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 . This action is made non-final.
This action is in response to the application and claims filed May 29, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case and have been examined. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 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.
Claims 1, and 10 recite performing iterations “performing one or more iterations until the uncertainty constraint is within limits or the budget constraints are outside of limits” and “wherein the final state probability distribution, predicted from the measured state probability distribution, is output when the uncertainty is within limits along with the estimated uncertainty.” However, the claims separately recite an “estimated uncertainty” determined during each iteration. It is unclear whether the claimed determination requires the estimated uncertainty to satisfy the uncertainty constraint, whether the uncertainty constraint itself is being evaluated against some other limit, or what is intended by “the uncertainty.” Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter are unclear.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1, and Claims 11, 13, and 16-18 depend from claim 10. These claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they incorporate the indefinite limitations discussed above. Accordingly, these dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective base claims.
Claim 12 recites “further comprising evaluating the constraints after each of the iterations, wherein the budget constraints are evaluated as if a next iteration was already performed”. However, claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium, while the recited limitation requires the active step of evaluating the constraints. It is unclear whether the claimed storage medium is required to merely store instructions executable to perform the recited evaluation or whether the recited evaluation must be performed. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 12 are unclear.
Claim 14 recites “further comprising outputting actual shots executed during the one or more iterations.” However, claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium, while the recited limitation requires the active step of outputting actual shots executed during the one or more iterations. It is unclear whether the claimed storage medium is required to merely store instructions executable to perform the recited outputting or whether the recited outputting must actually be performed. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 14 are unclear.
Claim 15 recites “further comprising outputting the measured state probability distribution.” However, claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium, while the recited limitation requires the active step of outputting the measured state probability distribution. It is unclear whether the claimed storage medium is required to merely store instructions executable to perform the recited outputting or whether the recited outputting must actually be performed. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 15 are unclear.
Claim 20 recites “wherein iterations of
k
shots are repeated until the estimated uncertainty is below the uncertainty constraint or other constraints including at least one of a time constraint or a cost constraint are outside of limits.” However, it is unclear what is meant by the time constrain or cost constraint itself being “outside of limits,” because the recited constraints define the applicable limits. It is therefore unclear whether the claim requires an actual or estimated time or cost to exceed the respective constraint, or whether some other determination is intended. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 20 are unclear.
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.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1: Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category.
Step 2A: Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2104.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed to a method (a process), Claims 10-18 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (a manufacture) computing device comprising one or more processors (a machine), and Claims 19-20 directed to a method (a process). Therefore, Claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine or manufacture or composition of matter.
Regarding claim 1
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “quantum job”, “orchestration engine”, “uncertainty constraint”, “budget constraint”, “quantum circuit”, and “quantum backend”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
“performing one or more iterations until the uncertainty constraint is within limits or the budget constraints are outside of limits” (e.g., a human can compare multiple results and determine if they fall within a predetermined range or outside a predetermined range)
“estimating a final state probability distribution of the quantum circuit based on the measured state probability distribution” (e.g., analyzing information and forming an estimate/prediction based on that information)
“determining an estimated uncertainty of the estimated final state probability distribution” (e.g., evaluating information to determine an estimated uncertainty associated with an estimated result)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “quantum job”, “orchestration engine”, “uncertainty constraint”, “budget constraint”, “quantum circuit”, and “quantum backend” which are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The Examiner notes that this is used throughout the claim limitations and is rejected thusly for each claim which recites the same language.
Regarding the “receiving input into an orchestration engine” this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of inputting data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The examiner notes that merely defining the input “the input including a quantum job and constraints associated with the quantum job, the constraints including an uncertainty constraint and budget constraints” is an additional element which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving particular types of data, i.e. pre-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the “performing k shots of a quantum circuit included in the quantum job in a quantum backend identified in the quantum job” this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of testing a system for a response, i.e. pre-solution activity of mere data gathering for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding the “measuring a state probability distribution of the quantum circuit after performing the k shots” this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data, i.e. pre-solution activity of inputting data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The examiner notes that this is performed to obtain the data that is then used by the later analysis.
Regarding the “wherein the final state probability distribution, predicted from the measured state probability distribution, is output when the uncertainty is within limits along with the estimated uncertainty” this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of generating a output form a computation, i.e. post-solution activity of data outputting for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of a “quantum job”, “orchestration engine”, “uncertainty constraint”, “budget constraint”, “quantum circuit”, and “quantum backend” which are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “receiving input into an orchestration engine” this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution activity of inputting data for use in the claimed process. The examiner notes that merely defining the input “the input including a quantum job and constraints associated with the quantum job, the constraints including an uncertainty constraint and budget constraints” is an additional element which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high-level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding the “performing k shots of a quantum circuit included in the quantum job in a quantum backend identified in the quantum job” this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution activity of mere data gathering for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high-level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding the “measuring a state probability distribution of the quantum circuit after performing the k shots” this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution activity of inputting data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high-level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Regarding the “wherein the final state probability distribution, predicted from the measured state probability distribution, is output when the uncertainty is within limits along with the estimated uncertainty” this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution activity of data outputting for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high-level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 2
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 2 does not recite an abstract idea but is directed to the abstract idea identified in its parents claim(s).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “wherein the budget constraints include a maximal time constraint and a maximal cost constraint” this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of limiting the type/content of the data being received, i.e. pre-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “wherein the budget constraints include a maximal time constraint and a maximal cost constraint” is an additional element which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution activity of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high-level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 3 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “quantum job”, “orchestration engine”, “uncertainty constraint”, “budget constraint”, “quantum circuit”, and “quantum backend”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
“evaluating the constraints after each of the iterations, wherein the budget constraints are evaluated as if a next iteration was already performed” (e.g., a human can compare a current limit with the expected effect of doing one more step and determine whether that limit would be exceeded)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements, and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 4 recites the following mathematical concepts, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “quantum job”, “orchestration engine”, “uncertainty constraint”, “budget constraint”, “quantum circuit”, and “quantum backend”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)].
“wherein the k shots is a percentage of total shots, wherein the total shots is based on the budget constraints and the quantum backend” (e.g., mathematical calculation/relationship comparing two values to generate a percentage)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements, and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 5 does not recite an abstract idea but is directed to the abstract idea identified in its parents claim(s).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “outputting actual shots executed during the one or more iterations” this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of presenting data, i.e. post-solution activity of outputting data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “outputting actual shots executed during the one or more iterations” is an additional element which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution activity of outputting data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high-level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 6 does not recite an abstract idea but is directed to the abstract idea identified in its parents claim(s).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “outputting the measured state probability distribution” this additional element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of presenting data, i.e. post-solution activity of outputting data for use in the claimed process (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “outputting the measured state probability distribution” is an additional element which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution activity of outputting data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high-level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 7 recites the following mathematical concepts, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “quantum job”, “orchestration engine”, “uncertainty constraint”, “budget constraint”, “quantum circuit”, and “quantum backend”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)].
“wherein the uncertainty constraint is expressed in terms of mean and standard deviation” (e.g., mathematical/statistical measures of mean and standard deviation)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements, and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 8 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “quantum job”, “orchestration engine”, “uncertainty constraint”, “budget constraint”, “quantum circuit”, and “quantum backend”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
“wherein the final state probability distribution is estimated by a probability estimator” (e.g., a human can look at results from prior examples, including examples taken at different stages, and use those prior examples to predict what the final result of a current situation will likely be)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “that has been trained on training data including the executions of multiple quantum circuits in multiple quantum backends at various stages of executions” which is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “that has been trained on training data including the executions of multiple quantum circuits in multiple quantum backends at various stages of executions” which 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 9 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “quantum job”, “orchestration engine”, “uncertainty constraint”, “budget constraint”, “quantum circuit”, and “quantum backend”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
“wherein the estimated uncertainty is estimated by an uncertainty estimator trained using a dataset that is associated with uncertainties at various time steps” (e.g., a human can look at past examples of ow uncertain previous results were at different points in time and use those examples to judge how uncertain a current result is)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements, and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 10-18, which recite substantially the same limitations as claims 1-9 and are rejected for the same reasons as described above.
Regarding claim 19, which recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as described above, it further recites:
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 19 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “quantum job”, “orchestration engine”, “uncertainty constraint”, “budget constraint”, “quantum circuit”, and “quantum backend”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
“determining whether additional shots are required based on a measured probability distribution, a predicted final probability distribution, and an estimated uncertainty” (e.g., a human can look at the results obtained so far, a prediction of the expected final result, and how uncertain that prediction is, and decide whether more attempts or samples are needed)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of “preparing a quantum circuit included in the quantum job for execution” which is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “preparing a quantum circuit included in the quantum job for execution” which is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional element individually or in combination does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 20
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 20 recites the following mental processes, that in each case under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for recitation of generic computer components (e.g., “quantum job”, “orchestration engine”, “uncertainty constraint”, “budget constraint”, “quantum circuit”, and “quantum backend”) [see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)].
“wherein iterations of k shots are repeated until the estimated uncertainty is below the uncertainty constraint or other constraints including at least one of a time constraint or a cost constraint are outside of limits” (e.g., a human can repeatedly check a result against a desired level and available time or cost limits and decide whether another attempt should be made)
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong one, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not include any additional elements, and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 10, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunnels et al. (US 20200174836 A1, referred to as Gunnels), in view of Mazzola et al. (US 20220179921 A1, referred to as Mazzola) , in view of Kundu et al. (“QuEST: Quantum Circuit Output Estimation using Gaussian Distribution Analysis” referred to as Kundu), in view of Kim et al. (“Quantum Error Mitigation With Artificial Neural Network”, referred to as Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Gunnels teaches a method for orchestrating a quantum job ([0062-0063] and [0098-0103]: Describes a method for executing a quantum job, where a scheduling system determines a run order of quantum computing jobs based on one or more quantum based run constraints and submits the quantum computing jobs to one or more quantum computing devices.), the method comprising:
receiving input into an orchestration engine, the input including a quantum job and constraints associated with the quantum job ([0076-0077]: Describes that the priority of a quantum job can depend upon confidence in its answer, that confidence can be determined form the standard deviation across shots, and that a user can input a defined level of confidence corresponding to correctness of the quantum job into schedule component 108.),
Although Gunnels teaches receiving input into an orchestration engine, the input includes a quantum job and constraints associated with the quantum job. It does not teach the constraints including an uncertainty constraint and budget constraints.
Mazzola teaches the constraints including an uncertainty constraint and budget constraints ([0023-0024], [0033-0041], and [0047-0048]: Describes setting a sample budget for quantum measurements, including a Pauli dependent sample budget and a total sample budget, and allocating additional samples subject to the available sample budget.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the run constraints of Gunnel with the budget restriction of Mazzola. Doing so would have enabled the system to limit quantum measurement resources while obtaining sufficient statistical accuracy.
Although Gunnel in view of Mazzola teaches receiving input into an orchestration engine, the input including a quantum job and constraints associated with the quantum job, the constraints including an uncertainty constraint and budget constraints. They do not teach performing one or more iterations until the uncertainty constraint is within limits.
Kundu teaches performing one or more iterations until the uncertainty constraint is within limits (Pages 4-5 Section III.B, and Algorithm 1: Describes comparing a confidence value derived from a Z score to a pre-specified confidence threshold and, while the confidence remains below the threshold, incorporates a subsequent quantum circuit execution instance and repeats the confidence evaluation. Once the calculated confidence exceeds the desired confidence threshold, it preemptively terminates execution.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the run constraints of Gunnel with the budget restriction of Mazzola with the confidence iterative execution of Kundu. Doing so would have enabled the system to enable termination of quantum circuit execution once a desired confidence level is achieved, to reduce unnecessary quantum circuit executions.
Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu teaches or the budget constraints are outside of limits (Mazzola [0023-002], and [0047-0048]: Describes a total sample budget is established and additional samples are allocated to a Pauli dependent sample budget only up to a uniformly distributed sample budget when additional sampling is determined to be necessary.), wherein each iteration includes;
performing k shots of a quantum circuit included in the quantum job in a quantum backend identified in the quantum job (Kundu Pages 5-6 Section IV.A: describes quantum circuits that are executed on the IBM quantum platform using the ibm_jakarta backend, with each execution instance comprising 1000 shots.).
measuring a state probability distribution of the quantum circuit after performing the k shots (Kundu Pages 2-4 Section III.A: Describes that each quantum circuit execution instance comprises a number of shots and produces measurement counts for the possible circuit outputs, from which a probability distribution of the circuit output is obtained.)
determining an estimated uncertainty of the estimated final state probability distribution (Kundu Pages 4-5 Section III.B, Algorithm 1: Describes determining a confidence value form a Z-score calculated using the mean and standard deviation of a statistical distribution and compares the determined confidence with a predetermined confidence threshold.)
Although Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu teaches measuring a state probability distribution of the quantum circuit after performing the k shots. They do not teach estimating a final state probability distribution of the quantum circuit based on the measured state probability distribution.
Kim teaches estimating a final state probability distribution of the quantum circuit based on the measured state probability distribution (Section II-B and Figure 1: Describes an artificial neural network which receives a measured probability vector obtained from execution of the quantum circuit and infers a correction to the measured probabilities to estimate the desired probability distribution).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the system of Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu with the probability estimation of Kim. Doing so would have enabled the system to obtain a more accurate estimate of the quantum circuit’s output probability distribution from the measured shot results.
Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim teaches wherein the final state probability distribution, predicted from the measured state probability distribution, is output when the uncertainty is within limits along with the estimated uncertainty (Kim teaches estimating the final state probability distribution form the measured state probability distribution, as discussed above. Kundu (pages 4-5, Section III.B, and Algorithm 1) further teach outputting the predicted quantum circuit result when the estimated uncertainty is within a predetermined limit, wherein Kundu terminates execution when the confidence derived from the Z-score satisfies a predetermined confidence threshold and outputs the predicted result together with the determined confidence.).
Regarding claim 7, Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the uncertainty constraint is expressed in terms of mean and standard deviation (Kundu Pages 4-5 Section III-B, Equation 3, and Pages 5-8 Section IV-A: Describes that a confidence is determined form a Z-score calculated using the mean µ and standard deviation σ of a normal distribution and compared with a pre-specified confidence threshold. ).
Regarding claim 9, Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the estimated uncertainty is estimated by an uncertainty estimator trained using a dataset that is associated with uncertainties at various time steps (Kundu Pages 2-7, Sections III-A, III-B and IV-A: Describes a pre-trained statistical distribution which is generated using repeated quantum circuit execution data collected over time, and the mean and standard deviation of the trained distribution are used to determine a Z-score and corresponding of a subsequent quantum circuit outputs.).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, which recites substantially the same limitations as claims 1, and 7. They further recite a non-transitory storage medium (Gunnels [0116]: Describes a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program instructions for causing a processor to carry out the method. It further says the storage medium is a tangible device that can retain and store instructions, “is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se,” corresponding to a non-transitory storage medium.) to perform the method steps of claims 1, and 7 respectively, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 19, which recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and further recites preparing a quantum circuit included in the quantum job for execution (Gunnels[0062-0063], and [0083]: Describes a quantum job including a quantum computation to be executed on a quantum computing device.) and determining whether additional shots are required based on a measured probability distribution, a predicted final probability distribution, and an estimated uncertainty (Kundu Pages 1-2, Sections I and II: describes preparing a quantum circuit for execution, wherein the quantum circuit is transplied according to the quantum processor’s architecture and noise characteristics), and is rejected for the same reasons as described above.
Claim(s) 2-6, 11-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunnels et al. (US 20200174836 A1, referred to as Gunnels), in view of Mazzola et al. (US 20220179921 A1, referred to as Mazzola) , in view of Kundu et al. (“QuEST: Quantum Circuit Output Estimation using Gaussian Distribution Analysis” referred to as Kundu), in view of Kim et al. (“Quantum Error Mitigation With Artificial Neural Network”, referred to as Kim), in view of Kosuke Ito (“Latency-aware adaptive shot allocation for run-time efficient variational quantum algorithms”, referred to as Ito).
Regarding claim 2, Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim teaches the method of claim 1,
Although Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim teaches the method of claim 1. They do not teach wherein the budget constraints include a maximal time constraint and a maximal cost constraint.
Ito teaches wherein the budget constraints include a maximal time constraint and a maximal cost constraint (Pages 1, 5-8, Sections I, III, and Algorithm 1: Describes an adaptive quantum shot optimization accounts for both total wall clock execution time and economic cost associated with execution on a cloud quantum computing service. In Algorithm 1, it receives a total wall clock time T available for the optimization and performs interactions while the elapsed time remains within T. It further accounts for economic cost using per-shot and per-task costs when determining the number of quantum measurements.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the system of Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim with the execution time of Ito. Doing so would have enabled the system to limit quantum computing resource consumption.
Regarding claim 3, Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim, in view of Ito teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising evaluating the constraints after each of the iterations (Kundu, as discussed above), wherein the budget constraints are evaluated as if a next iteration was already performed (Ito Pages 3-4 Section II-E, Pages 5-6 Section III-A, Equations 21-24, and Algorithm 1: Describes prospectively evaluating the resource requirements of a subsequent iteration, wherein the number of shots for a subsequent iteration is determined using information obtained from previous iterations and based on the expected wall clock time or economic cost associated with performing the contemplated shots, including per-shot and per-iteration overhead costs.).
Regarding claim 4, Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim, in view of Ito teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the k shots is a percentage of total shots (Mazzola [0047-0048] describes performing a number of shots corresponding to a portion of a total number of shots, wherein a Pauli dependent sample budget is determined by unevenly distributing a total sample budget among respective quantum measurements), wherein the total shots is based on the budget constraints and the quantum backend (Ito Pages 5-6 Section III-A, Equations 2-24: Describes determining the number of shots based on resource constraints and characteristics of the quantum computing backend, wherein the shot allocation accounts for wall clock time/economic cost together with backend dependent single shot acquisition time, circuit switching latency, and communication latency.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the system of Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim with the latency aware adaptive technique of Ito. Doing so would have enabled the system to improve the resource efficiency of quantum circuit execution.
Regarding claim 5, Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim, in view of Ito teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising outputting actual shots executed during the one or more iterations (Ito Pages 9-11 Section IV-B, Algorithm 1 and Figure 6: Describes tracking the number of shots used during each iteration and reports the performance of the iterative quantum optimization in terms of number of shots used, including the total expended shots.).
Regarding claim 6, Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim, in view of Ito teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising outputting the measured state probability distribution (Kundu Pages 2-3 Section III-A, Figure 3, and Table 1: Describes that each execution of the quantum circuit produces measurement/output counts for each possible circuit output, which provides the measured probability distribution of the quantum circuit.).
Regarding claims 11-15, which recites substantially the same limitations as claims 2-6. They further recite a non-transitory storage medium (Gunnels [0116]: Describes a readable storage medium having computer readable program instructions for causing a processor to carry out the method. It further says the storage medium is a tangible device that can retain and store instructions, “is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se,” corresponding to a non-transitory storage medium.) to perform the method steps of claims 2-6 respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim teaches the method of claim 19, wherein iterations of k shots are repeated until the estimated uncertainty is below the uncertainty constraint (Kundu Pages 4-5 Section III-B, and Figure 6.: Describes repeating iterations of quantum circuit executions comprising a plurality of shots until an uncertainty/confidence constraint is satisfied, wherein additional execution n instances are performed while the determined confidence remains below a user defined threshold and execution is terminated once the threshold is satisfied.) or other constraints including at least one of a time constraint or a cost constraint are outside of limits.
Although Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim teaches wherein iterations of k shots are repeated until the estimated uncertainty is below the uncertainty constraint. They do not teach other constraints including at least one of a time constraint or a cost constraint are outside of limits.
Ito other constraints including at least one of a time constraint or a cost constraint are outside of limits (Page 7 Algorithm 1 further teaches limiting iterative quantum circuit execution according to a time constraint, receiving a total wall clock time T available for execution and performs iteration while elapsed time t remains less than or equal to T.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the system of Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim with the execution time of Ito. Doing so would have enabled the system to limit iterative quantum execution top available execution time, which would reduce execution time and cost.
Claim(s) 8, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunnels et al. (US 20200174836 A1, referred to as Gunnels), in view of Mazzola et al. (US 20220179921 A1, referred to as Mazzola) , in view of Kundu et al. (“QuEST: Quantum Circuit Output Estimation using Gaussian Distribution Analysis” referred to as Kundu), in view of Kim et al. (“Quantum Error Mitigation With Artificial Neural Network”, referred to as Kim), in view of Liao et al. (“Machine Learning for Practical Quantum Error Mitigation”, referred to as Liao).
Regarding claim 8, Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the final state probability distribution is estimated by a probability estimator(Kim Pages 188854-188855 Section II-B and Figure 3: Describes an artificial neural network is trained using measurement probability data generated from a plurality of random quantum circuits at various stages of circuit execution, including probability measurements obtained at different circuit depths a and b.)
Although Kim teaches final state probability distribution is estimated by a probability estimator. It does not teach that has been trained on training data including the executions of multiple quantum circuits in multiple quantum backends at various stages of executions.
Liao teaches that has been trained on training data including the executions of multiple quantum circuits in multiple quantum backends at various stages of executions (Page 13 Appendix D and Figure 9: Describes an MLP originally trained using circuits executed under a first backend/noise model (FakeLima) is subsequently fine-tuned using circuits executed under a second backend/noise model (FakeBelem).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the system of Gunnel in view of Mazzola in view of Kundu in view of Kim with the backend training techniques of Liao. Doing so would have enabled the system to improve the estimator’s applicability to different quantum backend environments.
Regarding claim 17, which recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8 and further recites a non-transitory storage medium (Gunnels [0116]: Describes a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program instructions for causing a processor to carry out the method. It further says the storage medium is a tangible device that can retain and store instructions, “is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se,” corresponding to a non-transitory storage medium.) to perform the method steps of claim 8 respectively, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 for additional art including.
US 20220358182 A1: estimated/corrected probability distribution
US 20220358391 A1 intermediate and final quantum results
US 20240144066 A1: k-shot/execution/result/termination
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD T RODEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at (571) 272-2589. 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.
/D.T.R./
Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights