, convergence of Ef).
Regarding claim 3, Kandala teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, wherein the first stopping condition is one of:
reaching a threshold change of the expectation value of the provided Hamiltonian after an instance of the action of determining;
performing a number of first iterations;
evaluating a pre-set number of entanglers; and
achieving a pre-set threshold for the expectation value of the provided Hamiltonian (Algorithm 1).
Regarding claim 9, Kandala teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein the qubit Hamiltonian is in a form of a linear equation comprising Pauli words (§III, Pauli terms are comprised in the final qubit-tapered Hamiltonians, also see §V).
Regarding claim 10, Kandala teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein
the qubit Hamiltonian is parameterized in Pauli Z rotations (§III, Pauli Z operators are used).
Regarding claim 12, Kandala teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein
the action of providing comprises an action of transforming a fermionic Hamiltonian into a qubit Hamiltonian (see §III and Algorithm 1, step 1).
Regarding claim 13, Kandala teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, wherein the action of transforming comprises performing one of:
a Jordan-Wigner transformation,
the Bravyi-Kitaev method, and
the Parity method (§III, parity mapping is used).
Regarding claim 17, Kandala teaches all of the limitations of claim 1,
wherein the selected entanglers are represented, on the quantum computer, as multi-qubit entanglement gates in a quantum circuit (Figure 1(c)).
Regarding claim 18, Kandala teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein
the selected entanglers comprise at least one Pauli entangler, which takes a form of a Pauli word (§IV, Pauli X and Z gates are used, which can be considered Pauli entanglers in the form of Pauli words).
Regarding claim 25, Kandala teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein
the selected entanglers reduce the expectation value of the provided Hamiltonian (Figure 4(a)).
Regarding claim 28, Kandala teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein
the eigenvalue is a ground-state energy (Equation 1).
Regarding claim 30, Kandala teaches a computing system, comprising:
a quantum computer comprising:
a plurality of qubits (Figure 1); and
a quantum circuit comprising a set of quantum logic gates to perform gate operations (Figure 1);
a classical computing system operably coupled to the quantum computer, wherein the system is adapted for perform actions of [the method of claim 1] (see rejection of claim 1 under Kandala for the corresponding limitations of claim 30).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandala (Kandala, A.; Mezzacapo, A.; Temme, K.; Takita, M.; Brink, M.; Chow, J. M.; Gambetta, J. M. Hardware-efficient variational quantum eigensolver for small molecules and quantum magnets. Nature 2017, 549, 242−246.) in view of Berkley (US20110060780A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kandala teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the qubit Hamiltonian parameterized in Pauli Z rotations is an Ising-type Hamiltonian.
It is known to utilize Ising-type Hamiltonian when utilizing a quantum annealer as the quantum computer, see Berkley ¶45.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an Ising-type Hamiltonian in Kandala in order to perform efficient computations on a quantum annealer.
Regarding claim 29, Kandala teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the quantum computer is a quantum annealer.
Berkley discloses utilizing a quantum annealer as the quantum computer (¶45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a quantum annealer in order to obtain accurate results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 14-15, 20-24 and 26-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The above noted claims present subject matter not found in Kandala. Kandala represents the closest prior art of record and therefore the prior art does not anticipate the subject matter of the above claims.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to modify Kandala to include or have the features of the above claims because the modifications are not described in the prior art and are not trivial.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCHYLER S SANKS whose telephone number is (571)272-6125. The examiner can normally be reached 06:30 - 15:30 Central Time, M-F.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SCHYLER S SANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights