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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
In claim 3, line 3, The following lacks proper antecedent basis: “ a second layer” as no first layer is claimed previously, for the Toffoli gates in claims 1 or 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgopoulos et al, A Comparison Walk Implementations on NISQ Computers, Newcastle Univ, UK, 2021.
Re claim 1:
The reference to Georgopoulos et al shows a quantum circuit for implementing multi-controlled NOT gates with N control qubits, where N is an integer greater than or equal to 3, see figure below;
PNG
media_image1.png
666
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The quantum circuit has a first auxiliary circuit(1st AUX)( corresponding to one or more initial layers of the plurality of layers(quantum circuit depth including number of control qubits/N>=3) and configured to performing controlled NOT/Toffoli operation on a target qubit(tgt) based on an Nth control qubit from among the N control qubits and a first auxiliary qubit initialized to a |+> state;
a quantum gate group(quantum gt grp, see labeling) corresponding to a plurality of layers and configured to perform controlled NOT operation on the first auxiliary qubit based on first to (N-I)th control qubits;
and a second auxiliary circuit(2nd AUX) corresponding to one or more last layers of the plurality of layers and configured to performing controlled NOT operation on the target qubit based on the Nth control qubit and the first auxiliary qubit(1st AUX).
The reference does not explicitly describe qubit initialization to a |+> state, however, as is conventional, the initialization of the qubits is part of the state preparation of the qubits before running an algorithm with the quantum circuit. Normal practice.
In light of the above it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that the quantum circuit as shown by Georgopoulos et al with multi-qubit control would allow for state preparation phase where initialization of the qubit states, such as l+>, allow for the system to get to a start/basis state prior to running any algorithm and producing an ultimate outcome.
Re claim 2: Toffoli gates are used for the 1st and 2nd AUX circuits, identified above, with qn(Nth control bit).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 are allowed.
Claims 4- 13 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.
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNOLD M KINKEAD whose telephone number is (571)272-1763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5:30pm(Fri-Flex).
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
ARNOLD M. KINKEAD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2849
/ARNOLD M KINKEAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849
Prosecution Insights