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 .
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.
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) [ 1-3, 7 ] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [ Kelly (US Pub No. 20180330265), hereinafter "Kelly `265", in view of Kelly (US 20170357561), hereinafter "Kelly `561" ].
As per claim 1, Kelly `265 significantly teaches an adaptive control apparatus, which is applied to a quantum computing system, wherein the quantum computing system comprises a quantum computing unit and a pulse generation unit (The system includes a one-dimensional array of qubits 102 . For clarity, nine qubits are depicted in FIG. 1A, however the system may include a much larger number of qubits, e.g., millions of qubits. The array of qubits includes data qubits, e.g., data qubits labeled 104 , 108 , 112 , 116 , and 120 , interleaved with measurement qubits, e.g., measurement qubits labeled 106 , 110 , 114 , and 118 [Kelly `265 PP 0037], The system may include a set of readout quantum gates, e.g., readout quantum gate 122 . The readout gates may be configured to operate on the measurement qubits, e.g., measurement qubits 106 , 110 , 114 and 118 . Each readout gate may provide the state of the corresponding measurement qubit, and may be associated with a corresponding set of physical readout gate parameters. [Kelly `265 PP 0038]),
the adaptive control apparatus comprising: a quantum circuit information processing unit transmitting quantum circuit information into the quantum computing unit, wherein the quantum computing unit performs a computation according to the quantum circuit information (The system may include an error correction subsystem 130 that is in data communication with the qubits 102 . The error correction subsystem may be configured to monitor the output from error detection and feed this information back to the system in order to calibrate the quantum gates [Kelly `265 PP 0042], accessing a quantum information storage system that comprises a plurality of data qubits; a plurality of measurement qubits, interleaving the data qubits such that each data qubit has a neighboring measurement qubit; a plurality of readout quantum gates, each readout quantum gate configured to operate on a measurement qubit; a plurality of single qubit quantum gates, each single qubit quantum gate configured to operate on a data qubit or a measurement qubit; and a plurality of CNOT quantum gates, each CNOT quantum gate configured to operate on a data qubit and a neighboring measurement qubit [Kelly `265 PP 0004]);
a quantum computing quality evaluation unit receiving measurement information of one or more qubits of the quantum computing unit and performing an error rate calculation according to the measurement information of the qubits to generate an error rate (optimizing in parallel parameters of readout quantum gates that operate on the measurement qubits is a repeated process using closed-loop feedback, wherein each repetition comprises in parallel, for each measurement qubit: defining a corresponding metric for minimization as a determined error rate; measuring the measurement qubit to determine a current error rate [Kelly `265 PP 0011], The error correction subsystem 130 may use the results of the performed quantum measurements to calculate relevant quantities of interest, or metrics, such as a current error rate for each measurement qubit [Kelly `265 PP 0043]);
and the pulse generation unit generates a pulse signal according to the pulse adjustment parameters and transmits the pulse signal to the quantum computing unit (the error correction subsystem 130 may implement a numerical optimization algorithm, such as a Nelder-Mead algorithm, to determine an appropriate adjustment of the quantum gate parameters, e.g., a minimizing set of quantum gate parameters. Once an appropriate adjustment has been determined, the error correction subsystem may provide the adjustments as feedback to the qubits 102 and adjust the parameters of the quantum gates accordingly. [Kelly `265 PP 0044]).
Kelly `265 does not explicitly teach “and an adaptive control unit receiving the error rate generated by the quantum computing quality evaluation unit, wherein when the error rate is greater than an error rate threshold, the adaptive control unit generates one or more pulse adjustment parameters”
However, Kelly `561, in an analogous art, teaches and an adaptive control unit receiving the error rate generated by the quantum computing quality evaluation unit, wherein when the error rate is greater than an error rate threshold, the adaptive control unit generates one or more pulse adjustment parameters (If a qubit parameter value is determined to be an acceptable value, or if the qubit parameter value is determined to lie within a tolerance value of what is accepted, the qubit parameter may be determined as being within specification. If a qubit value is determined to be an unacceptable value, the qubit parameter may be determined as being out of specification. For example, a pi pulse parameter may be determined to be in specification if the rotation angle is within the tolerance value of 1% of a 180 degree rotation. A qubit parameter that is out of specification may require calibration in order to ensure that the qubit parameter is within specification [Kelly `561 PP 0047], the obtained data further comprises one or more attributes of the parameters in the set of qubit parameters including (i) a respective timeout period for which a calibration is to be performed, and (ii) acceptable thresholds for parameter values [Kelly `561 PP 0015])
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum error correction system disclosed by Kelly `265 to incorporate Kelly `561's teaching of using a threshold to decide when to calibrate, in order to improve system efficiency by avoiding unnecessary recalibration (The calibration test determines whether the parameter is in or out of specification. [Kelly `561 PP 0065]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Kelly `265's invention.
As per claim 2, Kelly `265 does not explicitly teach “wherein the error rate threshold is less than 0.2.”
However, Kelly `561, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the error rate threshold is less than 0.2 (If a qubit parameter value is determined to be an acceptable value, or if the qubit parameter value is determined to lie within a tolerance value of what is accepted, the qubit parameter may be determined as being within specification [Kelly `561 PP 0047] using acceptable thresholds/tolerance values to determine if a parameter is within specification. Selecting a threshold less than 0.2 is a routine design choice.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum error correction system disclosed by Kelly `265 to incorporate Kelly `561's teaching of using a threshold to decide when to calibrate, in order to improve system efficiency by avoiding unnecessary recalibration (The calibration test determines whether the parameter is in or out of specification. [Kelly `561 PP 0065]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Kelly `265's invention.
As per claim 3, Kelly `265 does not explicitly teach “further comprising: a pulse adjustment parameter inputting unit comprising a pulse adjustment parameter inputting interface configured for manually feeding in one or more fluctuation parameters, wherein the adaptive control unit regenerates other pulse adjustment parameters according to the fluctuation parameters.”
However, Kelly `561, in an analogous art, teaches further comprising: a pulse adjustment parameter inputting unit comprising a pulse adjustment parameter inputting interface configured for manually feeding in one or more fluctuation parameters, wherein the adaptive control unit regenerates other pulse adjustment parameters according to the fluctuation parameters (the qubit calibration system 104 may receive some or all of the data describing the one or more attributes of the parameters in the set of qubit parameters from a third party external to the automatic qubit calibration system 100 , e.g., through user input [Kelly `561 PP 0052], A qubit parameter that is out of specification may require calibration in order to ensure that the qubit parameter is within specification [Kelly `561 PP 0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum error correction system disclosed by Kelly `265 to incorporate Kelly `561's teaching of using a threshold to decide when to calibrate, in order to improve system efficiency by avoiding unnecessary recalibration (The calibration test determines whether the parameter is in or out of specification. [Kelly `561 PP 0065]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Kelly `265's invention.
As per claim 7, Kelly `265 does not explicitly teach “wherein when the error rate is less than the error rate threshold, the adaptive control unit does not change the pulse adjustment parameters.”
However, Kelly `561, in an analogous art, teaches wherein when the error rate is less than the error rate threshold, the adaptive control unit does not change the pulse adjustment parameters (If a qubit parameter value is determined to be an acceptable value, or if the qubit parameter value is determined to lie within a tolerance value of what is accepted, the qubit parameter may be determined as being within specification... A qubit parameter that is out of specification may require calibration in order to ensure that the qubit parameter is within specification [Kelly `561 PP 0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum error correction system disclosed by Kelly `265 to incorporate Kelly `561's teaching of using a threshold to decide when to calibrate, in order to improve system efficiency by avoiding unnecessary recalibration (The calibration test determines whether the parameter is in or out of specification. [Kelly `561 PP 0065]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Kelly `265's invention.
Claim(s) [ 4-6, 8-11 ] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [ Kelly `265, in view of Kelly `561, in further view of Cohen et al. (US Pub No. 20230318586), hereinafter "Cohen"].
As per claim 4, Kelly `265 in view of Kelly `561 does not explicitly teach “wherein the pulse adjustment parameters comprise an amplitude parameter, a phase parameter, a frequency parameter, or a period parameter.”
However, Cohen, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the pulse adjustment parameters comprise an amplitude parameter, a phase parameter, a frequency parameter, or a period parameter (Each pulser circuit 302 I comprises circuitry operable to generate outbound pulses on signal path 308 I according to quantum control operations to be performed on the quantum processor 218 . This involves very precisely controlling characteristics such as phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses. [Cohen PP 0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum error correction system disclosed by Kelly `265 and Kelly `561 to incorporate Cohen's teaching of a quantum controller that generates outbound pulses by precisely controlling phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses, in order to enable precise generation of pulse signals according to pulse adjustment parameters (Each pulser circuit 302 I comprises circuitry operable to generate outbound pulses on signal path 308 I according to quantum control operations to be performed on the quantum processor 218 . This involves very precisely controlling characteristics such as phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses. [Cohen PP 0036]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Kelly `265 and Kelly `561's invention.
As per claim 5, Kelly `265 in view of Kelly `561 does not explicitly teach “wherein the fluctuation parameters comprise an amplitude fluctuation parameter, a phase fluctuation parameter, a frequency fluctuation parameter, or a period fluctuation parameter.”
However, Cohen, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the fluctuation parameters comprise an amplitude fluctuation parameter, a phase fluctuation parameter, a frequency fluctuation parameter, or a period fluctuation parameter (This involves very precisely controlling characteristics such as phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses [Cohen PP 0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum error correction system disclosed by Kelly `265 and Kelly `561 to incorporate Cohen's teaching of a quantum controller that generates outbound pulses by precisely controlling phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses, in order to enable precise generation of pulse signals according to pulse adjustment parameters (Each pulser circuit 302 I comprises circuitry operable to generate outbound pulses on signal path 308 I according to quantum control operations to be performed on the quantum processor 218 . This involves very precisely controlling characteristics such as phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses. [Cohen PP 0036]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Kelly `265 and Kelly `561's invention.
As per claim 6, Kelly `265 in view of Kelly `561 does not explicitly teach “wherein the pulse signal generated by the pulse generation unit is a microwave pulse signal or a laser pulse signal.”
However, Cohen, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the pulse signal generated by the pulse generation unit is a microwave pulse signal or a laser pulse signal (It is the job of the quantum controller to generate the precise series of external signals, usually pulses of electromagnetic waves and pulses of base band voltage, to perform the desired logic operations. [Cohen PP 0026] Cohen teaches pulses of electromagnetic waves, which a POSITA would understand encompasses both microwave and laser pulses).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum error correction system disclosed by Kelly `265 and Kelly `561 to incorporate Cohen's teaching of a quantum controller that generates outbound pulses by precisely controlling phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses, in order to enable precise generation of pulse signals according to pulse adjustment parameters (Each pulser circuit 302 I comprises circuitry operable to generate outbound pulses on signal path 308 I according to quantum control operations to be performed on the quantum processor 218 . This involves very precisely controlling characteristics such as phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses. [Cohen PP 0036]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Kelly `265 and Kelly `561's invention.
As per claim 8, Kelly `265 in view of Kelly `561 does not explicitly teach “wherein when the pulse adjustment parameters comprise the amplitude parameter, the adaptive control unit increases or decreases the amplitude parameter by an amplitude variation to generate other pulse adjustment parameters.”
However, Cohen, in an analogous art, teaches wherein when the pulse adjustment parameters comprise the amplitude parameter, the adaptive control unit increases or decreases the amplitude parameter by an amplitude variation to generate other pulse adjustment parameters (The protocol is repeated with varying amplitudes (a). For each amplitude, the protocol is repeated many times for averaging, which allows extracting the probability of the qubit to be in the excited state... This experiment provides an important tool for calibrating quantum gates. For example, the amplitude at which the qubit reaches a rotation of 180 degrees gives us the required amplitude for performing an X-gate [Cohen PP 0154]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum error correction system disclosed by Kelly `265 and Kelly `561 to incorporate Cohen's teaching of a quantum controller that generates outbound pulses by precisely controlling phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses, in order to enable precise generation of pulse signals according to pulse adjustment parameters (Each pulser circuit 302 I comprises circuitry operable to generate outbound pulses on signal path 308 I according to quantum control operations to be performed on the quantum processor 218 . This involves very precisely controlling characteristics such as phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses. [Cohen PP 0036]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Kelly `265 and Kelly `561's invention.
As per claim 9, Kelly `265 in view of Kelly `561 does not explicitly teach “wherein when the pulse adjustment parameters comprise the phase parameter, the adaptive control unit increases or decreases the phase parameter by a phase variation to generate other pulse adjustment parameters.”
However, Cohen, in an analogous art, teaches wherein when the pulse adjustment parameters comprise the phase parameter, the adaptive control unit increases or decreases the phase parameter by a phase variation to generate other pulse adjustment parameters (A signal, at the resonance frequency of the qubit, of the form s(t) = A cos(ωQt + φ) rotates the Bloch vector of the qubit at a rate A around the axis which is on the x-y plane and is rotated by an angle φ from the x-axis [Cohen PP 0158]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum error correction system disclosed by Kelly `265 and Kelly `561 to incorporate Cohen's teaching of a quantum controller that generates outbound pulses by precisely controlling phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses, in order to enable precise generation of pulse signals according to pulse adjustment parameters (Each pulser circuit 302 I comprises circuitry operable to generate outbound pulses on signal path 308 I according to quantum control operations to be performed on the quantum processor 218 . This involves very precisely controlling characteristics such as phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses. [Cohen PP 0036]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Kelly `265 and Kelly `561's invention.
As per claim 10, Kelly `265 significantly teaches wherein when the pulse adjustment parameters comprise the frequency parameter, the adaptive control unit increases or decreases the frequency parameter by a frequency variation to generate other pulse adjustment parameters (the error correction subsystem 130 may implement a numerical optimization algorithm, such as a Nelder-Mead algorithm, to determine an appropriate adjustment of the quantum gate parameters, e.g., a minimizing set of quantum gate parameters [Kelly `265 PP 0044] a numerical optimization algorithm that iteratively adjusts quantum gate parameters to find a minimizing set inherently involves frequency variations).
As per claim 11, Kelly `265 in view of Kelly `561 does not explicitly teach “wherein when the pulse adjustment parameters comprise the period parameter, the adaptive control unit increases or decreases the period parameter by a period variation to generate other pulse adjustment parameters.”
However, Cohen, in an analogous art, teaches wherein when the pulse adjustment parameters comprise the period parameter, the adaptive control unit increases or decreases the period parameter by a period variation to generate other pulse adjustment parameters (This involves very precisely controlling characteristics such as phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses [Cohen PP 0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum error correction system disclosed by Kelly `265 and Kelly `561 to incorporate Cohen's teaching of a quantum controller that generates outbound pulses by precisely controlling phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses, in order to enable precise generation of pulse signals according to pulse adjustment parameters (Each pulser circuit 302 I comprises circuitry operable to generate outbound pulses on signal path 308 I according to quantum control operations to be performed on the quantum processor 218 . This involves very precisely controlling characteristics such as phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses. [Cohen PP 0036]). Applying these teachings would have been a predictable variation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to Kelly `265 and Kelly `561's invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREEM FUAD ALHWAMDEH whose telephone number is (571)272-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Albert Decady can be reached at (571) 272-3819. 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.
/KAREEM FUAD ALHWAMDEH/Examiner, Art Unit 2112
/ALBERT DECADY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights