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 .
Amendments
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 06/30/2026.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 have been amended.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 have been cancelled.
No new claims have been added.
The objections and rejections from the prior correspondence that are not restated herein are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/30/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the previous office action have been fully considered but are moot because the new prior art of MARTIEL, in combination with SHANG and PUTRA, teaches the newly added limitations.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHANG ("Schrodinger-Heisenberg Variational Quantum Algorithms") in view of PUTRA (US 20210182726 A1) and MARTIEL (US 20240354080 A1), hereinafter SHANG, PUTRA, and MARTIEL, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1:
SHANG teaches:
a quantum computation component that applies, employing a quantum computer, state propagation to the first part of the quantum circuit; (SHANG [page 2, FIG. 1] teaches: "The circuit (i.e., a quantum circuit) is composed of the Schrödinger circuit U (i.e., the first part of the quantum circuit) and the Heisenberg circuit T, where U is the local unitary circuit running on real quantum computers (i.e., employing a quantum computer) and T is the virtual circuit acted on the Hamiltonian consisting of two parts, the Clifford part, and the single qubit layer. […] By adding the virtual circuit,
T
U
|
0
⨂
n
is able to explore more of the Hilbert space compared with
U
|
0
⨂
n
in conventional VQE and the trainable Hilbert space is much larger than the conventional VQE." SHANG [page 2] teaches: “The key feature of SH-VQE is that only U as a shallow LUC is physically implemented, whereas the relatively deep circuit T is performed virtually and noiselessly using a classical computer.” Examiner’s note: Under BRI, that applies state propagation can be interpreted as
U
|
0
⨂
n
, where the local unitary circuit (LUC) is applied to the
0
⨂
n
(e.g., n qubits in state 0). Further, a quantum computation component can be interpreted as the control logic that runs U on the quantum computer.)
a classical computation component that applies, employing a high-performance classical computer, observable backpropagation to the second part of the quantum circuit. (SHANG [page 2] teaches: “We call our scheme Schrödinger-Heisenberg (SH) variational quantum algorithms (VQA), which illustrates that the main idea is that, in addition to the physical unitary circuit, U, acting on the quantum states in the Schrödinger picture, we bring in a virtual circuit, T, acting on the target Hamiltonian
H
in the Heisenberg picture (i.e., applies observable backpropagation to the second part of the quantum circuit) (see Fig. 1(a)). […] the classically calculated transformed Hamiltonian
H
T
=
T
†
H
T
has the same energy spectrum as
H
. […] the relatively deep circuit T is performed virtually and noiselessly using a classical computer (i.e., employing a high-performance classical computer).” Examiner’s note: Under BRI, a classical computation component can be interpreted as the component that runs circuit T virtually and noiselessly.)
SHANG is not relied upon for teaching:
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 division component that divides a quantum circuit into a first part and a second part, wherein division comprises decomposing the quantum circuit into the first part of the quantum circuit and the second part of the quantum circuit;
However, PUTRA teaches: 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: (PUTRA [0006] teaches: “a system can comprise a quantum device that generates quantum states which will be used to compute the expected energy of a Hamiltonian of a quantum system, a memory that stores computer executable components and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory. The computer executable components can comprise a measurement component that captures entangled quantum state measurements of qubits in a quantum system based on an entangled quantum state measurement basis. The computer executable components can further comprise a computation component that computes an expected energy value of a Hamiltonian of the quantum system based on the entangled quantum state measurements.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of SHANG and PUTRA before them, to include PUTRA’s quantum system in SHANG’s quantum algorithm. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to reduce execution time of a quantum system (e.g., a quantum computer, quantum processor, etc.) to execute a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) algorithm (PUTRA [0127]).
SHANG in view of PUTRA is not relied upon for teaching, but MARTIEL teaches: a division component that divides a quantum circuit into a first part and a second part, wherein division comprises decomposing the quantum circuit into the first part of the quantum circuit and the second part of the quantum circuit; (MARTIEL [0005] teaches: “The compilation methods mentioned before implement algorithms that transform the quantum circuit U into a new quantum circuit U′ such that U equals the product of U′ by a Clifford operator C: U=CU′. […] The above replacement of the quantum circuit U with U′ using U=CU′ may be called final Clifford stripping, […].” MARTIEL [0009] teaches: “/i/ transforming the stripped quantum circuit into a first product of a first intermediate quantum circuit by a first Clifford operator.” MARTIEL [0066] teaches: “letter A (in freestyle cap font in the figure) denotes a first algorithm (i.e., a division component) that simplifies a quantum circuit Y into the product CY′ (i.e., that divides a quantum circuit), where C is a Clifford operator (i.e., into […] a second part) and Y′ is a new quantum circuit (i.e., into a first part). This first algorithm A performs final Clifford stripping (i.e., wherein division comprises decomposing the quantum circuit into the first part of the quantum circuit and the second part of the quantum circuit) as described above and is adapted to be implemented by a classical computer, i.e. non-quantum computer.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of SHANG, PUTRA, and MARTIEL before them, to include MARTIEL’s final Clifford stripping in SHANG and PUTRA’s quantum algorithm. By applying MARTIEL’s final Clifford stripping, one could decompose a target quantum circuit into SHANG’s circuits U and T. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to reduce the performance cost of the program by reducing a number of entangling gates that are used within the quantum computer (MARTIEL [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 3:
SHANG in view of PUTRA and MARTIEL teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SHANG further teaches:
wherein application of the state propagation comprises preparing a quantum state corresponding to the first part of the quantum circuit. (SHANG [page 2, FIG. 1] teaches: "The circuit is composed of the Schrödinger circuit U and the Heisenberg circuit T, where U is the local unitary circuit running on real quantum computers and T is the virtual circuit acted on the Hamiltonian consisting of two parts, the Clifford part, and the single qubit layer. […] By adding the virtual circuit,
T
U
|
0
⨂
n
is able to explore more of the Hilbert space compared with
U
|
0
⨂
n
in conventional VQE and the trainable Hilbert space is much larger than the conventional VQE." SHANG [page 2] teaches: “The key feature of SH-VQE is that only U as a shallow LUC is physically implemented, whereas the relatively deep circuit T is performed virtually and noiselessly using a classical computer.” Examiner’s note: Under BRI, preparing a quantum state corresponding to the first part of the quantum circuit can be interpreted as applying U to the initial state
|
0
⨂
n
, to obtain
U
|
0
⨂
n
.)
Regarding Claim 4:
SHANG in view of PUTRA and MARTIEL teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SHANG further teaches:
wherein application of the observable backpropagation comprises computing an effective observable evolved under the second part of the quantum circuit. (SHANG [page 2, FIG. 1] teaches: "The circuit is composed of the Schrödinger circuit U and the Heisenberg circuit T (i.e., the second part of the quantum circuit), where U is the local unitary circuit running on real quantum computers and T is the virtual circuit acted on the Hamiltonian consisting of two parts, the Clifford part, and the single qubit layer.” SHANG [page 2] teaches: “the classically calculated transformed Hamiltonian
H
T
=
T
†
H
T
(i.e., computing an effective observable evolved under the second part of the quantum circuit) has the same energy spectrum as
H
. […] the relatively deep circuit T is performed virtually and noiselessly using a classical computer.”)
Regarding Claim 5:
SHANG in view of PUTRA and MARTIEL teaches the elements of claim 4 as outlined above. SHANG further teaches:
a measurement component that measures the effective observable with respect to a quantum state corresponding to the first part of the quantum circuit to generate an outcome. (SHANG [page 2] teaches: “the classically calculated transformed Hamiltonian
H
T
=
T
†
H
T
has the same energy spectrum as
H
. […] We first show how to effectively measure
H
T
(i.e., measures the effective observable). In general, the target Hamiltonian H could be expressed as a linear sum of multi-qubit Pauli terms […]. Then we can measure each
P
i
with a total number of samples […] proportional to the number of terms
m
in the Hamiltonian [28], to evaluate the energy expectation value within an error of
ϵ
(i.e., to generate an outcome).” Examiner’s note: Under BRI, with respect to a quantum state corresponding to the first part of the quantum circuit can be interpreted as measuring on the state
U
|
0
⨂
n
by applying U. Further, a measurement component that measures can be interpreted as the component that performs the measurement of
H
T
.)
Regarding Claim 6:
SHANG in view of PUTRA and MARTIEL teaches the elements of claim 5 as outlined above. SHANG further teaches:
[…] employing the high-performance classical computer […] (SHANG [page 2] teaches: “We call our scheme Schrödinger-Heisenberg (SH) variational quantum algorithms (VQA), which illustrates that the main idea is that, in addition to the physical unitary circuit, U, acting on the quantum states in the Schrödinger picture, we bring in a virtual circuit, T, acting on the target Hamiltonian
H
in the Heisenberg picture (see Fig. 1(a)). […] the classically calculated transformed Hamiltonian
H
T
=
T
†
H
T
has the same energy spectrum as
H
. […] the relatively deep circuit T is performed virtually and noiselessly using a classical computer (i.e., employing the high-performance classical computer).”)
PUTRA further teaches: a post processing component that processes, […], the outcome to obtain an observable expectation value for the quantum circuit. (PUTRA [0064] teaches: “Computation component 302 can comprise a classical computer (e.g., desktop computer, laptop computer, etc.) (i.e., a post processing component).” PUTRA [0066] teaches: “In such embodiments described above where a Hamiltonian is in the form of a Heisenberg model, expected energy estimation system 102 can employ computation component 302 to compute an expected energy value of the Hamiltonian of a quantum system based on entangled quantum state measurements (i.e., processes the outcome to obtain an observable expectation value for the quantum circuit).”)
Regarding Claim 7:
SHANG in view of PUTRA and MARTIEL teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. SHANG further teaches:
wherein application of the state propagation to the first part of the quantum circuit and application of the observable backpropagation to the second part of the quantum circuit increase an effective depth of the quantum circuit. (SHANG [page 1] teaches: “To circumvent this problem, we propose a new framework of VQAs, enhanced by virtual Heisenberg circuits, which can noiselessly increase the effective circuit depth (i.e., increase an effective depth of the quantum circuit) and thus simultaneously improve its expressivity and fidelity.”)
Regarding Claim 8:
SHANG teaches:
A computer-implemented method, comprising: applying, […] and employing a quantum computer, state propagation to the first part of the quantum circuit; (SHANG [page 2, FIG. 1] teaches: "The circuit (i.e., a quantum circuit) is composed of the Schrödinger circuit U (i.e., the first part of the quantum circuit) and the Heisenberg circuit T, where U is the local unitary circuit running on real quantum computers (i.e., A computer-implemented method […] and employing a quantum computer) and T is the virtual circuit acted on the Hamiltonian consisting of two parts, the Clifford part, and the single qubit layer. […] By adding the virtual circuit,
T
U
|
0
⨂
n
is able to explore more of the Hilbert space compared with
U
|
0
⨂
n
in conventional VQE and the trainable Hilbert space is much larger than the conventional VQE." SHANG [page 2] teaches: “The key feature of SH-VQE is that only U as a shallow LUC is physically implemented, whereas the relatively deep circuit T is performed virtually and noiselessly using a classical computer.” Examiner’s note: Under BRI, applying state propagation can be interpreted as
U
|
0
⨂
n
, where the local unitary circuit (LUC) is applied to the
0
⨂
n
(e.g., n qubits in state 0).)
applying, […] and employing a high-performance classical computer, observable backpropagation to the second part of the quantum circuit. (SHANG [page 2] teaches: “We call our scheme Schrödinger-Heisenberg (SH) variational quantum algorithms (VQA), which illustrates that the main idea is that, in addition to the physical unitary circuit, U, acting on the quantum states in the Schrödinger picture, we bring in a virtual circuit, T, acting on the target Hamiltonian
H
in the Heisenberg picture (i.e., applying […] observable backpropagation to the second part of the quantum circuit) (see Fig. 1(a)). […] the classically calculated transformed Hamiltonian
H
T
=
T
†
H
T
has the same energy spectrum as
H
. […] the relatively deep circuit T is performed virtually and noiselessly using a classical computer (i.e., and employing a high-performance classical computer).”)
SHANG is not relied upon for teaching:
dividing, by a system operatively coupled to a processor, a quantum circuit into a first part and a second part, wherein division comprises decomposing the quantum circuit into the first part of the quantum circuit and the second part of the quantum circuit;
However, PUTRA teaches: […] by a system operatively coupled to a processor […]; […] by the system […] (PUTRA [0004] teaches: “According to another embodiment, a computer-implemented method can comprise selecting, by a system operatively coupled to a processor, a quantum state measurement basis having a probability defined based on a ratio of a Pauli operator in a Hamiltonian of a quantum system. The computer-implemented method can further comprise capturing, by the system, a quantum state measurement of a qubit in the quantum system based on the quantum state measurement basis.” PUTRA [0006] teaches: “a system can comprise a quantum device that generates quantum states which will be used to compute the expected energy of a Hamiltonian of a quantum system, a memory that stores computer executable components and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory. The computer executable components can comprise a measurement component that captures entangled quantum state measurements of qubits in a quantum system based on an entangled quantum state measurement basis. The computer executable components can further comprise a computation component that computes an expected energy value of a Hamiltonian of the quantum system based on the entangled quantum state measurements.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of SHANG and PUTRA before them, to include PUTRA’s quantum system operatively coupled to a processor in SHANG’s quantum algorithm. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to reduce execution time of a quantum system (e.g., a quantum computer, quantum processor, etc.) to execute a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) algorithm (PUTRA [0127]).
SHANG in view of PUTRA is not relied upon for teaching, but MARTIEL teaches: dividing, […] a quantum circuit into a first part and a second part, wherein division comprises decomposing the quantum circuit into the first part of the quantum circuit and the second part of the quantum circuit; (MARTIEL [0005] teaches: “The compilation methods mentioned before implement algorithms that transform the quantum circuit U into a new quantum circuit U′ such that U equals the product of U′ by a Clifford operator C: U=CU′. […] The above replacement of the quantum circuit U with U′ using U=CU′ may be called final Clifford stripping, […].” MARTIEL [0009] teaches: “/i/ transforming the stripped quantum circuit into a first product of a first intermediate quantum circuit by a first Clifford operator.” MARTIEL [0066] teaches: “letter A (in freestyle cap font in the figure) denotes a first algorithm that simplifies a quantum circuit Y into the product CY′ (i.e., dividing […] a quantum circuit), where C is a Clifford operator (i.e., into […] a second part) and Y′ is a new quantum circuit (i.e., into a first part). This first algorithm A performs final Clifford stripping (i.e., wherein division comprises decomposing the quantum circuit into the first part of the quantum circuit and the second part of the quantum circuit) as described above and is adapted to be implemented by a classical computer, i.e. non-quantum computer.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of SHANG, PUTRA, and MARTIEL before them, to include MARTIEL’s final Clifford stripping in SHANG and PUTRA’s quantum algorithm. By applying MARTIEL’s final Clifford stripping, one could decompose a target quantum circuit into SHANG’s circuits U and T. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to reduce the performance cost of the program by reducing a number of entangling gates that are used within the quantum computer (MARTIEL [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 10:
SHANG in view of PUTRA and MARTIEL teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined above. Additionally, the claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 3 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3 using similar teachings and rationale.
Regarding Claim 11:
SHANG in view of PUTRA and MARTIEL teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined above. Additionally, the claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 4 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4 using similar teachings and rationale.
Regarding Claim 12:
SHANG in view of PUTRA and MARTIEL teaches the elements of claim 11 as outlined above. SHANG further teaches:
measuring […] the effective observable with respect to a quantum state corresponding to the first part of the quantum circuit to generate an outcome. (SHANG [page 2] teaches: “the classically calculated transformed Hamiltonian
H
T
=
T
†
H
T
has the same energy spectrum as
H
. […] We first show how to effectively measure
H
T
(i.e., measuring the effective observable). In general, the target Hamiltonian H could be expressed as a linear sum of multi-qubit Pauli terms […]. Then we can measure each
P
i
with a total number of samples […] proportional to the number of terms
m
in the Hamiltonian [28], to evaluate the energy expectation value within an error of
ϵ
(i.e., to generate an outcome).” Examiner’s note: Under BRI, with respect to a quantum state corresponding to the first part of the quantum circuit can be interpreted as measuring on the state
U
|
0
⨂
n
by applying U.)
PUTRA further teaches: […] by the system […] (PUTRA [0004] teaches: “According to another embodiment, a computer-implemented method can comprise selecting, by a system operatively coupled to a processor, a quantum state measurement basis having a probability defined based on a ratio of a Pauli operator in a Hamiltonian of a quantum system. The computer-implemented method can further comprise capturing, by the system, a quantum state measurement of a qubit in the quantum system based on the quantum state measurement basis.” PUTRA [0006] teaches: “a system can comprise a quantum device that generates quantum states which will be used to compute the expected energy of a Hamiltonian of a quantum system, a memory that stores computer executable components and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory. The computer executable components can comprise a measurement component that captures entangled quantum state measurements of qubits in a quantum system based on an entangled quantum state measurement basis. The computer executable components can further comprise a computation component that computes an expected energy value of a Hamiltonian of the quantum system based on the entangled quantum state measurements.”)
Regarding Claim 13:
SHANG in view of PUTRA and MARTIEL teaches the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. SHANG further teaches:
[…] and employing the high-performance classical computer […] (SHANG [page 2] teaches: “We call our scheme Schrödinger-Heisenberg (SH) variational quantum algorithms (VQA), which illustrates that the main idea is that, in addition to the physical unitary circuit, U, acting on the quantum states in the Schrödinger picture, we bring in a virtual circuit, T, acting on the target Hamiltonian
H
in the Heisenberg picture (see Fig. 1(a)). […] the classically calculated transformed Hamiltonian
H
T
=
T
†
H
T
has the same energy spectrum as
H
. […] the relatively deep circuit T is performed virtually and noiselessly using a classical computer (i.e., and employing the high-performance classical computer).”)
PUTRA further teaches: processing, by the system […], the outcome to obtain an observable expectation value for the quantum circuit. (PUTRA [0064] teaches: “Computation component 302 can comprise a classical computer (e.g., desktop computer, laptop computer, etc.) (i.e., by the system).” PUTRA [0066] teaches: “In such embodiments described above where a Hamiltonian is in the form of a Heisenberg model, expected energy estimation system 102 can employ computation component 302 to compute an expected energy value of the Hamiltonian of a quantum system based on entangled quantum state measurements (i.e., processing […] to obtain an observable expectation value for the quantum circuit).” PUTRA [0004] teaches: “According to another embodiment, a computer-implemented method can comprise selecting, by a system operatively coupled to a processor, a quantum state measurement basis having a probability defined based on a ratio of a Pauli operator in a Hamiltonian of a quantum system. The computer-implemented method can further comprise capturing, by the system, a quantum state measurement of a qubit in the quantum system based on the quantum state measurement basis.” PUTRA [0006] teaches: “a system can comprise a quantum device that generates quantum states which will be used to compute the expected energy of a Hamiltonian of a quantum system, a memory that stores computer executable components and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory. The computer executable components can comprise a measurement component that captures entangled quantum state measurements of qubits in a quantum system based on an entangled quantum state measurement basis. The computer executable components can further comprise a computation component that computes an expected energy value of a Hamiltonian of the quantum system based on the entangled quantum state measurements.”)
Regarding Claim 14:
SHANG in view of PUTRA and MARTIEL teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined above. Additionally, the claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claim 7 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 7 using similar teachings and rationale.
Regarding Claim 15:
SHANG teaches:
[…] improving a depth of a quantum simulation using observable backpropagation […] (SHANG [page 1] teaches: “To circumvent this problem, we propose a new framework of VQAs, enhanced by virtual Heisenberg circuits, which can noiselessly increase the effective circuit depth and thus simultaneously improve (i.e., improving a depth of a quantum simulation) its expressivity and fidelity.” SHANG [page 2] teaches: “We call our scheme Schrödinger-Heisenberg (SH) variational quantum algorithms (VQA), which illustrates that the main idea is that, in addition to the physical unitary circuit, U, acting on the quantum states in the Schrödinger picture, we bring in a virtual circuit, T, acting on the target Hamiltonian
H
in the Heisenberg picture (i.e., using observable backpropagation) (see Fig. 1(a)). […] the classically calculated transformed Hamiltonian
H
T
=
T
†
H
T
has the same energy spectrum as
H
.” SHANG [page 1] teaches: “Our method enables accurate quantum simulation and computation that otherwise are only achievable with much deeper circuits or more accurate operations conventionally.”)
apply […] state propagation to the first part of the quantum circuit; (SHANG [page 2, FIG. 1] teaches: "The circuit (i.e., a quantum circuit) is composed of the Schrödinger circuit U (i.e., the first part of the quantum circuit) and the Heisenberg circuit T, where U is the local unitary circuit running on real quantum computers and T is the virtual circuit acted on the Hamiltonian consisting of two parts, the Clifford part, and the single qubit layer. […] By adding the virtual circuit,
T
U
|
0
⨂
n
is able to explore more of the Hilbert space compared with
U
|
0
⨂
n
in conventional VQE and the trainable Hilbert space is much larger than the conventional VQE." SHANG [page 2] teaches: “The key feature of SH-VQE is that only U as a shallow LUC is physically implemented, whereas the relatively deep circuit T is performed virtually and noiselessly using a classical computer.” Examiner’s note: Under BRI, applying state propagation can be interpreted as
U
|
0
⨂
n
, where the local unitary circuit (LUC) is applied to the
0
⨂
n
(e.g., n qubits in state 0).)
apply […] the observable backpropagation to the second part of the quantum circuit. (SHANG [page 2] teaches: “We call our scheme Schrödinger-Heisenberg (SH) variational quantum algorithms (VQA), which illustrates that the main idea is that, in addition to the physical unitary circuit, U, acting on the quantum states in the Schrödinger picture, we bring in a virtual circuit, T, acting on the target Hamiltonian
H
in the Heisenberg picture (i.e., applying […] observable backpropagation to the second part of the quantum circuit) (see Fig. 1(a)). […] the classically calculated transformed Hamiltonian
H
T
=
T
†
H
T
has the same energy spectrum as
H
. […] the relatively deep circuit T is performed virtually and noiselessly using a classical computer.”)
SHANG is not relied upon for teaching:
A computer program product for […] the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to:
divide, by the one or more processors, a quantum circuit into a first part and a second part, wherein the division comprises decomposition of the quantum circuit into the first part of the quantum circuit and the second part of the quantum circuit;
However, PUTRA teaches: A computer program product for […] quantum simulation using observable backpropagation, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to: (PUTRA [0002] teaches: “In one or more embodiments described herein, systems, devices, computer-implemented methods, and/or computer program products that facilitate estimation of an expected energy value of a Hamiltonian based on data of the Hamiltonian and/or entangled measurements are described.” PUTRA [0005] teaches: “According to another embodiment, a computer program product facilitating a process to estimate an expected energy value of a Hamiltonian is provided. 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 select, by the processor, a quantum state measurement basis having a probability defined based on a ratio of a Pauli operator in a Hamiltonian of a quantum system. The program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to capture, by the processor, a quantum state measurement of a qubit in the quantum system based on the quantum state measurement basis.” PUTRA [0027] teaches: “For example, cloud computing environment 950 and/or such one or more functional abstraction layers can comprise one or more classical computing devices (e.g., classical computer, classical processor, virtual machine, server, etc.), quantum hardware, and/or quantum software (e.g., quantum computing device, quantum computer, quantum processor, quantum circuit simulation software, superconducting circuit, etc.) that can be employed by expected energy estimation system 102 and/or components thereof to execute one or more operations in accordance with one or more embodiments of the subject disclosure described herein.”)
[…] by the one or more processors […] (PUTRA [0004] teaches: “According to another embodiment, a computer-implemented method can comprise selecting, by a system operatively coupled to a processor, a quantum state measurement basis having a probability defined based on a ratio of a Pauli operator in a Hamiltonian of a quantum system. The computer-implemented method can further comprise capturing, by the system, a quantum state measurement of a qubit in the quantum system based on the quantum state measurement basis.” PUTRA [0006] teaches: “a system can comprise a quantum device that generates quantum states which will be used to compute the expected energy of a Hamiltonian of a quantum system, a memory that stores computer executable components and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory. The computer executable components can comprise a measurement component that captures entangled quantum state measurements of qubits in a quantum system based on an entangled quantum state measurement basis. The computer executable components can further comprise a computation component that computes an expected energy value of a Hamiltonian of the quantum system based on the entangled quantum state measurements.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of SHANG and PUTRA before them, to include PUTRA’s quantum system and computer program product in SHANG’s quantum algorithm. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to reduce execution time of a quantum system (e.g., a quantum computer, quantum processor, etc.) to execute a variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) algorithm (PUTRA [0127]).
SHANG in view of PUTRA is not relied upon for teaching, but MARTIEL teaches: divide […] a quantum circuit into a first part and a second part, wherein the division comprises decomposition of the quantum circuit into the first part of the quantum circuit and the second part of the quantum circuit; (MARTIEL [0005] teaches: “The compilation methods mentioned before implement algorithms that transform the quantum circuit U into a new quantum circuit U′ such that U equals the product of U′ by a Clifford operator C: U=CU′. […] The above replacement of the quantum circuit U with U′ using U=CU′ may be called final Clifford stripping, […].” MARTIEL [0009] teaches: “/i/ transforming the stripped quantum circuit into a first product of a first intermediate quantum circuit by a first Clifford operator.” MARTIEL [0066] teaches: “letter A (in freestyle cap font in the figure) denotes a first algorithm that simplifies a quantum circuit Y into the product CY′ (i.e., divide […] a quantum circuit), where C is a Clifford operator (i.e., into […] a second part) and Y′ is a new quantum circuit (i.e., into a first part). This first algorithm A performs final Clifford stripping (i.e., wherein division comprises decomposing the quantum circuit into the first part of the quantum circuit and the second part of the quantum circuit) as described above and is adapted to be implemented by a classical computer, i.e. non-quantum computer.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of SHANG, PUTRA, and MARTIEL before them, to include MARTIEL’s final Clifford stripping in SHANG and PUTRA’s quantum algorithm. By applying MARTIEL’s final Clifford stripping, one could decompose a target quantum circuit into SHANG’s circuits U and T. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to reduce the performance cost of the program by reducing a number of entangling gates that are used within the quantum computer (MARTIEL [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 17:
SHANG in view of PUTRA and MARTIEL teaches the elements of claim 15 as outlined above. Additionally, the claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claims 3 and 10 and is rejected for similar reasons as claims 3 and 10 using similar teachings and rationale.
Regarding Claim 18:
SHANG in view of PUTRA and MARTIEL teaches the elements of claim 15 as outlined above. Additionally, the claim recites similar limitations as corresponding claims 4 and 11 and is rejected for similar reasons as claims 4 and 11 using similar teachings and rationale.
Regarding Claim 19:
SHANG in view of PUTRA and MARTIEL teaches the elements of claim 18 as outlined above. SHANG further teaches:
measure […] the effective observable with respect to a quantum state corresponding to the first part of the quantum circuit to generate an outcome. (SHANG [page 2] teaches: “the classically calculated transformed Hamiltonian
H
T
=
T
†
H
T
has the same energy spectrum as
H
. […] We first show how to effectively measure
H
T
(i.e., measure the effective observable). In general, the target Hamiltonian H could be expressed as a linear sum of multi-qubit Pauli terms […]. Then we can measure each
P
i
with a total number of samples […] proportional to the number of terms
m
in the Hamiltonian [28], to evaluate the energy expectation value within an error of
ϵ
(i.e., to generate an outcome).” Examiner’s note: Under BRI, with respect to a quantum state corresponding to the first part of the quantum circuit can be interpreted as measuring on the state
U
|
0
⨂
n
by applying U.)
PUTRA further teaches: wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: […] by the one or more processors, […] (PUTRA [0004] teaches: “According to another embodiment, a computer-implemented method can comprise selecting, by a system operatively coupled to a processor, a quantum state measurement basis having a probability defined based on a ratio of a Pauli operator in a Hamiltonian of a quantum system. The computer-implemented method can further comprise capturing, by the system, a quantum state measurement of a qubit in the quantum system based on the quantum state measurement basis.” PUTRA [0006] teaches: “a system can comprise a quantum device that generates quantum states which will be used to compute the expected energy of a Hamiltonian of a quantum system, a memory that stores computer executable components and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory. The computer executable components can comprise a measurement component that captures entangled quantum state measurements of qubits in a quantum system based on an entangled quantum state measurement basis. The computer executable components can further comprise a computation component that computes an expected energy value of a Hamiltonian of the quantum system based on the entangled quantum state measurements.”)
Regarding Claim 20:
SHANG in view of PUTRA and MARTIEL teaches the elements of claim 19 as outlined above. PUTRA further teaches:
wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to: process, by the processor, the outcome to obtain an observable expectation value for the quantum circuit. (PUTRA [0064] teaches: “Computation component 302 can comprise a classical computer (e.g., desktop computer, laptop computer, etc.).” PUTRA [0066] teaches: “In such embodiments described above where a Hamiltonian is in the form of a Heisenberg model, expected energy estimation system 102 can employ computation component 302 to compute an expected energy value of the Hamiltonian of a quantum system based on entangled quantum state measurements (i.e., process, by the one or more processors, to obtain an observable expectation value for the quantum circuit).” PUTRA [0004] teaches: “According to another embodiment, a computer-implemented method can comprise selecting, by a system operatively coupled to a processor, a quantum state measurement basis having a probability defined based on a ratio of a Pauli operator in a Hamiltonian of a quantum system. The computer-implemented method can further comprise capturing, by the system, a quantum state measurement of a qubit in the quantum system based on the quantum state measurement basis.” PUTRA [0006] teaches: “a system can comprise a quantum device that generates quantum states which will be used to compute the expected energy of a Hamiltonian of a quantum system, a memory that stores computer executable components and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory. The computer executable components can comprise a measurement component that captures entangled quantum state measurements of qubits in a quantum system based on an entangled quantum state measurement basis. The computer executable components can further comprise a computation component that computes an expected energy value of a Hamiltonian of the quantum system based on the entangled quantum state measurements.”)
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 Alvaro S Laham Bauzo whose telephone number is (571) 272-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 11:00 AM | 1:00 PM - 5:30 PM ET.
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 on (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.
/A.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2146
/USMAAN SAEED/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2146
