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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2025, 03/12/2025 and 11/17/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
[Claim 1] A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a noise information estimation program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising:
(a) acquiring a plurality of output distributions that indicate distributions of output states of a plurality of qubits that correspond to each of a plurality of quantum circuits when each of the plurality of quantum circuits is executed a plurality of times for the plurality of qubits;
(b) determining execution success/failure of each of the plurality of quantum circuits, based on a deviation degree between each of the plurality of output distributions and a uniform distribution; and
(c) estimating information related to noise of each of the plurality of qubits, based on a determination result of the execution success/failure of each of the plurality of quantum circuits and a number of quantum gates applied to each of the plurality of qubits in each of the plurality of quantum circuits.
Claim 1 is ineligible. (Similarly claim 7 and 8)
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
Step (a) recites “acquiring a plurality of output distributions that indicate distributions of output states of a plurality of qubits……”. The term “output distributions” is recognized as having its plain meaning of any output results of any quantum circuits as supported by [0054] “the processing unit 12 may generate the output distribution for each quantum circuit and store the output distribution in the storage unit 11.” The claim does not put any limits on how “the output distribution” is acquired, but para. [0054] supports the plain meaning of “acquire” from storage.
Step (b) recites “determining execution success/failure of each of the plurality of quantum circuits, based on a deviation degree between each of the plurality of output distributions and a uniform distribution”, which uses mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations supported by para. [0060], [0063] “… For example, the processing unit 12 may calculate the deviation degree between the output distribution and the uniform distribution E by an existing method. An example of this deviation degree includes a Hellinger distance. However, as a scale for measuring the deviation between the output distribution and the uniform distribution E, a scale other than the Hellinger distance may be used. Other examples of the scale include Kullback-Leibler divergence, Jensen-Shannon divergence, a Wasserstein distance, Shanon entropy, and the like.
Step (c) recites “estimating information related to noise of each of the plurality of qubits, based on a determination result of the execution success/failure of each of the plurality of quantum circuits and a number of quantum gates applied to each of the plurality of qubits in each of the plurality of quantum circuits”. The claim does not provide any details about how the estimating is made, and the plain meaning of “estimating” encompasses mental observations or evaluations. (refer para. [0125]-[0126].)
Steps (a), (b), (and (c) are all recited as being performed by a computer/processor. The recited computer/ processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a computer. The claim is directed to a physical device, which is a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of steps (b), and (c), is that step (b) falls within the mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas, step (c) falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III, therefore, claim 1 recites multiple abstract ideas, As step (b) and step (c) fall within different groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts and mental processes, respectively), these limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim step (a) recites an additional element of “acquiring a plurality of output distributions that indicate distributions of output states of a plurality of qubits……” As explained above, step(a) is claimed at a high level of generality and could describe acquiring a plurality of output distributions from the storage/memory. The element amounts to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculation. The “acquiring” element does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. Therefore, the additional limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim also recites additional element of “a computer” “a processor” (Claim 8) When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, these circuit are used to generally apply the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mathematical calculation using the recited mathematical equation) without placing any limitation on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how these circuits solve a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Also, the claim invokes these circuits merely as a tool for making the recited mathematical calculation rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
The recited generic “computer”, “processor” (claim 8), “memory” (claim 8) merely add a generic computer component to perform the steps and therefore fails to provide an improvement to the technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, there are four additional elements. The additional element of “computer/processor” “a memory” (claim 8)” in limitations is at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additional elements (a) was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “(a) “acquiring a plurality of output distributions……” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving data from memory and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 9 As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a computer to perform limitations (a), (b), and (c) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2, recites additional elements “wherein in the determining of the execution success/failure, the deviation degree is compared with a threshold, and it is determined that execution is successful in a case where the deviation degree is greater than or equal to the threshold, and it is determined that execution has failed in a case where the deviation degree is less than the threshold”, which comparing recites additional mathematical formulas or equations, i.e. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 3, recites additional elements “wherein in the estimating, first/second information that indicates……is acquired……”, “safety range information that indicated ……is generated based on the first information and the second information acquired……” As these additional limitations further details data gathering, it is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4, recites additional elements “wherein the first information and the second information each include an average value of the numbers of quantum gates applied……”, “the safety range information includes a range of the average values of the numbers of quantum gates allowed to be applied ……”, i.e. recites additional mathematical formulas or equations - Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 5, recites additional elements “adjusting…… the number of quantum gates applied to…… to be within a range indicated by the safety range information.” As these additional limitations are all mathematical relationships that can be performed mentally, it does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6, recites additional elements “determining, based on information on a second quantum circuit executed by the quantum computer or a program of a quantum algorithm that corresponds to the second quantum circuit, whether or not an output distribution …… is expected to be a distribution in which an appearance probability of a specific state is amplified……; using the output distribution with respect to the second quantum circuit for estimation of the information related to noise, when a result of the determination is true; not using the output distribution with respect to the second quantum circuit for estimation of the information related to noise, when the result of the determination is false. ” the plain meaning of “determining” encompasses mental observations or evaluations, it does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 7 and 8 are the method/apparatus claim of claim 1, have the same claim as claim 1, thus the same 101 rejection analysis as claim 1 applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-2, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DESHPANDE et al., "Tight bounds on the convergence of noisy random circuits to the uniform distribution",PRX QUANTUM 3, 040329 (2022), hereinafter DESHPANDE, in view of Cai et al., US 20230196173, hereinafter Cai.
As per claim 1, DESHPANDE teaches A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a noise information estimation program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising:
acquiring a plurality of output distributions that indicate distributions of output states of a plurality of qubits that correspond to each of a plurality of quantum circuits when each of the plurality of quantum circuits is executed a plurality of times for the plurality of qubits;
(Chap II-B, An implementing computer is considered implicit in DESHPANDE; ABSTRACT, "We study the properties of output distributions of noisy, random circuits"; Chap I, para.3 "with measurements in the computational basis at the output."; Chap V-A, para.2 ,"Proof. Let Px denote the probability... after very gate."; Chap V-B, col. 2, para.1, "Let D denote the distribution of measurements for a circuit."; Appendix A: Equation (A1) .
Examiner Note: Equation (A1) implies that for each circuit U, the output distribution Pu(x) is obtained by executing the circuit multiple times and recording the frequency of each bitstring xx.)
determining execution success/failure of each of the plurality of quantum circuits, based on a deviation degree between each of the plurality of output distributions and a uniform distribution; and
(ABSTRACT, "We obtain upper and lower bounds .... uniform distribution."; Chap. IV, lines 1-2, "We define a depth-d noisy circuit ...quantum channels"; Equation (1); Chap. I, para. 4, "We prove a lower bound on the expected total ... from the uniform distribution"; Chap. V-A; Chap. V-B; Chap. II-A-3, para.1; Theorems 1 and 2.
Examiner Note: These theorems quantify how far the output distribution is from uniform, which is interpretable as a measure of success or failure of the circuit execution)
EXCEPT
estimating information related to noise of each of the plurality of qubits, based on a determination result of the execution success/failure of each of the plurality of quantum circuits and a number of quantum gates applied to each of the plurality of qubits in each of the plurality of quantum circuits.
Cai teaches
estimating information related to noise of each of the plurality of qubits, based on a determination result of the execution success/failure of each of the plurality of quantum circuits and a number of quantum gates applied to each of the plurality of qubits in each of the plurality of quantum circuits.
([0019]; [0002] an average of the measured output states can be calculated to estimate the expected value of the observable.
[0064] The second operation 23 is performed multiple times, and the state of the qubit is measured using the quantum measurement device 26 each time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling data of the claimed invention to have modified DESHPANDE to incorporate the teaching of the elements from Cai as indicated above, in order to mitigate errors using analytical approaches (Cai, [0003])
As per claim 2, DESHPANDE-Cai teaches The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium as applied above in claim 1, DESHPANDE further teaches wherein
in the determining of the execution success/failure, the deviation degree is compared with a threshold, and it is determined that execution is successful in a case where the deviation degree is greater than or equal to the threshold, and it is determined that execution has failed in a case where the deviation degree is less than the threshold.
(Chap. IV, DESHPANDE derives bounds on the total variation distance (TVD) that effectively act as criteria such as defined in present claim. Specifically, Chap. V, Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 show that for depths below a function of log n, the TVD remains significantly large, implying successful execution. Conversely, Theorem 3 demonstrates that at sublogarithmic depths, the TVD becomes exponentially small, indicating failure to ant concentrate and convergence to uniformity. These results support the interpretation that execution quality is implicitly judged by whether the deviation exceeds a depth-dependent threshold.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DESHPANDE et al., "Tight bounds on the convergence of noisy random circuits to the uniform distribution",PRX QUANTUM 3, 040329 (2022), hereinafter DESHPANDE, in view of Cai et al., US 20230196173, hereinafter Cai, in further view of Delaney et al., US 20200184023, hereinafter Delaney.
