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 in response to an application filed on July 24th, 2024. Claims 1-5 are pending in the current application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J´anos A. Bergou et al. (Herein referred to as Bergou) (11 Discrimination of Quantum States) in view of Timothée Goubault de Brugière. (Herein referred to as Brugière) (Methods for optimizing the synthesis of quantum circuits)
Regarding claim 1, Bergou teaches a quantum compilation device comprising processing circuitry configured to: obtain a probability p(k) that minimizes an error (“The problem consists in finding the optimum measurement strategy that minimizes the probability of errors. Let us state the optimization problem a little more precisely. In the most general case, we want to distinguish, with minimum probability of error, between N given states of a quantum system (N ≥ 2), being characterized by the density operators ρj (j =1,2,... ,N) and occurring with the given a priori probabilities ηj which sum up to unity.”, pg. 24, bottom paragraph) between a distribution of first observed values obtained by observing, with any observation method, a first quantum state (“We find it instructive to start by analyzing the two-state minimum-error measurement with the help of an alternative method (cf. [41,42]) that allows us to gain immediate insight into the structure of the optimum detection operators, without applying variational techniques.”, pg. 25, under “The Helstrom Formula”) (The two-state minimum-error measurement corresponds to an observation method which implicit has a first and second quantum state.) and a distribution of second observed values obtained by observing, with the observation method, a second quantum state (“We find it instructive to start by analyzing the two-state minimum-error measurement with the help of an alternative method (cf. [41,42]) that allows us to gain immediate insight into the structure of the optimum detection operators, without applying variational techniques.”, pg. 25, under “The Helstrom Formula”) (The two-state minimum-error measurement corresponds to an observation method which implicit has a first and second quantum state.) And outputs an element Uk with the probability p(k). (“We now want to determine these operators explicitly. Consider the operator Ak = UkΠ1/2 k , where Uk is an arbitrary unitary operator (k =0,1,2). From this expression we immediately obtain Πk = A† kAk and the detection probability can be expressed as ⟨ψi|A† kAk|ψi⟩ = ∥Akψi∥2 ≥ 0 where ∥...∥ stands for the norm.”, pgs. 5-6)
However, Bergou does not teach a first quantum state obtained by causing the quantum circuit to be compiled represented by a unitary matrix U to act on any input quantum state, nor a second quantum state obtained by causing a quantum circuit represented by each of a plurality of elements Uk E {Ui, ..., UK} of a set {Ui, ..., UK} to act on the input quantum state with the probability p(k), nor for the set {Ui, ..., UK} in which a unitary matrix representing elementary gates and/or a unitary matrix representing a product of unitary matrices each representing an elementary gate are the elements Ui, ..., and UK, and the unitary matrix U representing a quantum circuit to be compiled, where K is an integer of 2 or more, and k = 1, ..., and K; nor the unitary matrix U representing a quantum circuit to be compiled, where K is an integer of 2 or more, and k = 1, ..., and K;
Brugière teaches a first quantum state obtained by causing the quantum circuit to be compiled represented by a unitary matrix U to act on any input quantum state (“any quantum algorithm takes as input a quantum state, applies a specific unitary operation, and performs some measurements on the output state… Generally acting on one or two qubits, these elementary operators are called quantum gates, and we can mention the following (see Table 2.1)… if we are given a quantum operator as a unitary matrix, or any other abstract representation non-understandable by the hardware, one also has to find a way to turn the desired operator acting on a potentially large number of qubits into a quantum circuit made of local, elementary gates.”, pg. 23, under “2.3.1 Quantum Gates”; pg.27, top paragraph) (The unitary operation corresponds to a unitary matrix, U, that act on any input quantum state, which outputs a state corresponding to a first quantum state.) a second quantum state obtained by causing a quantum circuit represented by each of a plurality of elements Uk E {Ui, ..., UK} of a set {Ui, ..., UK} to act on the input quantum state with the probability p(k), (“The classical simulation of a quantum circuit C consists in computing the output state UC |0⊗n with a classical computer. Doing so for every classical input state and one can recover the whole unitary UC on which a synthesis algorithm can be applied… Each problem is associated to a specific abstract representation of the quantum operator, the set of gates with which we want to implement the operator, the desired error and the metric to optimize.”, pgs. 28-29) (The whole unitary, UC, corresponds to a plurality of elements of a set to act on an input state. Operators in a quantum circuit, which act on input states, implicitly have probability associated with them, further evidenced on pg. 164 of Brugière) and for the set {Ui, ..., UK} in which a unitary matrix representing elementary gates and/or a unitary matrix representing a product of unitary matrices each representing an elementary gate are the elements Ui, ..., and UK, and the unitary matrix U representing a quantum circuit to be compiled, where K is an integer of 2 or more, and k = 1, ..., and K; (See Table 2.1, for a set of unitary matrices representing elementary gates. K is interpreted to be the number of operations that are performed, and the number of operations shown in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1 is equal to, or greater than 2.)
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing date of the current application, to combine the probability distributions and error measurement of Bergou with the quantum circuit, operations, and states of Brugière. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings prior to the application’s filing date, as this allows for visualization of quantum gates and the optimization of quantum circuits. (“As an example of a quantum circuit combining several gates, the so-called Quantum Fourier Transform on 4 qubits [148] is represented in Figure2.1. It enables us to visualize the use of elementary gates: H, S, T, phase-gate, and positive controls… Therefore, among a set of equivalent circuits, it is possible to search for a circuit that "is better" than the others. This is the central theme of this thesis, and more details are given in Section 2.4.”, pg. 24)
Regarding claim 4, Bergou teaches a quantum compilation method performed by a quantum compilation device comprising: obtaining a probability p(k) that minimizes an error (“The problem consists in finding the optimum measurement strategy that minimizes the probability of errors. Let us state the optimization problem a little more precisely. In the most general case, we want to distinguish, with minimum probability of error, between N given states of a quantum system (N ≥ 2), being characterized by the density operators ρj (j =1,2,... ,N) and occurring with the given a priori probabilities ηj which sum up to unity.”, pg. 24, bottom paragraph) between a distribution of first observed values obtained by observing, with any observation method, a first quantum state (“We find it instructive to start by analyzing the two-state minimum-error measurement with the help of an alternative method (cf. [41,42]) that allows us to gain immediate insight into the structure of the optimum detection operators, without applying variational techniques.”, pg. 25, under “The Helstrom Formula”) (The two-state minimum-error measurement corresponds to an observation method which implicit has a first and second quantum state.) and a distribution of second observed values obtained by observing, with the observation method, a second quantum state (“We find it instructive to start by analyzing the two-state minimum-error measurement with the help of an alternative method (cf. [41,42]) that allows us to gain immediate insight into the structure of the optimum detection operators, without applying variational techniques.”, pg. 25, under “The Helstrom Formula”) (The two-state minimum-error measurement corresponds to an observation method which implicit has a first and second quantum state.) and outputting an element Uk with the probability p(k). (“We now want to determine these operators explicitly. Consider the operator Ak = UkΠ1/2 k , where Uk is an arbitrary unitary operator (k =0,1,2). From this expression we immediately obtain Πk = A† kAk and the detection probability can be expressed as ⟨ψi|A† kAk|ψi⟩ = ∥Akψi∥2 ≥ 0 where ∥...∥ stands for the norm.”, pgs. 5-6)
However, Bergou does not teach a first quantum state obtained by causing the quantum circuit to be compiled represented by a unitary matrix U to act on any input quantum state, nor a second quantum state obtained by causing a quantum circuit represented by each of a plurality of elements Uk E {Ui, ..., UK} of a set {Ui, ..., UK} to act on the input quantum state with the probability p(k), nor for the set {Ui, ..., UK} in which a unitary matrix representing elementary gates and/or a unitary matrix representing a product of unitary matrices each representing an elementary gate are the elements Ui, ..., and UK, and the unitary matrix U representing a quantum circuit to be compiled, where K is an integer of 2 or more, and k = 1, ..., and K; nor the unitary matrix U representing a quantum circuit to be compiled, where K is an integer of 2 or more, and k = 1, ..., and K;
Brugière teaches a first quantum state obtained by causing the quantum circuit to be compiled represented by a unitary matrix U to act on any input quantum state (“any quantum algorithm takes as input a quantum state, applies a specific unitary operation, and performs some measurements on the output state… Generally acting on one or two qubits, these elementary operators are called quantum gates, and we can mention the following (see Table 2.1)… if we are given a quantum operator as a unitary matrix, or any other abstract representation non-understandable by the hardware, one also has to find a way to turn the desired operator acting on a potentially large number of qubits into a quantum circuit made of local, elementary gates.”, pg. 23, under “2.3.1 Quantum Gates”; pg.27, top paragraph) (The unitary operation corresponds to a unitary matrix, U, that act on any input quantum state, which outputs a state corresponding to a first quantum state.) a second quantum state obtained by causing a quantum circuit represented by each of a plurality of elements Uk E {Ui, ..., UK} of a set {Ui, ..., UK} to act on the input quantum state with the probability p(k), (“The classical simulation of a quantum circuit C consists in computing the output state UC |0⊗n with a classical computer. Doing so for every classical input state and one can recover the whole unitary UC on which a synthesis algorithm can be applied… Each problem is associated to a specific abstract representation of the quantum operator, the set of gates with which we want to implement the operator, the desired error and the metric to optimize.”, pgs. 28-29) (The whole unitary, UC, corresponds to a plurality of elements of a set to act on an input state. Operators in a quantum circuit, which act on input states, implicitly have probability associated with them, further evidenced on pg. 164 of Brugière) and for the set {Ui, ..., UK} in which a unitary matrix representing elementary gates and/or a unitary matrix representing a product of unitary matrices each representing an elementary gate are the elements Ui, ..., and UK, and the unitary matrix U representing a quantum circuit to be compiled, where K is an integer of 2 or more, and k = 1, ..., and K; (See Table 2.1, for a set of unitary matrices representing elementary gates. K is interpreted to be the number of operations that are performed, and the number of operations shown in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1 is equal to, or greater than 2.)
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing date of the current application, to combine the probability distributions and error measurement of Bergou with the quantum circuit, operations, and states of Brugière. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings prior to the application’s filing date, as this allows for visualization of quantum gates and the optimization of quantum circuits. (“As an example of a quantum circuit combining several gates, the so-called Quantum Fourier Transform on 4 qubits [148] is represented in Figure2.1. It enables us to visualize the use of elementary gates: H, S, T, phase-gate, and positive controls… Therefore, among a set of equivalent circuits, it is possible to search for a circuit that "is better" than the others. This is the central theme of this thesis, and more details are given in Section 2.4.”, pg. 24)
Regarding claim 5, Bergou, as modified by Brugière teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as the quantum compilation device according to claim 1. (While Bergou nor Brugière explicitly mention the use of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, one would implicitly need those components to distribute the combined system of Bergou and Brugière.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement for reasons for allowance:
Claim 2 recites the following limitations:
“when the unitary matrix U is compiled by any one element Uk'E {Ui, ..., UK} deterministically selected from the set {Ui, ..., UK}, the unitary matrix U can be approximated by the set {Ui, ..., UK} with an approximation accuracy E”, and
“when the unitary matrix U is compiled by the element Uk stochastically selected with the probability p(k) from the set {Ui, ..., UK}, the unitary matrix U can be approximated by the set {Ui, ..., UK} with an approximation accuracy E =e2 or can be approximated by approximately E =e2.”
None of the references in this action, either alone or in combination, fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the claim, nor did additional search and consideration yield any references that would fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the claims recite the following limitations:
“The quantum compilation device according to The quantum compilation device according to wherein the unitary matrix U is a 2NX2N matrix, and N is an integer of 1 or more,{ai, ..., aJ} is an orthonormal basis of a 22NX22N Hermitian matrix, J = 24N, and j = 1, ...,J, eL represents a 2N-dimensional vertical vector, the L-th element from a head of the vertical vector eL is 1, the other 2N-1 elements are 0, and L = 1,…, 2N,”, and the following limitations below:
PNG
media_image1.png
630
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
None of the references of record either alone or in combination fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the claim, nor did additional search and consideration yield any references that would fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the claim.
Therefore claims 2 and 3 taken as a whole are considered allowable. When taken as a whole, the dependent claims would be allowed, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, at least because of the allowable features recited in claims 2 and 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler E Iles whose telephone number is (571)272-5442. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.E.I./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2122
/MICHAEL H HOANG/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights