DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is responsive to application 18/593,276 as submitted 01 Mar. 2024.
Claim status is currently pending and under examination for claims 1-20 of which independent claims are 1 and 14.
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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The application’s effective filing date is 07/13/23.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by MPEP 609(c), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 05/15/24 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by MPEP 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Specification
The specification is objected to for the following minor informalities:
[0065] contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code, reciting “https://github.com” at [0065]. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
[0038] recites “an odd objective used in Sect ??” should be updated or strike “in Sec. ??”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such functional claim limitations comprise at least the following:
Claim 1: An apparatus…the apparatus comprising: “control module configured to control” cont’d “the control module to evolve”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure is interpreted in light of the specification. The specification does not make it clear that the module is limited to particular embodiments. The module is shown Fig 1:106 as a block diagram and described by the specification [0017,75] which largely repeats claim language and provides non-limiting examples e.g. RF electromagnetic or optical fields coupled to circuits based on interactions with a computer.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Particularly, claim 1 recites limitations “control module configured to control” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The module is illustrated per Fig 1:106 and described [0017,75]. Neither the specification nor the drawings describe sufficient supporting structure for the module that clearly links the structure, material, or acts in performance of the entire claimed function. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The functionality is interpreted as processing by any combination of hardware or software. The rejection is not rectified by claims 2-13 which depend from claim 1. Thus, claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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. In determining whether the claims are subject matter eligible, the examiner applies guidance set forth under MPEP 2106.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes—all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories: claims 1-13 are an apparatus/machine, and claims 14-20 are a method/process. Thus, claims are drawn to statutory subject matter and the analysis should proceed per MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes—the claims, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites an abstract idea. In this case, claims fall within the enumerated grouping of abstract idea being “Mathematical Concepts” under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). More particularly, claims recite the following:
“preparing quantum states associated with a plurality of the quantum processing elements characterized by a summation of a constraint Hamiltonian representing a constraint of the constrained optimization problem and an objective Hamiltonian representing an objective function of the constrained optimization problem” (Math calculation and math function)
“operating the control module to evolve a time-dependent Hamiltonian according to an evolution that includes forming a sum of a first term comprising the constraint Hamiltonian and a second term, where the second term comprises a product of (A) a time-dependent scalar function and (B) a time-dependent operator that is initially equal to the objective Hamiltonian and is evolved into a negative of the objective Hamiltonian” (Math calculation and math function)
Focus of the claims concern constrained Hamiltonian optimization. The optimization uses math functions and calculations including summation and product. When read in light of the instant specification, some 40 equations are detailed to perform statistical functions. In view of this, the claims are primarily drawn to mathematical concepts as the abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No—a practical application is not integrated by the judicial exception because the additional elements are as follows:
“a quantum processor comprising a plurality of quantum processing elements associated with respective quantum states, and configured to apply coupling and transformation operations to a plurality of the quantum states according to a Hamiltonian specification” Instant Specification states [0017] “quantum processor 102 may be a simulation”.
MPEP 2106.05(h)(f) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, or adding the words ‘apply-it’ to the abstract idea
“a digital computer comprising at least one central processing unit” of “An apparatus” MPEP 2106.05(f) merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea
“receive information based at least in part on measurements of one or more quantum states associated with respective quantum processing elements of the quantum processor” MPEP 2106.05(g) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering
“provide information for preparing one or more quantum states associated with respective quantum processing elements of the quantum processor based at least in part on the received information” MPEP 2106.05(g) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated
“a control module configured to control the applied coupling and transformation operations based on interaction with the digital computer for processing the constrained optimization problem” MPEP 2106.05(g) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, recited at a high level and does not meaningfully limit because the control of coupling and transformation operations lack particularity
Balance of the claim concerns quantum and classical computing elements with pre-solution data receiving and preparing as well as nominal control recited at a high level. These elements fail to establish a concrete, real-world use case or any clear output to provide for practical application. It simply sets up the necessary elements for performing the math, and lacks particularity with respect to the control and potentially hardware elements. Therefore, claims remain drawn to the abstract idea and additional elements are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No—the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea in to a practical application, the additional elements are identified with respect to MPEP 2106.05 and do not demonstrate inventive concept. In particular, the additional elements are as follows:
“a quantum processor comprising a plurality of quantum processing elements associated with respective quantum states, and configured to apply coupling and transformation operations to a plurality of the quantum states according to a Hamiltonian specification” Instant Specification states [0017] “quantum processor 102 may be a simulation”.
MPEP 2106.05(h)(f) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, or adding the words ‘apply-it’ to the abstract idea. The technological environment or field of use points to quantum processing in general without requiring particular embodiments that are elective as per the specification so as to satisfy a test of particularity or meaningfully limit the claim beyond a drafting effort to monopolize the judicial exception.
“a digital computer comprising at least one central processing unit” of “An apparatus” MPEP 2106.05(f) merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Particularly, the computer with CPU does not qualify as a particular machine under MPEP 2106.05(b).
“receive information based at least in part on measurements of one or more quantum states associated with respective quantum processing elements of the quantum processor” MPEP 2106.05(g) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering. Particularly, said extra-solution activity is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data”
“provide information for preparing one or more quantum states associated with respective quantum processing elements of the quantum processor based at least in part on the received information” MPEP 2106.05(g) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering or selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. Particularly, said extra-solution activity is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity under MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(vi,iv) “sorting information” and/or “gathering statistics”. Further, instant specification repeatedly refers to the states as “easy-to-prepare” for a “standard procedure” e.g. [0021,29], [0036,41],
“a control module configured to control the applied coupling and transformation operations based on interaction with the digital computer for processing the constrained optimization problem” MPEP 2106.05(g) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, recited at a high level and does not meaningfully limit because the control of coupling and transformation operations lack particularity. Particularly, said extra-solution activity is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity as is evidenced by Niu US PG Pub No 2020/0364602A1 at [0003] “universal control when implementing arbitrary quantum” again at [0049] describing Fig 1 showing control of classical-quantum systems, universality is to convey conventionality or typical, common practices.
Significantly more is not satisfied for at least the reasons above addressing additional elements. The additional elements amount to quantum-classical components for receiving and preparing data as well as nominal control recited at a high level. None of these limitations are particularly revealing of consequence imparting meaningful limitation with particularity of transformation or machine. If the claim language provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it, then the claims do contain an inventive concept. Taken alone, their additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the claim as a whole with limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no clear indication that the combination of elements provides improves a particular function of the computer or other technology. The claim thus remains directed to the abstract idea and additional elements do not amount to significantly more.
In view of this, claim 1 is found ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. 101. This rejection applies equally to independent claims 1 and 14 as well to dependent claims 2-13 and 15-20. Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, or that they include additional elements which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 2 and 15 disclose wherein the objective Hamiltonian comprises an even term, and wherein the time-dependent operator locally rotates the even term. This is considered part of the abstract idea being mathematical functions or calculations. For example, instant specification [0039] “rotate the even terms ‘locally’ as in Eq. (23)”. There are no additional elements.
Dependent claims 3-5 and 16-18 embellish the rotations with even and odd terms for rotating locally and globally with summation and dividing. The limitations are considered part of the abstract idea being mathematical calculations and functions. The specification again indicates equations for performing the functions [0039], [0032], and provides only a single mention of ‘locally’ rotate to arrive at the half dozen claims reciting it. There are no additional elements.
Dependent claim 6 discloses wherein objective Hamiltonian comprises a sum of weighted terms with at least two weighted terms having different weights from each other. This is considered part of the abstract idea being mathematical calculations including summation of coefficient values. There are no additional elements.
Dependent claim 7 discloses wherein the weighted terms correspond to vertices, edges, or hyperedges of a graph or hypergraph. This is considered part of the abstract idea to comprise mathematical relationships as a representation of graph theory, graphs having vertices and edges that are assigned weighted importance values. There are no additional elements.
Dependent claim 8 discloses wherein the constrained optimization problem comprises a weighted constrained optimization problem. This is considered part of the abstract idea including mathematical weighting such as importance coefficient for the math optimization. There are no additional elements.
Dependent claim 9 discloses wherein the weighted constrained optimization problem comprises a problem selected from the group as specified. These various problems are all weighted and regard some minimum or maximum function which may be a mathematical function or calculation as part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements.
Dependent claims 10-11 and 19-20 disclose an inequality constraint and wherein the objective Hamiltonian is modified by a slack variable mixing operator, the slack variable is an identity term. This is considered part of the abstract idea being mathematical relationships and calculations. The body of the specification is silent as to ‘identity’ term and disembodied math is used to characterize the slack mixing which does not appear to have a well-defined meaning. There are no additional elements.
Dependent claims 12-13 disclose wherein constrained optimization problem comprises a knapsack problem and combinatorial auction problem. When read in light of the specification, as per [0064], [0069] defines these problems respectively as Equations 39 and 40. As such, the limitations are considered part of the abstract idea being mathematical calculations and/or mathematical functions. There are no additional elements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by: Ender et al., PCT WO2023/160781A1 hereinafter Ender (Parity Quantum Computing).
With respect to claim 1, Ender teaches:
An apparatus for processing a constrained optimization problem {Ender [0008] “an apparatus for performing a quantum computation… constraint Hamiltonian” with [0118] “combinatorial optimization problems can be formulated as… Hamiltonian functions” See [Abst], Claim 1}, the apparatus comprising:
a quantum processor comprising a plurality of quantum processing elements associated with respective quantum states, and configured to apply coupling and transformation operations to a plurality of the quantum states according to a Hamiltonian specification {Ender discloses [0108] “quantum circuit comprising quantum gates to implement… Hamiltonian” and/or [0098-0103] “superconducting qubits …couple the quantum basis states” Hamiltonian realized by the functions providing transformation operations e.g. [0078] “Hamiltonian may be modified or transformed”, and where [0043] “Hamiltonian alone includes quantum states”. See also [0003,62] and [0121] “implemented explicitly in quantum hardware”};
a digital computer comprising at least one central processing unit {Ender discloses [0109] “classical computing system may include a central processing unit (CPU)”}, the digital computer configured to:
receive information based at least in part on measurements of one or more quantum states associated with respective quantum processing elements of the quantum processor {Ender [0107] “receive a set of measurement outcomes from the measurement device” e.g. [0016] “quantum states… read-out of a quantum system is a set of measurement values”}; and
provide information for preparing one or more quantum states associated with respective quantum processing elements of the quantum processor based at least in part on the received information {Ender [0050] “preparing an initial quantum state… different initial quantum states may be prepared” e.g. [0076] “set of quantum states is prepared… provide a gradually improving approximation to the ground state of the measured Hamiltonian” described [0130-31] “quantum state is prepared in the constraint-fulfilling subspace” which may comprise [0119] “constraint Hamiltonian of the form HC = ∑C is provided”. See also [0155-161]}; and
a control module configured to control the applied coupling and transformation operations based on interaction with the digital computer for processing the constrained optimization problem {Ender [0107] “controller may include or be the classical computing system. The controller may be connected to the quantum processing system. The controller may be configured to instruct the unitary evolution device to evolve the quantum system” such that [0101] “interaction strength is tuned” and/or adjusted [0099] to realize Hamiltonian which is subject to measurement by the controller [0107]}, the processing comprising:
preparing quantum states associated with a plurality of the quantum processing elements {Ender [0050] “preparing an initial quantum state” [0076] “set of quantum states is prepared” [0130-31] “quantum state is prepared in the constraint-fulfilling subspace” [0155-61]} characterized by a summation of a constraint Hamiltonian representing a constraint of the constrained optimization problem {Ender [0046] “sum of summand constraint Hamiltonians C (in the example shown in Fig. 2, there are seven summand constraint Hamiltonians” HC = ∑C again at [0054]} and an objective Hamiltonian representing an objective function of the constrained optimization problem {Ender [0029] “summand problem Hamiltonian” HP = ∑kHP,k again at [0053], combined with constraint Hamiltonian at [0119] Eq.2. The problem is objective e.g. [0164] “objective value converges” with functions such as QAOA with min/max energy function optimization, and may comprise min/max functions [0118-22], [0172]. See Fig 1 illustrating problem Hamiltonian HP}; and
operating the control module to evolve a time-dependent Hamiltonian according to an evolution {Ender [0077] “controller may be configured to instruct the unitary evolution device to evolve the quantum system” introduced [0018] “time evolution of a Hamiltonian” as is described throughout teaches a time-dependent Hamiltonian, implemented e.g. [0121] “variationally evolving the quantum system with Hamiltonians” similar [0130-31]} that includes forming a sum of a first term comprising the constraint Hamiltonian and a second term {Ender [0119] Equation 2 showing brackets at bottom for the two terms HP + HC adding Hamiltonians of respective problem HP to constraint HC so as to form a summed total Hamiltonian Htotal, again at [0121]}, where the second term comprises a product of (A) a time-dependent scalar function and (B) a time-dependent operator that is initially equal to the objective Hamiltonian and is evolved into a negative of the objective Hamiltonian {Ender [0119-21] Equation 2 Hp comprises a product J·σ applied to a more particular product of Equation 4 (∏-pi denoting product) where exponentials-e are the unitary time-evolution operators, so as to “minimize <ѱ|Htotal|ѱ>” the scalars can be coefficient values e.g. [0033] or eigenvalue +1 [0155] which discloses “we may use the ground state of the (negative of the) driver Hamiltonian”, [0166] “In summary, we have shown how to improve the parity QAOA performance by interpolating between the standard single-qubit driver Hamiltonian to a driver Hamiltonian tailored to the computational problem”}.
With respect to claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. The difference in scope being a method to perform limitations similar to apparatus claim 1. Ender discloses [0007] “a method of performing a quantum computation… The method includes determining a constraint Hamiltonian”.
The remainder of this claim is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Ender in view of Bluvstein et al., “A quantum processor based on coherent transport of entangled atom arrays” hereinafter Bluvstein (arXiv: 2112.03923v1).
With respect to claim 2, Ender teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the objective Hamiltonian comprises an even term {Ender discloses [0043] “Hamiltonian may impose a parity constraint on a subgroup of the constituents, such that, with said subgroup, the number of constituents that are in the quantum state |1> is even”
and/or [0121] even number of qubits in the constraint-satisfying quantum states},
Ender further suggests [0168] “rotation can be chosen freely” describing time operator and/or [0119-21] “spins appear an even number of times”.
However, Ender does not disclose “locally” rotate which is disclosed by Bluvstein:
wherein the time-dependent operator locally rotates the even term {Bluvstein see [P.13 ¶3] “We perform local rotations” e.g. [P.3 ¶2] “local π/2 rotation on either the odd or even sublattice before projective measurement” so as to [P.5 ¶3] “evolve each copy under the Rydberg Hamiltonian HRyd for a time t” e.g. time plotted Fig 3c or 8 on x-axis}.
Bluvstein is directed to quantum processing optimization subject to constraints thus being analogous. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious prior to the effective filing date to perform local rotations per Bluvstein in combination with Ender to arrive at the invention as claimed as applying known techniques to known methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or a motivation of hyperfine rotations for realizing fast rotation [P.13 ¶3] and introduces implementing robust rotations [P.1 ¶3].
With respect to claim 15, Ender teaches the method of claim 14, and further combination with Bluvstein teaches the limitation of claim 2. Therefore, the rejection of claim 2 with equal motivation is applied to claim 15.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Ender in view of Lechner, Wolfgang, US PG Pub No 2024/0303525A1 hereinafter Lechner (co-author of Ender reference), and further in view of Roch et al., “The Effect of Penalty Factors of Constrained Hamiltonians on the Eigenspectrum in Quantum Annealing” hereinafter Roch.
With respect to claim 6, Ender teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Lechner teaches wherein
the objective Hamiltonian comprises a sum of weighted terms that represent the constrained optimization problem {Lechner discloses [0060] “weighted sum of the problem Hamiltonian and of the short-range Hamiltonian” and describes constraint Hamiltonians throughout, e.g. [0045,65]}, and
Lechner is directed to constrained Hamiltonian optimization thus being analogous. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious prior to the effective filing date to specify weighted sum for objective/problem Hamiltonian per Lechner in combination for a motivation “specifying a strength of the drive Hamiltonian and of the exchange Hamiltonian relative to the initial Hamiltonian and final Hamiltonian” [0060], in other words [0059] “tuning the strength of a corresponding Hamiltonian.”
However, Lechner in combination does not make clear that two of the weights are different from each other which is taught by Roch:
at least two of the weighted terms have different weights from each other {Roch [P.4 ¶1-3] “weighted with the penalty factors… penalty factors A and B” Eq. 4 Constrained Hamiltonians, the Hamiltonians introduced Eq.2 [P.3] sum of initial HI and problem HP using similar A and B for quantum annealing}.
Roch is directed to constrained Hamiltonian optimization thus being analogous. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious prior to the effective filing date to specify weights that are different from each other per Roch in combination to arrive at the invention as claimed for a stated motivation “main motivation for us to… find patterns and guidelines on how to set the corresponding penalty factors such that an overall improvement in solution quality can be achieved” [P.6 Sect.3 ¶3] hence title considering effect of penalty factors on constrained Hamiltonians, again at [P.14 Conc.] and notes [P.4 ¶3] “ratio of penalty factors A and B can be determined by considering the worst-case scenario.”
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Ender, Lechner and Roch teaches the apparatus of claim 6. Lechner teaches wherein
the weighted terms correspond to respective vertices, edges, or hyperedges of a graph or hypergraph {Lechner [0120] “weights of the hyperedges (weighted hypergraph)” again at [0135,137] describing vertices, edges and weighted graphs. See also Roch [P.5 Sect. 2.2.3-2.2.4] graph problems where the weightings include penalty factors A and B}.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious prior to the effective filing date to weight graph elements per Lechner to arrive at the invention as claimed as applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or for a motivation that “quantum operation control layout may include data associating the layout vertices with the weights of the hyperedges of the hypergraph” [0135].
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Ender in view of Roch.
With respect to claim 8, Ender teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Roch teaches wherein
the constrained optimization problem comprises a weighted constrained optimization problem {Roch [P.4 ¶1-3] Constrained Hamiltonians, being “weighted with the penalty factors” Eq. 4, the Hamiltonians introduced Eq.2 [P.3]}.
Roch is directed to constrained Hamiltonian optimization thus being analogous. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious prior to the effective filing date to specify weights that are different from each other per Roch in combination to arrive at the invention as claimed for a stated motivation “main motivation for us to… find patterns and guidelines on how to set the corresponding penalty factors such that an overall improvement in solution quality can be achieved” [P.6 Sect.3 ¶3] hence title considering effect of penalty factors on constrained Hamiltonians, again at [P.14 Conc.] and notes [P.4 ¶3] “ratio of penalty factors A and B can be determined by considering the worst-case scenario.”
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Ender and Roch teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein
the weighted constrained optimization problem comprises a problem selected from the group consisting of: weighted maximum independent set, weighted maximal clique, weighted minimum vertex cover, weighted maximum set packing, weighted minimum dominating set, weighted minimum set cover, and weighted minimum dominating set on a directed graph {Roch [P.4 ¶1-3] “weighted with the penalty factors… penalty factors A and B” as applied to the problems [P.4-5 Sect. 2.2.2 - 2.2.6] comprise Eq.10 “Maximum Clique Problem (MCP)”, Eq.8 “Minimum Vertex Cover Problem (MVCP)”, Eq.6 “Set Packing Problem”, Eq.4 “Minimum Exact Cover Problem (MECP)” all of these problems include penalty terms A and B which correspond to the weighting. The claim language of ‘comprising a problem’ is at least one, hence ‘a’ problem, of the plurality}.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious prior to the effective filing date to weight the problems per Roch in combination to arrive at the invention as claimed because known work in a field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and/or a stated motivation “motivates our investigation on the effect of penalty factors on the minimum spectral gap of six selected constrained Hamiltonians” [P.2 ¶3].
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Ender in view of Rahmani et al., US PG Pub No 2026/0030538A1 hereinafter Rahmani, as is evidenced by the Provisional filing 63/462,356.
With respect to claim 10, Ender teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Rahmani teaches wherein
the constrained optimization problem comprises an inequality constraint and wherein the objective Hamiltonian is modified by a slack variable mixing operator {Rahmani [0154] “At 508, inequality constraints are converted to equality constraints. To do so, the values of continuous and slack variables that have been determined at act 506… method 500 is implemented by hybrid MIP solver” again at [0164] Figs 5-6, teaches inequality constraints with slack variables of MIP being mixed-integer problem [0121]. Hamiltonian objective is described e.g. [0009,15], [0080]. Corresponding provisional support comprises [P.37 Lines28-32], [P.39 Lines19-23], Figs 5-6 and [P.3 Lines10-16], [P.5 Line6]}.
Rahmani is directed to quantum processing with constrained optimization thus being analogous. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious prior to the effective filing date to employ inequality constraints with slack variable and MIP as per Rahmani for the Hamiltonian of Ender in combination to arrive at the invention as claimed for a motivation [0178] “MIP reduces the search area of the state space to find the optimal solution” which may benefit a [0011] “goal of the adiabatic evolution is to evolve the system such that it ends up in a ground state of the final Hamiltonian Hf at the end of the evolution. If the evolution is too fast, then the system can transition to a higher energy state of the system, such as the first excited state”. Corresponding provisional support comprises [P.42 Lines9-10], [P.3 Lines22-25].
With respect to claim 19, Ender teaches the method of claim 14, and further combination with Rahmani teaches the limitation of claim 10. Therefore, the rejection of claim 10 with equal motivation is applied to claim 19.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Ender and Rahmani in view of Garcia-Perez et Filippov, PCT WO2024/251355A1 hereinafter Garcia-Perez.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Ender and Rahmani teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Garcia-Perez teaches wherein
the slack variable mixing operator is an identity plus a term that mixes slack variable amongst themselves {Garcia-Perez [P.4 ¶2-4] “identity transformation Id …mixture N=(1-є)Id+єAP” similarly at [P.20 ¶5], see also [P.10] Eq.E2}.
Garcia-Perez is directed to quantum processing with Hamiltonians thus being analogous. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious prior to the effective filing date to employ identity for mixing per Garcia-Perez in combination with Rahmani’s slack variables to arrive at the invention as claimed as applying known techniques to known devices ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or a motivation that identity operators are primarily contained in Pauli operators which takes place for a Hamiltonian [P.2 ¶2].
With respect to claim 20, the combination of Ender and Rahmani teaches the method of claim 19, and further combination with Garcia-Perez teaches the limitation of claim 11. Therefore, the rejection of claim 11 with equal motivation is applied to claim 20.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Ender in view of Vandenbroucque et Munro, PCT WO2023/140794A2 hereinafter Vandenbroucque.
With respect to claim 12, Ender teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Vandenbroucque teaches wherein
the constrained optimization problem comprises a knapsack problem {Vandenbroucque [0084] “Knapsack problem can be formulated as a linear program as seen in Equation (17)” where Equation 17 optimizes by minimizing sum of product subject to weight threshold, consistent with instant specification Eq.39. The constraint is ‘subject to’ ≤ less than or equal to}.
Vandenbroucque is directed to quantum processing with constrained optimization problems thus being analogous. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious prior to the effective filing date to apply the knapsack problem per Vandenbroucque in combination for a motivation “Knapsack problem are of significant economic value” [0091] and [0090] “Optimization problems of this nature are very common (e.g., the Knapsack problem discussed above), and in recent years there has been much interest in solving them”.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Ender in view of Johnson et al., US PG Pub No 2017/0372412A1 hereinafter Johnson.
With respect to claim 13, Ender teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Johnson teaches wherein
the constrained optimization problem comprises a combinatorial auction problem {Johnson [0023] “combinatorial auction problem” e.g. [0019] describes minimizing function of Eq.1, and describes constraints e.g. [0021,43]}.
Johnson is directed to quantum processing for constrained optimization problems thus being analogous. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious prior to the effective filing date to apply combinatorial auction problem per Johnson in combination for a motivation of bringing in the highest revenue among bidders in an auction [0013] and to provide speedup for this problem reducing the time to solution [0021].
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kipu family of patents highly relevant, all regarding quantum Hamiltonians, see e.g. Solano PCT WO2024126757A1 or WO2023105050A1, and Zhang PCT WO2024184326A1, Michon PCT WO2024184554A1.
Chong et al., US PG Pub No 2024/0211791A1 Univ. Chicago, time-dependent Hamiltonian with rotations [0049]
Wild et al., US PG Pub No 2022/0391743A1 Harvard, time evolution Hamiltonian applied to max independent set problem
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chase P Hinckley whose telephone number is (571)272-7935. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Miranda M. Huang can be reached at 571-270-7092. 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.
/CHASE P. HINCKLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2124
Prosecution Insights