As per claim 3, DESHPANDE-Cai teaches The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium as applied above in claim 1, EXCEPT wherein in the estimating,
first information that indicates the number of quantum gates applied to each of the plurality of qubits in a quantum circuit for which execution has succeeded among the plurality of quantum circuits is acquired for each of the quantum circuits, and
second information that indicates the number of quantum gates applied to each of the plurality of qubits in a quantum circuit for which execution has failed among the plurality of quantum circuits is acquired for each of the quantum circuits, and
safety range information that indicates a range of a number of quantum gates allowed to be applied to each of the plurality of qubits is generated based on the first information and the second information acquired for each of the plurality of quantum circuits.
Delaney teaches
wherein in the estimating,
first information that indicates the number of quantum gates applied to each of the plurality of qubits in a quantum circuit for which execution has succeeded among the plurality of quantum circuits is acquired for each of the quantum circuits, and
second information that indicates the number of quantum gates applied to each of the plurality of qubits in a quantum circuit for which execution has failed among the plurality of quantum circuits is acquired for each of the quantum circuits, and
safety range information that indicates a range of a number of quantum gates allowed to be applied to each of the plurality of qubits is generated based on the first information and the second information acquired for each of the plurality of quantum circuits.
([0047], [0037], [0042], an error tolerance for the quantum circuit, a number of gates permitted for the quantum circuit; [0047])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling data of the claimed invention to have modified DESHPANDE-Cai to incorporate the teaching of the elements from Delaney as indicated above, in order to mitigate errors using analytical approaches (Cai, [0003])
As per claim 4, DESHPANDE-Cai- Delaney teaches The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium as applied above in claim 3, Cai further teaches wherein
the first information and the second information each include an average value of the numbers of quantum gates applied to a qubit and other qubits adjacent to the qubit, and
the safety range information includes a range of the average values of the numbers of quantum gates allowed to be applied to the qubit and the other qubits adjacent to the qubit.
([0042] The first operation is repeated a number of times and an average state of the qubit is calculated by taking the mean value of the individual measurements recorded following each performance of the first operation.)
As per claim 5, DESHPANDE-Cai- Delaney teaches The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium as applied above in claim 3, Cai further teaches the processing further comprising:
adjusting, when a first quantum circuit is executed by the quantum computer after generation of the safety range information, the number of quantum gates applied to a qubit used for execution of the first quantum circuit to be within a range indicated by the safety range information.
([0048] the number of circuit runs, i.e. performance of first and second operations and their subsequent measurements, must be increased by a factor C.sub.E dependent on the first and second error rates.)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DESHPANDE et al., "Tight bounds on the convergence of noisy random circuits to the uniform distribution",PRX QUANTUM 3, 040329 (2022), hereinafter DESHPANDE, in view of Cai et al., US 20230196173, hereinafter Cai, in further view of PAETZNICK et al., US 20230196172, hereinafter PAETZNICK.
As per claim 6, DESHPANDE-Cai teaches The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium as applied above in claim 1, EXCEPT the processing further comprising:
determining, based on information on a second quantum circuit executed by the quantum computer or a program of a quantum algorithm that corresponds to the second quantum circuit, whether or not an output distribution of the quantum computer with respect to the second quantum circuit is expected to be a distribution in which an appearance probability of a specific state is amplified;
using the output distribution with respect to the second quantum circuit for estimation of the information related to noise, when a result of the determination is true; and
not using the output distribution with respect to the second quantum circuit for estimation of the information related to noise, when the result of the determination is false.
PAETZNICK teaches the processing further comprising:
determining, based on information on a second quantum circuit executed by the quantum computer or a program of a quantum algorithm that corresponds to the second quantum circuit, whether or not an output distribution of the quantum computer with respect to the second quantum circuit is expected to be a distribution in which an appearance probability of a specific state is amplified;
using the output distribution with respect to the second quantum circuit for estimation of the information related to noise, when a result of the determination is true; and
not using the output distribution with respect to the second quantum circuit for estimation of the information related to noise, when the result of the determination is false.
([0026] an adjusted outcome (m) that is sampled from a probability distribution parameterized by the noisy outcome (m′) and the selected noisy measurement instrument)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling data of the claimed invention to have modified DESHPANDE-Cai to incorporate the teaching of the elements from PAETZNICK as indicated above, in order to mitigate errors using analytical approaches (Cai, [0003])
Claims 7, 8 have the same claim as claim 1 respectively, in method/apparatus form, thus they are rejected under the same reason as indicated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WANG, US 20230206103, CHARACTERIZATION OF QUANTUM COMPUTER PERFORMANCE
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONG TANG whose telephone number is (469)295-9106. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached on (571) 270-3750. 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.
/RONG TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2111
/MARK D FEATHERSTONE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights