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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1, “the number of two-qubit gates” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 1, “the basis” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if “a layout graph” in line 9 is the same as that recited in line 7.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear if “a layout graph” and “the layout graph” refer to the layout graph(s) of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, “the same number as logical qubits” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if it indicates that a number of connection lists is the same as a number of logical qubits, or if the lists are labeled with a number, e.g. “list number 2” which is the same as a logical qubit number, e.g. “logical qubit number 2”.
Regarding claim 8, “may include” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “indices of gates and durations of the gates” is required or not.
Regarding claim 8, “indices of gates”, “duration of the gates”, and “the order of the gates” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the same gates are being referred to each time and if the gates refer to those of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, “the corresponding qubits” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 9, “in front of the gate” renders the claim indefinite because “at least one gate of the quantum circuit” is claimed, i.e. “the” gate refers to a singular gate whereas antecedence is provided for multiple gates.
Regarding claim 10, “a gate” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it belongs to the at least one gate of claim 9 and/or refers to previously claimed gates of claims 7-9.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear if the at least one gate claimed is the same as that as claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, “the current scheduled gate” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 16, “the longest critical path” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 18, “a two-qubit gate” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it refers to the two-qubit gates of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, “the FD flags” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 19, “the scheduling of the single-qubit gate” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 19, “the single-qubit gate” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 19, “each frequency group” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 19, “the previously recorded gate type” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 19, “the subsequent gates” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 20, “the main mapping” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 20, “the Bloch sphere” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 1 is drawn to a method (process).
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
generating an interaction graph representing a quantum circuit on the basis of the number of two-qubit gates - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. It can be further be classified as a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
determining edge weights between connected nodes in the interaction graph by introducing a fitting coefficient for a decay effect - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. It can be further be classified as a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
searching for an isomorphic part, which is a layout graph, between a target hardware and the interaction graph by graph matching - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. It can be further be classified as a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
performing frequency matching for a layout graph by searching for frequency patterns allocated to each location of qubits by limiting unidirectional movement on each of an x-axis and a y-axis of a hardware plane of the target hardware to a range from -1 to +1 - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. It can be further be classified as a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
A multi-constraint qubit allocation (MCQA) method for a scalable quantum apparatus - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
A multi-constraint qubit allocation (MCQA) method for a scalable quantum apparatus - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 2
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 2 recites the following abstract ideas:
repeatedly searching for physical locations of logical qubits of the quantum circuit in descending order of edge weight - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 3
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 3 recites the following abstract ideas:
repeatedly searching for physical locations of child nodes connected to a logical center node of a breadth-first search queue - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 4
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 4 recites the following abstract ideas:
additionally considering a layout graph which is symmetrical to the layout graph about the y-axis of the hardware plane - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 5
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 5 recites the following abstract ideas:
calculating a frequency allocated to each location of qubits based on the frequency period by repeating the arrangement of frequency pattern - This is classified as a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 5 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 5 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 6
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 6 recites the following abstract ideas:
predicting a degree of parallelism of gates which are executable for all graphs obtained from searching for frequency patterns allocated to each location of qubits - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 6 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 6 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 7
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 7 recites the following abstract ideas:
determining an order of gates to be executed in a main mapping - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 7 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 8
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 8 recites the following abstract ideas:
determining the order of the gates to be executed using a qubit-based gate dependency list for the quantum circuit, the gate dependency list, having connection lists with the same number as logical qubits, may include indices of gates and durations of the gates, and the connection lists represent topological relationships between gates in the corresponding qubits - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 8 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 8 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 9
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 9 recites the following abstract ideas:
when at least one gate of the quantum circuit does not satisfy a connectivity constraint, adding a swap gate or a move gate in front of the gate not satisfying the connectivity constraint - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example, adding the gate can comprise adding the gate to a list of gates using pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 9 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 9 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 10
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 10 recites the following abstract ideas:
selecting a gate, either a swap gate or move gate, having a higher one of costs calculated for all candidate swap gates and move gates - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 11
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 11 recites the following abstract ideas:
when at least one gate of the quantum circuit does not satisfy the connectivity constraint, converting the gate not satisfying the connectivity constraint into a bridge gate - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. For example, converting the gate can involve erasing/modifying a drawing of one gate and replacing it with another via pen and paper and/or altering a list of gates to include the bridge gate.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 11 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 11 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 12
