DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Applicant’s submission filed 20 February 2024, where:
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 1-16 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. An information disclosure statement was submitted on 20 February 2024. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner considered the information disclosure statement.
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112:
(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.
6. Claims 15 and 16 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.
Claim 15, line 2, recites “the transceiver of the quantum data center of claim 1.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16, lines 2-3 & 4-5, recites “the quantum data center of claim 1.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
8. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 15 and 16 do not contain a reference to a claim previously set forth because they instead refer to an element of a claim previously set forth. Claim 15 recites:
15. A method comprising:
receiving, via the transceiver of the quantum data center of claim 1, a quantum input state from a remote user;
* * *
(claim 15, lines 1-3 (emphasis added by Examiner)). Claim 16 recites:
16. A method comprising:
sending, via a quantum communication network, a quantum input state to the quantum data center of claim 1; and
receiving, via the quantum communication network, a quantum output state from the quantum data center of claim 1.
(claim 16, lines 1-5 (emphasis added by Examiner).
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), “a claim in dependent form shall contain: (i) a reference to a claim previously set forth, and (ii) then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.” (MPEP § 608.01(n) sub III).
Claims 15 and 16 do not contain a reference to a claim previously set forth; instead, claims 15 and 16 contain a reference to a portion or element of “a claim previously set forth,” such as “the transceiver of the quantum data center of claim 1,” (claim 15, line 2), and “the quantum data center of claim 1.” (Claim 16, lines 2-3 & 4-5). Further, claims 15 and 16 do not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.
Accordingly, claims 15 and 16 are rejected as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
12. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US Published Application 20220215279 to Rahman [hereinafter Rahman] in view of US Published Application 20220147266 to Hann et al. [hereinafter Hann].
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Rahman teaches [a] quantum data center (Rahman, Fig. 2A, a federated quantum computer system [(that is, a quantum data center)]”) of claim 1, and [a] method (see Rahman, claim 10) of claim 16, comprising:
a quantum computer (Rahman, Fig. 2A, teaches a federated quantum computer system 200 [Examiner annotations in dashed-line text boxes]:
PNG
media_image1.png
641
927
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rahman ¶ 0044 teaches “a centralized quantum computer is shared among many users and/or applications by way of one or more edge computing systems, which alleviates any requirement for providing an actual quantum computer physically at or near the network edge. The actual physical quantum computer may reside in a cloud, providing a shared quantum resource that would bring cost efficiency and flexibility [(that is, a quantum computer)]”);
a transceiver in communication with the quantum computer (Rahman, Fig. 2D, teaches a quantum enabled communication node 260 [Examiner annotations in dashed-line text boxes]:
PNG
media_image2.png
547
1018
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rahman ¶ 0094 teaches "the entanglement generator 262 provides one or more of the entangled photons for application to a source endpoint of a quantum teleportation system, e.g., a quantum transmitter, a destination endpoint of a quantum teleportation system, e.g., a quantum receiver or detector, and/or a quantum relay or repeater [(that is, {the “source endpoint” is a transceiver)]"), the transceiver being operable to communicate with a remote user via a quantum communication network (Rahman ¶ 0045 teaches “the [quantum edge module (qEM)] 202 may be located in a relatively close proximity to one or more end users and/or end-user device [(that is, the transceiver being operable to communicate with a remote user via a quantum communication network)]”);
wherein the quantum computer is operable to:
receive, via the transceiver, a quantum input state from the remote user (Rahman, Abstract, teaches “sequence of quantum operations is provided [(that is, receive . . . a quantum input state from the remote user)] to a geographically separated quantum central module, via a communication channel”);
[store, in a quantum random access memory, a plurality of database states] in a plurality of database qudits (Rahman ¶ 0003 teaches “[a] fundamental unit of quantum information in a two-level quantum system is the qubit. Unlike a classical bit, which may have a value of either 0 or 1, the qubit may exist in coherent superpositions of its two states, denoted as
|
0
and
|
1
. These basis states may be represented by quantum mechanical properties, for example, photonic polarization, atomic spin states, electronic states of an ion or charge states of superconducting systems. Other higher-level quantum systems may permit superpositions of more than two quantum states. For such instances, the unit of quantum information may be referred to more generally as a ‘qudit’” [(that is, for “higher level quantum systems,” is a plurality of database qudits)]”) . . . ;
* * *
and transmit, via the transceiver, the quantum output state to the remote user (Rahman, Abstract, teaches that a “computational result [(that is, the quantum output state to the remote user)] is received from the geographically separated quantum central module via the communication channel [(that is, transmit, via the transceiver, the quantum output state to the remote user)]”).
Though Rahman teaches a federate quantum computing distributed architecture, Rahman, however, does not explicitly teach –
* * *
[wherein the quantum computer is operable to:]
* * *
store, in a quantum random access memory, a plurality of database states . . . forming a database register;
query the quantum random access memory with the quantum input state to retrieve, from the database register, a quantum output state that is based on one or more of the plurality of database states,
the quantum output state being disentangled from the quantum input state and the plurality of database states; and
* * *
But Hann teaches –
* * *
[wherein the quantum computer is operable to:]
* * *
store, in a quantum random access memory, a plurality of database states . . . forming a database register (Hann ¶ 0041 teaches “[g]iven an address as an input, the RAM can output an element (e.g., a bit value) stored at that address in the database [(that is, store, in a quantum random access memory, a plurality of database states . . . forming a database register)]. Analogously, a QRAM is a device that can query a database when given a superposition of addresses, and returns a correlated superposition of data from those addresses”);
query the quantum random access memory with the quantum input state to retrieve, from the database register, a quantum output state that is based on one or more of the plurality of database states (Hann, Fig. 1B, teaches querying a database via a qRAM [Examiner annotations in dashed-line text boxes]:
PNG
media_image3.png
452
1291
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hann ¶ 0041 teaches “a QRAM is a device that can query a database when given a superposition of addresses, and returns a correlated superposition of data from those addresses”; Hann ¶ 0042 & Fig. 1B teaches “querying of a database via . . . a QRAM . . . . [A] quantum address value which is a superposition of addresses “0011” and “1101” is provided as input to a QRAM [(that is, query the qRAM with the quantum input state)]. The QRAM then produces an output in which the bit values stored at those memory locations are entangled with the respective addresses [(that is, retrieve, from the database register, a quantum output state that is based on one or more of the plurality of database states)], which is
PNG
media_image4.png
64
475
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in the example of FIG. 1B”),
the quantum output state being disentangled from the quantum input state and the plurality of database states (Hann ¶ 0057 & Fig. 2A teaches “the register modes [210] are in a superposition of address locations and also carry information about the value stored by the [qRAM] memory 260 at these address locations. To extract this information, the quantum router performs a plurality of operations upon the register modes and/or the address modes so that the information becomes stored in a single mode rather than across several entangled modes”; Hann, Fig. 2B, at step 285, teaches to “perform operations by Quantum Router to disentangle Register Modes [(that is, the quantum input state)] associated with memory qubits [(that is, the plurality of database states)] and store result in a single register mode [(that is, to “disentangle register modes” is the quantum output state being disentangled from the quantum input state and the plurality of database states)]”); and
* * *
Rahman and Hann are from the same or similar field of endeavor. Rahman teaches a federated quantum computing distributed architecture. Hann teaches the querying of a database via a quantum random access memory.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify Rahman pertaining to a federated quantum computing distributed architecture with the database querying of Hann.
The motivation to do so is because “[d]eveloping a quantum computer involves a number of different technical developments, some of which build upon each other. An initial requirement is to build a quantum system that can hold one bit of quantum information long enough for the qubit to be written, manipulated, and read. Once this has been achieved, quantum algorithms can be performed by manipulating these quantum systems, assuming a number of additional requirements, known as the DiVincenzo criteria, are also satisfied.” (Hann ¶ 0040).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rahman and Hann teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above in detail.
Hann teaches -
wherein:
the quantum computer includes a plurality of input qudits forming an input register and a plurality of output qudits forming an output register (Hann, Fig. 1B, teaches querying a database via a QRAM [Examiner annotations in dashed-line text boxes]:
PNG
media_image5.png
448
1279
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Hann ¶ 0042 & Fig. 1B teaches “querying of a database via . . . a QRAM . . . . [A] quantum address value which is a superposition of addresses “0011” and “1101” is provided as input to a QRAM [(that is, forming an input register)]. The QRAM then produces an output in which the bit values stored at those memory locations are entangled with the respective addresses [(that is, forming an output register)], which is
PNG
media_image4.png
64
475
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in the example of FIG. 1B”;
[As noted above, Rahman ¶ 0003 teaches “[a] fundamental unit of quantum information in a two-level quantum system is the qubit. Unlike a classical bit, which may have a value of either 0 or 1, the qubit may exist in coherent superpositions of its two states, denoted as
|
0
and
|
1
. These basis states may be represented by quantum mechanical properties, for example, photonic polarization, atomic spin states, electronic states of an ion or charge states of superconducting systems. Other higher-level quantum systems may permit superpositions of more than two quantum states. For such instances, the unit of quantum information may be referred to more generally as a ‘qudit’” [(that is, a plurality of input qudits and a plurality of output qudits)]”)]); and
[the quantum computer is further operable to:]
load the quantum input state into the input quantum register before querying the quantum random access memory (Hann ¶ 0054 teaches “[o]nce register modes 211 have been manipulated according to the quantum address information, these modes may be further manipulated according to the value stored in the memory so that the state of one or more of the register modes 211 reflects the value stored in the respective bits of the memory [(that is, “reflects the value” is to load the quantum input state into the input quantum register)]. Note that determining which of the register modes 211 have been manipulated since initialization would cause states of the register modes 211 to collapse and this information would be lost [(that is, with the “quantum measurement postulate,” loading inherently occurs before querying the quantum random access memory)]”); and
unload the quantum output state from the output quantum register after querying the quantum random access memory (Hann ¶ 0056 teaches “the memory 260 may be a quantum memory, in which case the operation performed with respect to each of the register modes 211 may comprise operations that extract the data qubit from the memory into a register mode conditioned on the value of the value of the associated register modes amongst register modes 211”; Hann ¶ 0082 teaches “register modes are initialized with initial values in preparation for operations by the quantum router”;
[Examiner notes that the plain meaning of “unload” is the removal of something. Under a reasonable broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “unload” covers the teachings of Hann pertaining to “extract the data qubit,” which is not inconsistent with the Applicant’s disclosure. (MPEP § 2111; see Specification ¶ 0029(“offload large amounts of magic stat distillation”))]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rahman and Hann teach all of the limitations of claim 2, as described above in detail.
Rahman teaches -
each of the plurality of input qudits and the plurality of output qudits being a qubit (Rahman ¶ 0003 teaches “[a] fundamental unit of quantum information in a two-level quantum system is the qubit. Unlike a classical bit, which may have a value of either 0 or 1, the qubit may exist in coherent superpositions of its two states, denoted as
|
0
and
|
1
. These basis states may be represented by quantum mechanical properties, for example, photonic polarization, atomic spin states, electronic states of an ion or charge states of superconducting systems. Other higher-level quantum systems may permit superpositions of more than two quantum states. For such instances, the unit of quantum information may be referred to more generally as a ‘qudit’ [(that is, each of the plurality of input qudits and the plurality of output qudits being a qubit )]”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rahman and Hann teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above in detail.
Hann teaches -
wherein:
the quantum computer includes a plurality of address qudits forming an address register (Hann, Fig. 1B, teaches querying a database via a QRAM [Examiner annotations in dashed-line text boxes]:
PNG
media_image6.png
407
1295
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Hann, Abstract, teaches “operations upon these [register] modes may allow a quantum address value to be routed to modes associated with respective bits such that the only modes altered by the operations are those associated with the addresses being accessed. These modes may be operated upon based on the stored values then extracted to obtain the desired correlated superposition of the stored bit values in the addresses [(that is, the quantum computer includes a plurality of address qudits forming an address register)]”); and
the quantum computer is further operable to store, in the address register and for each database state of the plurality of database states (Hann ¶ 0041 teaches “[g]iven an address as an input, the RAM can output an element (e.g., a bit value) stored at that address in the database. Analogously, a QRAM is a device that can query a database when given a superposition of addresses [(that is, store, in the address register and for each database state of the plurality of database states)]”),
a corresponding one of a plurality of address states that locate said each database state in the database register (Hann ¶ 0041 teaches “[g]iven an address as an input, the RAM can output an element (e.g., a bit value) stored at that address in the database. Analogously, a QRAM is a device that . . . returns a correlated superposition of data from those [database register] addresses [(that is, a corresponding one of a plurality of address states that locate said each database state in the database register)]”),
the plurality of address states being stored in the address register as classical data (Hann, Abstract, teaches the “bits stored at the address locations may be classical bits [(that is, the plurality of address states being stored in the address register as classical data)]”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rahman and Hann teach all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above in detail.
Hann teaches -
wherein the quantum input state is in a superposition of at least two of the plurality of address states (Hann ¶ 0041 teaches “a QRAM is a device that can query a database when given a superposition of addresses, and returns a correlated superposition of data from those addresses [(that is, the quantum input state is in a superposition of at least two of the plurality of address states)]”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rahman and Hann teach all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above in detail.
each of the plurality of database qudits and the plurality of address qudits is a qubit (Rahman ¶ 0003 teaches “[a] fundamental unit of quantum information in a two-level quantum system is the qubit. Unlike a classical bit, which may have a value of either 0 or 1, the qubit may exist in coherent superpositions of its two states, denoted as
|
0
and
|
1
. These basis states may be represented by quantum mechanical properties, for example, photonic polarization, atomic spin states, electronic states of an ion or charge states of superconducting systems. Other higher-level quantum systems may permit superpositions of more than two quantum states. For such instances, the unit of quantum information may be referred to more generally as a ‘qudit’ [(that is, each of the plurality of database qudits and the plurality of address qudits is a qubit)]”);
a number of the plurality of database states is N (Hann ¶ 0039 teaches “quantum information may be stored using quantum bits, referred to as “qubits,” which are typically quantum mechanical systems exhibiting two or more states [(that is, “two or more states” is a number of the plurality of database states is N )]”); and
the quantum computer is operable to store each address state using log N of the plurality of address qudits (Hann ¶ 0046 teaches “a compact QRAM that can be operated in the order of log2(N) operational steps for a memory with N address locations (e.g., order of 3 steps for 8 memory locations, etc.) [(that is, store each address state using log N of the plurality of address qudits)]”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rahman and Hann teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above in detail.
Hann teaches -
wherein the quantum computer is operable to store each of the plurality of database states in the database register as classical data (Hann, Fig. 1A, teaches querying a database via a classical RAM [Examiner annotations in dashed-line text boxes]:
PNG
media_image7.png
322
1179
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Hann ¶ 0042 teaches “FIGS. 1A-1B illustrate querying of a database via a classical RAM and a QRAM, respectively. In the example of FIG. 1A, an address value of “1101” is provided as an input, and the classical RAM accesses a bit value stored at that address (which happens to have the value “1” in the illustrated example) [(that is, store each of the plurality of database states in the database register as classical data)]”; see also, Hann ¶ 0045 teaches the “bits stored at the address locations may be classical bits, or may be qubits”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Rahman and Hann teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above in detail.
Hann teaches -
wherein the quantum computer is operable to store each of the plurality of database states in the database register as quantum data (Hann ¶ 0045 teaches the “bits stored at the address locations may be classical bits, or may be qubits [(that is, store each of the plurality of database states in the database register as quantum data)”).
