DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed 11/13/2023 for Application number 18/560,591. Claims 1-24 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/13/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite “creating an initial guess for parameters in an ansatz” twice.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites "Non-transitory computer storage media..." which should read ".
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-24 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 claims 1, 9 and 17, the claims recite: “ground state of B” and “C” however fails to explicitly define what these variables are in the claim. Therefore, the claim is rejected 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. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret “C” as a target quantum state and “B” as an initial state of the quantum system
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recites the limitation "measuring the resulting quantum state" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recites the limitation "the classical outer loop" in third to last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 recites the limitation "the final form of u(t)" in the second to last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-24 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim without curing any of the deficiencies.
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 22, the claims recite: “A” however fails to explicitly define what this variable is in the claims. Therefore, the claim is rejected 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. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret “A” as an amplitude of oscillations as described from the specification.
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 1-24 are 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 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a process, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part, The limitations of:
identifying base curve v(t) can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind,
setting a total runtime of the process can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
creating an initial guess for parameters in an ansatz can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind;
and, at termination of evolving the quantum state, measuring the resulting quantum state can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind;
updating the parameters for the ansatz based on the resulting quantum state can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
repetitively creating the ansatz for u(t) can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
and, at termination of evolving the quantum state, determining the resulting quantum state until the classical outer loop converges to a selected convergence limit can be considered to be an evaluation in the human mind
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
The limitations of:
evolving a quantum state from a ground state of B following Hamiltonian H(t) = u(t) B+(1- u(t)) C can be considered to be a mathematical calculation
evolving the quantum state from the ground state of B following Hamiltonian H(t), can be considered to be a mathematical calculation
and returning the final form of u(t) to perform bang-anneal-bang quantum optimization can be considered to be a mathematical calculation
These limitations as drafted, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations which falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements – “a computer-implemented process for performing bang-anneal-bang quantum optimization”. Thus, this element in the claim is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of utilizing a computer to perform the steps of the claimed process amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: further comprising taking v(t) as a linear function such that v(t) = 1-tiTO. Here, TO is an amount of time under which a quantum computer on which the process is performed maintains coherence. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: further comprising determining v(t) by performing a QAOA procedure at some desired depth p. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: further comprising setting beta = betap and gamma = gamma_0 from the QAOA procedure. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: further comprising making omega = 2m/tau, whererein tau is the average time taken in each beta-gamma layer of QAOA. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: further comprising parameterizing omega and A. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: further comprising using T as a variational parameter. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is further incorporated, and further, the claim recites: further comprising updating and optimization by a classical optimization algorithm comprising a Nelder-Mead algorithm or gradient descent algorithm. This claim recites additional mathematical steps in addition to the judicial exception identified in the rejection of claim 1, thus recites a judicial exception.
The claim does not include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 9 additionally requires analysis for one or more processors, however this is an additional element that amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Claims 10-16, they recite features similar to claims 2-8 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 17 recites features similar to claim 1 and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein. Claim 17 additionally requires analysis for Non-transitory computer storage media storing instructions for execution by a system of one or more processors, however this is an additional element that amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Please see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Claims 18-24, they recite features similar to claims 2-8 and are rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-24 are objected to as being allowable over prior art if all outstanding rejections were withdrawn. None of the prior art, either alone or in combination, fairly discloses limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17 in particular:
identifying base curve v(t); setting a total runtime of the process; creating an initial guess for parameters in an ansatz; creating an initial guess for parameters in an ansatz: evolving a quantum state from a ground state of B following Hamiltonian H(t) = u(t) B+(1- u(t)) C and, at termination of evolving the quantum state, measuring the resulting quantum state; updating the parameters for the ansatz based on the resulting quantum state; repetitively creating the ansatz for u(t), evolving the quantum state from the ground state of B following Hamiltonian H(t), and, at termination of evolving the quantum state, determining the resulting quantum state until the classical outer loop converges to a selected convergence limit; and returning the final form of u(t) to perform bang-anneal-bang quantum optimization.
The closest prior art uncovered was Yang et al. (“Optimizing Variational Quantum Algorithms Using Pontryagin’s Minimum Principle”) which discloses a method for optimizing variational quantum algorithm. The reference further uses Pontryagin’s minimum principle of optimal control to show that the optimal protocol for VQA has a bang-bang form. However, the reference fails to teach the specific steps of identifying base curve v(t), setting a total runtime of the process, evolving a quantum state from a ground state of B following Hamiltonian H(t) = u(t) B+(1- u(t)) C and, at termination of evolving the quantum state, measuring the resulting quantum state; updating the parameters for the ansatz based on the resulting quantum state; repetitively creating the ansatz for u(t), and, at termination of evolving the quantum state, determining the resulting quantum state until the classical outer loop converges to a selected convergence limit; and returning the final form of u(t).
Babbush et al. (“US 20210174236 A1”) discloses defining a target quantum state of a quantum state and defining a total Hamiltonian that interpolates between an initial and target Hamiltonian and variationally adjusts the intermediate state to determine a wave function that approximates the target quantum state. However, the reference fails to explicitly teach the specific steps of identifying base curve v(t), setting a total runtime of the process, evolving a quantum state from a ground state of B following Hamiltonian H(t) = u(t) B+(1- u(t)) C and, at termination of evolving the quantum state, measuring the resulting quantum state; updating the parameters for the ansatz based on the resulting quantum state; repetitively creating the ansatz for u(t), and, at termination of evolving the quantum state, determining the resulting quantum state until the classical outer loop converges to a selected convergence limit; and returning the final form of u(t).
No prior art was uncovered which fairly discloses all of the specific steps recited in independent claims 1, 9 and 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/MICHAEL H HOANG/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights