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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.9 /. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
The Cross-Reference to Related Applications section in paragraph [0001] of the specification does not provide the status of U.S. application serial no. 18174616 (i.e., now U.S. Patent No. 12,333,387).
The Brief Description of the Drawings does not indicate that Figures 1A-1B as “conventional arts or “prior arts”.
The abstract is not clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed (i.e. "...encoding surface including plurality of plaquettes...) and described in the prior art cited in this case and in parent case 18/174616. No hint of the claimed invention is found in the abstract. Appropriate correction is required.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (Does this claim fall within at least one statutory category?): Yes, the claim
recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: ((a) identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites an
abstract idea: and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groups of abstract ideas (mental process or/and mathematical concept).
Claim 1 recites:
A method for use with a quantum computing device, the method comprising performing a stabilizer operator measurement of a stabilizer operator at least in part by: measuring a first Pauli operator at a first ancillary qubit; performing a first Pauli update of a second Pauli operator on the first ancillary qubit, wherein the second Pauli operator differs from the first Pauli operator (mathematical relationship, mathematical formulas or equations using words or mathematical symbols); applying a first two-target controlled not (CNOT) gate at the first ancillary qubit, the second ancillary qubit, a first data qubit, and a second data qubit; applying a second two-target CNOT gate at the first ancillary qubit, the second ancillary qubit, a third data qubit, and a fourth data qubit falls within the (“Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations, and judgements); measuring the first Pauli operator at the first ancillary qubit; and outputting a measurement result of measuring the first Pauli operator at the first ancillary qubit (mathematical relationship, mathematical formulas or equations using words or mathematical symbols).
Step 2A, Prong 2 (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): There is no additional element.
Step 2B: (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception? No): There is no additional element.
As per claim 2, the claim falls into [Mental Processes, grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations and judgements and mathematical concepts.
As per claim 3, the claim falls into [Mental Processes, grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations and judgements and mathematical concept.
As per claim 4, the claim falls into [Mental Processes, grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations and judgements and mathematical concept.
As per claim 5, the claim falls into [Mental Processes, grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations and judgements and mathematical concept.
As per claim 6, the claim falls into [mathematical concept].
As per claim 7, the claim falls into [mathematical concept].
As per claim 8, the claim falls into [mathematical concept].
As per claim 9 recites limitations analogous in scope to those of claim 1, and as such is similar rejected. Further, claim 15 recites additional elements of “A computing system comprising: a quantum computing device; and a classical computing device “. The components recited at a high level of generality (e.g. a generic computer element for performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, the additional element(s) of each of these claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract into a practical application, the additional elements of “A computing system comprising: a quantum computing device; and a classical computing device "a processor" amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
As per claims 10-13, and 16-20 the claims fall into [Mental Processes, grouping of abstract ideas of data gathering (observations), evaluations and judgements and mathematical concept].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eastin (U.S. PN: 9,160,341)
A classical code is selected in which all the codewords associated with the code have a weight of zero mod 2g, where g is a positive integer power of two. The classical code is punctured such that a first set of codewords retain a weight of zero mod 2g and a second set of codewords has a weight of 2g−1 mod 2g. The first set of codewords is mapped to a set of stabilizer generators, and the second set of codewords is mapped to a set of logical operators. A set of relatively low fidelity resource states are prepared in a plurality of physical qubits. A decoding process is performed on the set of relatively low fidelity resource states according to a quantum code represented by the set of stabilizer generators and the set of logical operators. Each of the physical qubits corresponding (after decoding) to Z stabilizers are measured and the result is used to determine a correction to be made to the other qubits prior to measuring those corresponding to X stabilizers.
Reilly et al. (U.S. PN: 10,877,841)
a Quantum Computing device comprising a first and second square patch of qubits, each of the first and second square patch of qubits representing a logical qubit and being in a joint quantum state corresponding to a surface code, the surface code having two or more. The first and second square patch of qubits have a side-length equal to the distance plus one qubit. The device furthermore comprises one or more chain of qubits prepared in a joint GHZ state serving as a data bus. The chain of qubits neighbors both the first and the second square patch of qubits and has a length equal to or greater than the sum of the two side-lengths.
Gidney et al. (U.S. PN: 12,450,514)
a method for distilling one or more T states as part of an arbitrary quantum algorithm, the method comprising: initializing n qubits, comprising: initializing a nonzero strict subset of k qubits in a plus state; and initializing (n−k) qubits in a zero state; using lattice surgery to perform k multi-body stabilizer measurements on the initialized qubits, wherein each multi-body stabilizer measurement is defined by a respective column of CNOT gates in a T state distillation circuit, selecting one of the qubits from the qubits initialized in a plus state; for each qubit that is not the selected qubit: applying a T gate or its Hermitian conjugate to the qubit; applying a single qubit measurement operation to the qubit; and applying a Z gate to the selected qubit by operating on a surface patch or recording in classical software the presence of byproduct operators on outputs determined from the single qubit measurement results.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Esaw T. Abraham whose telephone number is (571) 272-3812. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicants are 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 on (571) 272-3819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (703) 872-9306.
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.
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2112