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 12 recites the following abstract ideas:
when at least one gate of the quantum circuit does not satisfy the connectivity constraint, converting the gate not satisfying the connectivity constraint into a bridge gate (from claim 11), the bridge gate has a physical distance of 2 (from claim 12) - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 12 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 12 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 13
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 13 recites the following abstract ideas:
determining whether scheduled gates in the quantum circuit including the gates of which the order is determined are executable in a current time step - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 13 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 13 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 14
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 14 recites the following abstract ideas:
when a frozen duration (FD) flag introduced to each logical qubit is 0, indicating that the corresponding qubit is not currently executing any scheduled gates - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 14 recites the following additional elements:
processing the corresponding qubit as the current scheduled gate, allowing it to proceed to the next gate execution - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 14 recites the following additional elements:
processing the corresponding qubit as the current scheduled gate, allowing it to proceed to the next gate execution - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 15
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 15 recites the following abstract ideas:
giving relatively high priority to two-qubit gates among the scheduled gates - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 15 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 15 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 16
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 16 recites the following abstract ideas:
giving relatively high priority to a gate having the longest critical path among the same type of gates in the scheduled gates - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 16 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 16 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 17
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 17 recites the following abstract ideas:
initializing frozen frequency (FF) flags introduced for physical qubits of quantum hardware to −1 and updating the FF flags according to frequency states - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 17 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 17 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 18
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 18 recites the following abstract ideas:
scheduling a two-qubit gate which is selected according to a priority of the FD flags, according to preset frequency adjustment rules - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 18 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 18 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 19
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 19 recites the following abstract ideas:
recording a first gate type of each frequency group; updating the FF flags for all qubits belonging to the same frequency group; comparing subsequent gates with the previously recorded gate type to determine whether the subsequent gates are of the previously recorded gate type and whether the FF flags are correctly set; and scheduling only executable gates according to determination results - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 19 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 19 does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 20
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 20 recites the following abstract ideas:
before the generating of the interaction graph on the basis of the number of two-qubit gates, pre-processing an input or, after the main mapping, post-processing main mapping results, wherein the pre-processing of the input or the post-processing of the main mapping results comprises converting two rotation operators applied to single qubits having different signs about the same axis of the Bloch sphere into an identity gate; or replacing consecutive rotation operators with a single rotation operator in which a sum of angles of gates forms a new angle - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. Furthermore, this is classified as a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 20 does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 20 does not recite any additional elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art.
The closest prior art is represented in Park (S. Park, D. Kim, M. Kweon, J. -Y. Sim and S. Kang, "A Fast and Scalable Qubit-Mapping Method for Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum Computers," 2022 59th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), San Francisco, CA, USA, 2022, pp. 13-18.), Hertzberg (US20200401925A1) and Kilmov (US20200387822A1).
Park discloses qubit mapping methods that involve graph generating an interaction graph, edge weights, and searching for an isomorphic layout graph, see Figure 3 of Park below.
PNG
media_image1.png
624
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Park is silent as to the claimed frequency matching for the layout graph and silent as to the limited unidirectional movement involved in the frequency matching.
Hertzberg teaches mapping frequency sub-graphs (frequency matching), see ¶61, “In some embodiments, to match such one or more types of subgraph topologies (e.g., subgraph topologies 208, 210, 212) to one or more collision generating topologies (e.g., one or more defined collision generating topologies), match component 402 can employ one or more graph matching techniques and/or one or more graph search techniques. For example, to match such one or more types of subgraph topologies to one or more of such collision generating topologies, match component 402 can employ one or more graph matching algorithms and/or one or more graph search algorithms For instance, match component 404 can employ one or more graph matching and/or graph search techniques and/or algorithms including, but not limited to, a graph pattern matching algorithm, an exact graph matching technique and/or algorithm (also known as the graph isomorphism problem), an inexact graph matching technique and/or algorithm, incremental graph pattern matching technique and/or algorithm, and/or another graph matching and/or graph search technique and/or algorithm that can facilitate matching such one or more subgraph topologies to one or more of such collision generating topologies.” However, there is no disclosure of the methodology performed in claim 1.
Kilmov teaches frequency mapping (i.e. frequency matching), see ¶55, “The method includes mapping the frequency-calibration problem into a graph-traversal problem. Therein, the quantum processor is represented by a graph. Qubits are represented by nodes, which may have idle frequencies associated with them that need to be calibrated. Interactions between those qubits are represented by edges, which may have interaction frequencies associated with them that need to be calibrated. The calibration problem thus reduces to traversing a graph while calibrating nearby uncalibrated nodes and/or edges. Traversal may be accomplished with an arbitrary graph traversal algorithm and calibration may be accomplished by optimizing a local objective function constrained by previously-calibrated nodes and/or edges.” However, Kilmov is silent as to the limited unidirectional movement involved in the frequency matching as claimed in claim 1.
The claimed unidirectional movement constraint of claim 1 is not considered to be immediately obvious or to be a mundanely routine frequency mapping search methodology. Therefore, without a teaching, suggestion, and motivation from the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to arrive at the claimed invention from either Park or Kilmov.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rigetti (WO2015178992A2) discloses methods frequency methods for quantum computers.
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