Regarding claim 15. Rahman teaches [a] method (see Rahman, claim 10) comprising:
receiving, via the transceiver of the quantum data center of claim 1 (Rahman, Fig. 2D, teaches a quantum enabled communication node 260 [Examiner annotations in dashed-line text boxes]:
PNG
media_image2.png
547
1018
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rahman ¶ 0094 teaches "the entanglement generator 262 provides one or more of the entangled photons for application to a source endpoint of a quantum teleportation system, e.g., a quantum transmitter, a destination endpoint of a quantum teleportation system, e.g., a quantum receiver or detector, and/or a quantum relay or repeater [(that is, {the “source endpoint” is a transceiver)]"), a quantum input state from a remote user (Rahman, Abstract, teaches “sequence of quantum operations is provided [(that is, receiving . . . a quantum input state from a remote user)] to a geographically separated quantum central module, via a communication channel”);
[storing a plurality of database states] in a plurality of database qudits (Rahman ¶ 0003 teaches “[a] fundamental unit of quantum information in a two-level quantum system is the qubit. Unlike a classical bit, which may have a value of either 0 or 1, the qubit may exist in coherent superpositions of its two states, denoted as
|
0
and
|
1
. These basis states may be represented by quantum mechanical properties, for example, photonic polarization, atomic spin states, electronic states of an ion or charge states of superconducting systems. Other higher-level quantum systems may permit superpositions of more than two quantum states. For such instances, the unit of quantum information may be referred to more generally as a ‘qudit’” [(that is, for “higher level quantum systems,” is a plurality of database qudits)]”) . . .;
* * *
transmitting, via the transceiver, the quantum output state to the remote user (Rahman, Abstract, teaches that a “computational result [(that is, the quantum output state to the remote user)] is received from the geographically separated quantum central module via the communication channel [(that is, transmit, via the transceiver, the quantum output state to the remote user)]”).
Though Rahman teaches a federate quantum computing distributed architecture, Rahman, however, does not explicitly teach –
* * *
storing a plurality of database states . . . forming a database register;
implementing, with the quantum computer of the quantum data center, a quantum random access memory with the database register;
querying, with the quantum computer, the quantum random access memory with the quantum input state to retrieve, from the database register, a quantum output state that is based one or more of the plurality of database states,
the quantum output state being disentangled from the quantum input state and the plurality of database states;
* * *
But Hann teaches –
* * *
storing a plurality of database states . . . forming a database register (Hann ¶ 0041 teaches “[g]iven an address as an input, the RAM can output an element (e.g., a bit value) stored at that address in the database [(that is, store, in a quantum random access memory, a plurality of database states . . . forming a database register)]. Analogously, a QRAM is a device that can query a database when given a superposition of addresses, and returns a correlated superposition of data from those addresses”);
implementing, with the quantum computer of the quantum data center, a quantum random access memory with the database register (Hann ¶ 0041 teaches “A number of quantum algorithms require access to a quantum random access memory, or ‘QRAM,’ which is a memory that can be accessed by a superposition of memory elements. . . . Analogously [to a classical RAM], a QRAM is a device that can query a database when given a superposition of addresses, and returns a correlated superposition of data from those addresses [(that is, implementing, with the quantum computer of the quantum data center, a quantum random access memory with the database register)]”);
querying, with the quantum computer, the quantum random access memory with the quantum input state to retrieve, from the database register, a quantum output state that is based one or more of the plurality of database states (Hann, Fig. 1B, teaches querying a database via a qRAM [Examiner annotations in dashed-line text boxes]:
PNG
media_image3.png
452
1291
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hann ¶ 0041 teaches “a QRAM is a device that can query a database when given a superposition of addresses, and returns a correlated superposition of data from those addresses”; Hann ¶ 0042 & Fig. 1B teaches “querying of a database via . . . a QRAM . . . . [A] quantum address value which is a superposition of addresses “0011” and “1101” is provided as input to a QRAM [(that is, querying, with the quantum computer, the quantum random access memory with the quantum input state)]. The QRAM then produces an output in which the bit values stored at those memory locations are entangled with the respective addresses [(that is, retrieve, from the database register, a quantum output state that is based one or more of the plurality of database states)], which is
PNG
media_image4.png
64
475
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in the example of FIG. 1B”),
the quantum output state being disentangled from the quantum input state and the plurality of database states (Hann ¶ 0057 & Fig. 2A teaches “the register modes [210] are in a superposition of address locations and also carry information about the value stored by the [qRAM] memory 260 at these address locations. To extract this information, the quantum router performs a plurality of operations upon the register modes and/or the address modes so that the information becomes stored in a single mode rather than across several entangled modes”; Hann, Fig. 2B, at step 285, teaches to “perform operations by Quantum Router to disentangle Register Modes [(that is, the quantum input state)] associated with memory qubits [(that is, the plurality of database states)] and store result in a single register mode [(that is, to “disentangle register modes” is the quantum output state being disentangled from the quantum input state and the plurality of database states)]”);
* * *
Rahman and Hann are from the same or similar field of endeavor. Rahman teaches a federated quantum computing distributed architecture. Hann teaches the querying of a database via a quantum random access memory.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify Rahman pertaining to a federated quantum computing distributed architecture with the database querying of Hann.
The motivation to do so is because “[d]eveloping a quantum computer involves a number of different technical developments, some of which build upon each other. An initial requirement is to build a quantum system that can hold one bit of quantum information long enough for the qubit to be written, manipulated, and read. Once this has been achieved, quantum algorithms can be performed by manipulating these quantum systems, assuming a number of additional requirements, known as the DiVincenzo criteria, are also satisfied.” (Hann ¶ 0040).
13. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US Published Application 20220215279 to Rahman [hereinafter Rahman] in view of US Published Application 20220147266 to Hann et al. [hereinafter Hann] and Ian et al., “A Practicable Guide to the Quantum Computation Architectures,” arXiv (2019) [hereinafter Ian].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rahman and Hann teach all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above in detail.
Though Rahman and Hann teach the feature of address states in an address register, the combination of Rahman and Hann, however, does not explicitly teach –
wherein the quantum computer is operable to store each of the plurality of address states in the address register as a product state of elements each of the elements being in only one of a plurality of computational basis states.
But Ian teaches -
wherein the quantum computer is operable to store each of the plurality of address states in the address register as a product state of elements (Ian at p. 12, “B.1. Purpose of the Algorithm,” first paragraph, “Grover’s algorithm is a search algorithm, which means it gives the address in terms of a quantum ‘index’ state from a given quantum ‘data’ state. The address is stored in the first quantum register
|
R
1
and the data in the second quantum register
|
R
2
[(that is, store each of the plurality of address states in the address register)]”; Ian at p. 5, “III.A.2 Entanglement,” first paragraph, teaches “[w]hen two registers are present in a quantum computing system, the way to describe their states simultaneously is to pair up their individual Hilbert-space vectors through a mathematical procedure called tensor product. For example, if the first register assumes the state
|
α
while the second the state
|
β
, then their joint state is written as
|
α
⊗
|
β
[(that is, store each of the plurality of address states in the address register as a product state of elements)]”),
each of the elements being in only one of a plurality of computational basis states (Ian at p. 12, “B.2 Quantum Assembly Code,” fourth paragraph, teaches
PNG
media_image8.png
123
673
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[(that is, “a unique value” is each of the elements being in only one of a plurality of computational basis states)]”).
Rahman, Hann, and Ian are from the same or similar field of endeavor. Rahman teaches a federated quantum computing distributed architecture. Hann teaches the querying of a database via a quantum random access memory. Ian teaches a search algorithm (Grover’s search algorithm), which gives the address in terms of a quantum “index” state from a given quantum “data” state.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the combination of Rahman and Hann pertaining to a federated quantum computing distributed architecture including a database querying via qRAM with the address product states of Ian.
The motivation to do so is because “it would be helpful to give the undergraduate students at least a skeleton understanding of what a quantum computer stands for. Since instruction-set architectures originated from classical computing models are familiar, we propose analogously a set of quantum instructions, which can be composed to implement renowned quantum algorithms.” (Ian, Abstract).
14. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US Published Application 20220215279 to Rahman [hereinafter Rahman] in view of US Published Application 20220147266 to Hann et al. [hereinafter Hann] and Litinski et al., “Lattice Surgery with a Twist: Simplifying Clifford Gates of Surface Codes,” arXiv (2018) [hereinafter Litinski].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Rahman and Hann teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above in detail.
Though Rahman and Hann teach the features of a quantum computer architecture, the combination of Rahman and Hann, however, does not explicitly teach –
wherein the quantum computer is operable to implement a fault-tolerant quantum architecture.
But Litinski teaches -
wherein the quantum computer is operable to implement a fault-tolerant quantum architecture (Litinski, Abstract, teaches “a planar surface-code-based scheme for fault-tolerant quantum computation which eliminates the time overhead of single-qubit Clifford gates, and implements long-range multi-target CNOT gates with a time overhead that scales only logarithmically with the control-target separation [(that is, implement a fault-tolerant quantum architecture)]”).
Rahman, Hann, and Litinski are from the same or similar field of endeavor. Rahman teaches a federated quantum computing distributed architecture. Hann teaches the querying of a database via a quantum random access memory. Litinski teaches, together with magic state distillation, a scheme allowing for fault-tolerant universal quantum computation.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the combination of Rahman and Hann pertaining to a federated quantum computing distributed architecture including a database querying via qRAM with the fault-tolerant universal quantum computations of Litinski.
The motivation to do so is for a “planar surface-code-based scheme for fault-tolerant quantum computation which eliminates the time overhead of single-qubit Clifford gates, and implements long-range multi-target CNOT gates with a time overhead that scales only logarithmically with the control-target separation.” (Litinski, Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Rahman and Hann teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above in detail.
Though Rahman and Hann teach the features of a quantum computer including quantum gates, the combination of Rahman and Hann, however, does not explicitly teach –
wherein the quantum computer is operable to use a Clifford+T gate set.
But Litinski teaches -
wherein the quantum computer is operable to use a Clifford+T gate set (Litinski, right column of p. 8, “4.1 Example: Magic State Distillation,” first paragraph, teaches “One possibility to implement the logical T gate using physical T gates and logical Clifford gates is magic state distillation[20].The aim of this scheme is to generate an encoded magic state
PNG
media_image9.png
26
248
media_image9.png
Greyscale
which corresponds to a
|
+
-state on which a T gate has been performed [(that is, the quantum computer is operable to use a Clifford+T gate set)]”).
Rahman, Hann, and Litinski are from the same or similar field of endeavor. Rahman teaches a federated quantum computing distributed architecture. Hann teaches the querying of a database via a quantum random access memory. Litinski teaches, together with magic state distillation, a scheme allowing for fault-tolerant universal quantum computation.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the combination of Rahman and Hann pertaining to a federated quantum computing distributed architecture including a database querying via qRAM with the Clifford-T gates of Litinski.
The motivation to do so is for a “planar surface-code-based scheme for fault-tolerant quantum computation which eliminates the time overhead of single-qubit Clifford gates, and implements long-range multi-target CNOT gates with a time overhead that scales only logarithmically with the control-target separation.” (Litinski, Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Rahman, Hann, and Litinski teach all of the limitations of claim 11, as described above in detail.
Litinski teaches -
wherein the quantum computer is operable to implement a magic state distillation scheme (Litinski, right column of p. 8, “4.1 Example: Magic State Distillation,” first paragraph, teaches “One possibility to implement the logical T gate using physical T gates and logical Clifford gates is magic state distillation[20].The aim of this scheme is to generate an encoded magic state
PNG
media_image9.png
26
248
media_image9.png
Greyscale
which corresponds to a
|
+
-state on which a T gate has been performed [(that is, the quantum computer is operable to implement a magic state distillation scheme)]”).
15. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US Published Application 20220215279 to Rahman [hereinafter Rahman] in view of US Published Application 20220147266 to Hann et al. [hereinafter Hann] and Green et al., “Quantum Random Access Memory,” University of Maryland (2019) [hereinafter Green].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Rahman and Hann teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above in detail.
Though Rahman and Hann teach the features a QRAM system that stores qubit values within addressing modes to perform read operations, the combination of Rahman and Hann, however, does not explicitly teach –
wherein the quantum computer is operable to implement a three-state bucket-brigade quantum random access memory.
But Green teaches -
wherein the quantum computer is operable to implement a three-state bucket-brigade quantum random access memory (Green at p. 6, “2.3.3 Bucket Brigade,” first paragraph, teaches an “architecture for qRAM called “Bucket Brigade” which lowers that complexity to O(LogN), exponentially decreasing access complexity”; Green at 6, “2.3.3 Bucket Brigade,” second paragraph, teaches “trits are used. These trits can take the values of “wait”, “left”, and “right’ [(that is, a three-state bucket-brigade quantum random access memory)]”).
Rahman, Hann, and Green are from the same or similar field of endeavor. Rahman teaches a federated quantum computing distributed architecture. Hann teaches the querying of a database via a quantum random access memory. Green teaches Bucket Brigade qRAM structure.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the combination of Rahman and Hann pertaining to a federated quantum computing distributed architecture including a database querying via qRAM with the Bucket Brigade qRAM structure of Green.
The motivation to do so is because the “architecture for qRAM called ‘Bucket Brigade’ . . . lowers that complexity to O(logN), exponentially decreasing access complexity.” (Green at p. 6, “2.3.3 Bucket Brigade,” first paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Rahman and Hann teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above in detail.
Though Rahman and Hann teach the features a QRAM system that stores qubit values within addressing modes to perform read operations, the combination of Rahman and Hann, however, does not explicitly teach –
wherein the quantum computer is operable to implement a two-state bucket-brigade quantum random access memory.
But Green teaches -
wherein the quantum computer is operable to implement a two-state bucket-brigade quantum random access memory (Green at p. 6, “2.3.3 Bucket Brigade,” second paragraph teaches the “[bucket-brigade qRAM] architecture can be applied to both classical and quantum systems, although it is unnecessary for classical systems due to the already existing scaled systems which are not as efficient, but do not need to be. Instead of encountering binary switches of “0" or “1" going down a path to memory locations, trits are used [(that is, “binary switches” can be used, which is operable to implement a two-state bucket-brigade qRAM)]”).
Rahman, Hann, and Green are from the same or similar field of endeavor. Rahman teaches a federated quantum computing distributed architecture. Hann teaches the querying of a database via a quantum random access memory. Green teaches Bucket Brigade qRAM structure.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention to modify the combination of Rahman and Hann pertaining to a federated quantum computing distributed architecture including a database querying via qRAM with the Bucket Brigade qRAM structure of Green.
The motivation to do so is because the “architecture for qRAM called ‘Bucket Brigade’ . . . lowers that complexity to O(logN), exponentially decreasing access complexity.” (Green at p. 6, “2.3.3 Bucket Brigade,” first paragraph).
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(Veras et al., “Circuit-based quantum random access memory for classical data with continuous amplitudes,” arXiv (2020)) teaches that loading data in a quantum device is required in several quantum computing applications. Without an efficient loading procedure, the cost to initialize the algorithms can dominate the overall computational cost. A circuit-based quantum random access memory named FF-QRAM can load M n-bit patterns with computational cost O(CMn) to load continuous data where C depends on the data distribution. In this work, we propose a strategy to load continuous data without post-selection with computational cost O(Mn). The proposed method is based on the probabilistic quantum memory, a strategy to load binary data in quantum devices, and the FF-QRAM using standard quantum gates, and is suitable for noisy intermediate-scale quantum computers.
(US Published Application 20190354316 to Rhee et al.) teaches the architecture of a quantum RAM, a method for using classical data in quantum computing by inputting the classical data as quantum data, and a system and method of operating a quantum database using the architecture. Quantum computing can achieve an exponential speed-up in some applications using a large parallel process provided by a quantum database in which information can be superposed. The present invention proposes an efficient quantum database architecture and protocol that can record and search for classical information with a quantum circuit.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEVIN L. SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-5964. Normally, the Examiner is available on Monday-Thursday 0730-1730.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, KAKALI CHAKI can be reached on 571-272-3719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.L.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/KAKALI CHAKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights