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 office action is responsive to the applicant’s arguments filed on 10/29/2025.
Claims 1-15 and 19-21 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 19 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the remarks, page 7, regarding Step 2A Prong 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To clarify, the remarks alleges that the steps of performing iterative, time-stepped computations are not mental processes because they cannot be practically be performed in the human mind. Examiner notes that the steps of performing iterative, time-stepped computations on a spatially staggered grid amount to mathematical concepts as explained in the 101 rejection. The remarks also alleges that the claim is not directed to mathematical concepts because it merely involves mathematical concepts and do not set forth formulas. Examiner notes that as per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)”, the steps of performing iterative, time-stepped computations on a spatially staggered grid amount to mathematical concepts. For example, a time-stepping predictor-corrector iterative method and finite-difference method are all mathematical concepts involving mathematical calculations, mathematical formulas/equations, and/or mathematical relationships.
With respect to the remarks, page 7, regarding Step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To clarify, Examiner notes that it is important to note that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Additionally, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), for improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself ... is not an improvement in technology.” The improvement must be provided by additional elements.
Therefore, limitations that amount to abstract ideas cannot provide improvement. Additional elements in claim 1 namely “receiving properties of the quantum optical system” and “receiving properties of an electromagnetic pulse” are data gathering activities that do not add meaningful limitation to the recited judicial exceptions and therefore cannot provide improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim does not integrate such exception into a practical application.
With respect to the remarks, page 7, regarding Step 2B, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To clarify, for the similar reason as explained in Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements are data gathering activities that do not add meaningful limitation to the recited judicial exceptions. These limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 103:
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the regarding the quantum noise on page 8 of the remarks are based on newly amended subject matter. Therefore, all arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection of the claims below.
With respect to the remarks, page 8, regarding validating a design, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
To clarify, Slavcheva (2002) discloses a model of a quantum optical system. It also discloses validating the model. Kuzumaki teaches validating a model/design of a product structure and manufacturing the product based on the model/design ([0006]: “That is, the present invention is, in a product designing apparatus for designing the structure of a product based on the design of the product, an initial design receiving section for receiving the initial design information of the product, and the initial design information. … And a product design information reconstructing unit that reconstructs the product design information so as to satisfy the constraint condition for the product structure defined by the product evaluation means and the product evaluation, and adds the constraint condition to the design procedure information. A modified design receiving unit that receives modified design information in which the initial design information is modified, and a product design information reading unit that reads the reconstructed product design information, Based on the serial modified design information, and a product design information adjustment unit that adjusts the product design information the reconstructed to meet he constraints.”). Therefore, by the combination explained in the 103 rejection below, the combination of Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki teaches the limitation “in response to the determined time evolution of the quantum optical system failing to achieve the desired result, redesigning the quantum optical system and repeating the method of claim to validate the redesigned quantum optical system.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation “pre-defined quantum statistical distribution.” This limitation is not disclosed in the specification. Specification page 20 discloses the examples of the predefined statistical distribution as white Gaussian noise, thermal noise (e.g. Bose-Einstein), Poissonian (e.g. shot noise in lasers), or sub-Poissonian (e.g. quantum noise), but does not disclose a “quantum statistical distribution.” Therefore, for examining purposes, the limitation “quantum statistical distribution” is interpreted as white Gaussian noise, thermal noise (e.g. Bose-Einstein), Poissonian (e.g. shot noise in lasers), or sub-Poissonian (e.g. quantum noise).
Claims 2-15 and 19-21 are rejected for reciting the similar limitation(s) or by the virtue of their dependency on the rejected claim(s).
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 1-15 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-15 and 19 are directed to a method, which is a process, falling under a statutory category of invention. Claim 20 is directed to an apparatus, which is a machine, falling under a statutory category of invention. Claim 21 is directed to a computer program product, which is a manufacture, falling under a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-15 and 19-21 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 2A Prong 1: The following limitations recite abstract ideas:
As per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).”
The limitation “determining a set of pseudospin equations based on the properties of the quantum optical system” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, determining an equation covers mentally making an observation or judgment about the equation.
The limitation “determining initial values of electric field components and/or magnetic field components, and pseudospin components on a grid corresponding to a region of space comprising the optical system based on the pseudospin equations and the properties of the electromagnetic pulse” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper, but for the recitation of a computer. For example, determining values covers mentally observing or identifying the values.
The limitation “performing, at a plurality of timesteps, temporally shifted updating of the electric field components, the magnetic field components and the pseudospin components on the grid based on Maxwell's curl equations and the pseudospin equation to simulate time evolution of the quantum optical system under the electromagnetic pulse” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical concepts. Claims 9 and 10 and specification on pages 2-3 specify that performing temporally shifted updating of the electric field components comprises using a time-stepping predictor-corrector iterative method; updating the magnetic field components at the first set of grid points at a first set of time steps using a finite-difference method; and updating the electric field components and pseudospin components at the second set of grid points at a second set of time steps using a finite-difference method, wherein the second set of time steps is temporally offset from the first set of time steps. It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a time-stepping predictor-corrector iterative method and updating components of a grid using a finite-difference method involve mathematical calculations involving mathematical formulas. Therefore, this limitation covers mathematical concepts.
The limitation “introducing one or more random fluctuations to the electric field components at each time step during the temporally shifted updating of the electric field to model quantum fluctuations, wherein the one or more random fluctuations obey a pre-defined quantum statistical distribution” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical concepts. Specification at page 19 lines 35-36 and page 20 lines 1 and 13-23 discloses that introducing one or more random fluctuations to the electric field components at each time step covers modifying or manipulating mathematical equations. This falls under mathematical concepts involving mathematical calculations, mathematical relationships, or mathematical formulas or equations.
The limitation “simulating time evolution of the quantum optical system under the electromagnetic pulse, by defining the properties of the quantum optical system based on a design for the quantum optical system” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, defining values for properties of the quantum optical system covers mentally observing and making judgments about such values.
The limitation “comparing the simulated time evolution of the quantum optical system under the electromagnetic pulse to a desired result” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this covers mentally observing the simulated result and the desired result and making a judgment based on the observation.
The limitation “determining whether the design of the quantum optical system achieves the desired result based on the determined time evolution of the quantum optical system” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, determining whether or not a design meets a desired result covers mentally observing the design in comparison to the desired result and making a judgment.
The limitation “in response to the determined time evolution of the quantum optical system failing to achieve the desired result, redesigning the quantum optical system” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this covers a person making a mental judgment on a design of a quantum optical system.
The limitation “repeating the method of claim to validate the redesigned quantum optical system” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, validating and designing a quantum optical system covers a person making a mental evaluation and judgment on a design of a quantum optical system.
The limitation “wherein the grid comprises: a first set of grid points associated with the magnetic field components; a second set of grid points associated with the electric field and pseudospin components, wherein the second set of grid points is spatially offset from the first set of grid points” merely further limits the grid in the previous limitation. Therefore, the same analysis as the previous limitation is applicable.
Step 2A Prong 2: The following limitations recite additional elements:
“receiving properties of the quantum optical system”
“receiving properties of an electromagnetic pulse”
However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are data gathering activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements are data gathering activities that fall under receiving or transmitting data over a network. Such activities do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Regarding claims 2-3: Claims 2 and 3 merely further limit the second set of grid points in claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
Therefore, claims 2 and 3 are not eligible.
Regarding claim 4: Claim 4 merely further limits the properties of the electromagnetic pulse in claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
Therefore, claim 4 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 5: Claim 5 merely further limits the quantum optical system in claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
Therefore, claim 5 is not eligible.
Regarding claims 6-8: Claims 6-8 merely further limit the set of pseudospin equations in claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
Therefore, claims 6-8 are not eligible.
Regarding claim 9:
The limitation “using a time-stepping predictor-corrector iterative method” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical concepts as discussed in the analysis for claim 1.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 9 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 10:
The limitations “updating the magnetic field components at the first set of grid points at a first set of time steps using a finite-difference method” and “updating the electric field components and pseudospin components at the second set of grid points at a second set of time steps using a finite-difference method, wherein the second set of time steps is temporally offset from the first set of time steps” under broadest reasonable interpretation cover mathematical concepts as discussed in the analysis for claim 1.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 10 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 11:
The limitation “determining the first set of grid points and the second set of grid points in dependence on a geometry of the quantum optical system” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, determining covers someone mentally making an observation and a judgment based on the observation.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 11 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 12: Claim 12 merely further limits the quantum optical system in claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
Therefore, claim 12 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 13:
The limitation “the time evolution of the quantum system is used to determine one or more physical properties of the quantum optical system” under broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, determining one or more physical properties of the quantum optical system using the time evolution information covers mentally observing the time evolution information and mentally making a judgment about one or more physical properties of the quantum optical system based on the observation.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would have provided practical application of or have added significantly more to the cited abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 13 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 14: Claim 14 merely further limits the physical properties of the quantum optical system in claim 13. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 13 is applicable.
Therefore, claim 14 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 merely further limits the properties of the electromagnetic pulse in claim 1. Accordingly, the same analysis used in claim 1 is applicable.
Therefore, claim 15 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 19:
The limitation “manufacturing the quantum optical system according to the validated design” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity and a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. This limitation is a post-solution activity reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome without details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(f)(1).
Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity and a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. Such activities do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 19 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 20: Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
In addition, the limitations “one or more processors” and “a memory, the memory comprising computer readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to perform the method” are additional elements.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. A processor and memory are generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 20 is not eligible.
Regarding claim 21: Claim 21 is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the same analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
In addition, the limitation “a memory storing computer readable instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method …” is an additional element.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. A memory is a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As previously discussed, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 21 is not eligible.
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) 1-3, 5-11, 13-15, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavcheva et al. (“Coupled Maxwell-pseudospin equations for investigation of self-induced transparency effects in a degenerate three-level quantum system in two dimensions: Finite-difference time-domain study”), hereinafter Slavcheva (2002), in view of Slavcheva et al. (“FDTD Simulation of the Nonlinear Gain Dynamics in Active Optical Waveguides and Semiconductor Microcavities”), hereinafter Slavcheva (2004), in further view of Kuzumaki et al. (JP2003122801A), hereinafter Kuzumaki.
Regarding claim 1, Slavcheva (2002) discloses
receiving properties of the quantum optical system (Pg. 063418-9: “The relaxation times corresponding to the decay of the real state vector components were set to the uniform value T1 = … = T8 = 1.0×10–10 s”);
receiving properties of an electromagnetic pulse (Pg. 063418-9: “In all of the simulations we assumed that the degenerate three-level system was at resonance and the carrier frequency was taken to be equal to the transition frequency ω = ω0 = 2πƒ0, where ƒ0 = 2.0×1014 s–1, corresponding to the wavelength λ = 1.5 μm.”) (Pg. 063418-12: “In our numerical simulations, we have applied two electric-field sources, each located at opposite ends of the simulation region, which have the HS shape and initial area equal to 2π”);
determining a set of pseudospin equations based on the properties of the quantum optical system (Pgs. 063418-3 - 063418-4: “The time evolution of the density matrix can be expressed in terms of the evolution of an (N2 – 1)-dimensional real state vector S=(S1,S2,…,SN2-1), called the pseudospin or coherence vector, in the Hilbert space that is described by the pseudospin equation … where the dot stands for the time derivative”) (Pg. 063418-4: Equation 8);
determining initial values of electric field components and/or magnetic field components, and pseudospin components on a grid corresponding to a region of space comprising the optical system based on the pseudospin equations and the properties of the electromagnetic pulse (Pgs. 063418-3 - 063418-4: “The time evolution of the density matrix can be expressed in terms of the evolution of an (N2 – 1)-dimensional real state vector S=(S1,S2,…,SN2-1), called the pseudospin or coherence vector, in the Hilbert space that is described by the pseudospin equation … where the dot stands for the time derivative”) (Pg. 063418-10: “An initial pulse with carrier frequency ω0 equal to the atomic resonance frequency and with a hyperbolic-secant envelope starts to propagate from the lower boundary (at z = 0). The pulse duration is Tp=100 fs and the maximum field amplitude E0 is calculated according to the pulse area theorem … In the above equation, all parameters are assigned the values discussed in Sec. III.”);
performing, at a plurality of timesteps, temporally shifted updating of the electric field components, the magnetic field components and the pseudospin components on the grid based on Maxwell's curl equations and the pseudospin equation to simulate time evolution of the quantum optical system under the electromagnetic pulse (Pg. 063418-1: “The relationship between the induced polarization and the state vector components that describe the evolution of the discrete-level system is derived in order to couple the quantum system equations to the Maxwell’s curl equations.”) (Pg. 063418-18: “As a result, a discretized version of the 2D Maxwell-pseudospin system is developed”) (Pg. 063418-17: “We apply the standard staggered-grid finite-difference scheme of the spatial and temporal derivatives into the continuum equations (35c) and (35d) for the transverse magnetic wave in 2D.”) (Pg. 063418-8: “The one-way wave equations have been discretized using the Mur finite-difference scheme [24], resulting in the following time-stepping algorithm for the electric-field components along the z = 0 grid boundary”) (Pg. 063418-1: “The system has been discretized using finite differences on a Yee grid and solved numerically by an iterative predictor-corrector finite-difference time-domain method.”) (Pg. 063418-11: “The time evolution of the spatial distribution of the modulus of the electric field at four time moments (t = 150, 250, 350, and 500 fs) after the plane wave has started its propagation from the boundary z = 0 and a cross section of the polarization vector components and the population difference in the 2D TEM mode along the propagation axis are shown in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b).”) (Pgs. 063418-20 - 063418-21: “From inspection of Eq. (A5a), it can be seen that the magnetic field is updated at a time different from the other terms in the system, and therefore it is advanced in the standard leapfrog way. … The coefficients in Fi are updated, and initially the new values
W
~
new are set equal to their values in the previous time step
W
~
old, thus giving the updated values
W
~
i
n
e
w
from Eq. (A8)”);
simulating time evolution of the quantum optical system under the electromagnetic pulse, by defining the properties of the quantum optical system based on a design for the quantum optical system (Pg. 063418-9: “The relaxation times corresponding to the decay of the real state vector components were set to the uniform value T1 = … = T8 = 1.0×10–10 s”) (Pgs. 063418-3 - 063418-4: “The time evolution of the density matrix can be expressed in terms of the evolution of an (N2 – 1)-dimensional real state vector S=(S1,S2,…,SN2-1), called the pseudospin or coherence vector, in the Hilbert space that is described by the pseudospin equation … where the dot stands for the time derivative”) (Pg. 063418-4: Equation 8) (Pg. 063418-8: “Numerical simulations have been performed”) (Pg. 063418-11: “The time evolution of the spatial distribution of the modulus of the electric field at four time moments (t = 150, 250, 350, and 500 fs) after the plane wave has started its propagation from the boundary z = 0 and a cross section of the polarization vector components and the population difference in the 2D TEM mode along the propagation axis are shown in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b).”);
comparing the simulated time evolution of the quantum optical system under the electromagnetic pulse to a desired result (Pg. 063418-11: “In order to complete our study, we validated our 2D model against the predictions of the pulse area theorem for the time evolution of an arbitrary shaped pulse (e.g., Gaussian) with initial pulse area
π
<
θ
pulse(
z
=
0
)
<
2
π
. According to the theorem, a pulse with initial pulse area in the interval (
π
, 2
π
) should evolve into a SIT 2
π
soliton with hyperbolic-secant envelope [27]. In order to prove this statement, we have performed the following numerical experiment. … The time evolution of the pulse shape has been monitored at evenly spaced time intervals. The actual pulse reshaping during the propagation in the absorbing medium due to the absorption of the leading edge of the pulse and stimulated emission induced by the trailing edge is clearly seen.”); and
determining whether the design of the quantum optical system achieves the desired result based on the determined time evolution of the quantum optical system (Pg. 063418-11: “In order to complete our study, we validated our 2D model against the predictions of the pulse area theorem for the time evolution of an arbitrary shaped pulse (e.g., Gaussian) with initial pulse area
π
<
θ
pulse(
z
=
0
)
<
2
π
. According to the theorem, a pulse with initial pulse area in the interval (
π
, 2
π
) should evolve into a SIT 2
π
soliton with hyperbolic-secant envelope [27]. In order to prove this statement, we have performed the following numerical experiment. … The time evolution of the pulse shape has been monitored at evenly spaced time intervals. The actual pulse reshaping during the propagation in the absorbing medium due to the absorption of the leading edge of the pulse and stimulated emission induced by the trailing edge is clearly seen.”); wherein the grid comprises:
a first set of grid points associated with the magnetic field components (Pg. 063418-17: “The electric-field components and the magnetic-field components are spatially separated by Δy/2 and Δz/2 in y-z plane and temporally by Δt/2. The E components are situated in the middle of the edges, and the H components are in the center of the cell”);
a second set of grid points associated with the electric field and pseudospin components (Pg. 063418-17: “The electric-field components and the magnetic-field components are spatially separated by Δy/2 and Δz/2 in y-z plane and temporally by Δt/2. The E components are situated in the middle of the edges, and the H components are in the center of the cell”) (Pg. 063418-18: “As a result, a discretized version of the 2D Maxwell-pseudospin system is developed”) (Pg. 063418-8: “the quantum system material variables (S1,…,S8) are assigned to the empty nodes in the grid”), wherein
the second set of grid points is spatially offset from the first set of grid points (Pg. 063418-17: “The electric-field components and the magnetic-field components are spatially separated”).
Slavcheva (2002) does not explicitly disclose
introducing one or more random fluctuations to the electric field components at each time step during the temporally shifted updating of the electric field to model quantum fluctuations, wherein the one or more random fluctuations obey a pre-defined quantum statistical distribution; and
in response to the determined time evolution of the quantum optical system failing to achieve the desired result, redesigning the quantum optical system and repeating the method of claim to validate the redesigned quantum optical system.
However, Slavcheva (2004) introducing one or more random fluctuations to the electric field components at each time step obeying a pre-defined quantum statistical distribution (Pg. 1053: “In this paper, we exploit the quantum-classical correspondence in the presence of quantum noise by formulating stachastic equations simulating the quantum noise by adding random (Langevin) noise terms to the deterministic evolution of the optical field and medium polarization. … we have introduced a random electric field fluctuation noise term into the Maxwell-Bloch system through the Maxwell’s equations. This term generates the statistical fluctuations of the laser field which, in turn, induce fluctuations in the population inversion, thus modifying the equations of motion of the quantum system.”) (Pg. 1052: “The semiclassical equations have been extended employing the Langevin formalism to account for the quantum noise and the spontaneous emission.”) (Pg. 1056-1057: “Exploiting the quantum-classical correspondence in the presence of quantum noise, we have employed the Langevin formalism to consider the two-level atoms as having a few degrees of freedom in the heat bath of the radiation field which has an infinite number of degrees of freedom. … We have included the spontaneous emission in the semiclassical Maxwell–Bloch equations as a random electric field fluctuation term. … In particular, (2) was modified by adding a random E-field fluctuation δEx to the electric field at each time step, namely … A pseudorandom number generator (Box-Müller) method for generating random numbers with a normal (Gaussian) distribution from a uniform distribution over the interval (0, 1) [28] was used to implement a white Gaussian random noise term with a variance”) (Pg. 1054: “We have used random white Gaussian noise generated within the cavity for our studies of the coherent response of the semiconductor microcavity.”).
Slavcheva (2002) and Slavcheva (2004) are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of simulating time evolution of quantum optical system under the electromagnetic pulse using Maxwell-pseudospin equations and finite-difference time-domain method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate this teaching from Slavcheva (2004) into the updating of the electric filed components of Slavcheva (2002) to introduce one or more random fluctuations obeying a statistical distribution at each time step during the temporally shifted updating of the electric field.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the inclusion of quantum fluctuations is important in modeling the quantum system and correct simulation of the optical field evolution (Slavcheva (2004), Pg. 1053, Left column: “Moreover, progress in integrated optoelectronic technologies has reduced laser device dimensions to be on the order of a single wavelength in size. As a consequence, the quantum fluctuations in the light field become increasingly important. Therefore, a comprehensive model of the quantum noise effects is indispensable for the correct simulation of the optical field evolution.”).
Therefore, the combination of Slavcheva (2002) and Slavcheva (2004) teaches
introducing one or more random fluctuations to the electric field components at each time step during the temporally shifted updating of the electric field to model quantum fluctuations, wherein the one or more random fluctuations obey a pre-defined quantum statistical distribution (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-17: “We apply the standard staggered-grid finite-difference scheme of the spatial and temporal derivatives into the continuum equations (35c) and (35d) for the transverse magnetic wave in 2D.”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-8: “The one-way wave equations have been discretized using the Mur finite-difference scheme [24], resulting in the following time-stepping algorithm for the electric-field components along the z = 0 grid boundary”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-1: “The system has been discretized using finite differences on a Yee grid and solved numerically by an iterative predictor-corrector finite-difference time-domain method.”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-11: “The time evolution of the spatial distribution of the modulus of the electric field at four time moments (t = 150, 250, 350, and 500 fs) after the plane wave has started its propagation from the boundary z = 0 and a cross section of the polarization vector components and the population difference in the 2D TEM mode along the propagation axis are shown in Figs. 4(a) and 4(b).”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pgs. 063418-20 - 063418-21: “From inspection of Eq. (A5a), it can be seen that the magnetic field is updated at a time different from the other terms in the system, and therefore it is advanced in the standard leapfrog way. … The coefficients in Fi are updated, and initially the new values
W
~
new are set equal to their values in the previous time step
W
~
old, thus giving the updated values
W
~
i
n
e
w
from Eq. (A8)”) (Slavcheva (2004), Pg. 1053: “In this paper, we exploit the quantum-classical correspondence in the presence of quantum noise by formulating stachastic equations simulating the quantum noise by adding random (Langevin) noise terms to the deterministic evolution of the optical field and medium polarization. … we have introduced a random electric field fluctuation noise term into the Maxwell-Bloch system through the Maxwell’s equations. This term generates the statistical fluctuations of the laser field which, in turn, induce fluctuations in the population inversion, thus modifying the equations of motion of the quantum system.”) (Slavcheva (2004), Pg. 1052: “The semiclassical equations have been extended employing the Langevin formalism to account for the quantum noise and the spontaneous emission.”) (Slavcheva (2004), Pg. 1056-1057: “Exploiting the quantum-classical correspondence in the presence of quantum noise, we have employed the Langevin formalism to consider the two-level atoms as having a few degrees of freedom in the heat bath of the radiation field which has an infinite number of degrees of freedom. … We have included the spontaneous emission in the semiclassical Maxwell–Bloch equations as a random electric field fluctuation term. … In particular, (2) was modified by adding a random E-field fluctuation δEx to the electric field at each time step, namely … A pseudorandom number generator (Box-Müller) method for generating random numbers with a normal (Gaussian) distribution from a uniform distribution over the interval (0, 1) [28] was used to implement a white Gaussian random noise term with a variance”) (Slavcheva (2004), Pg. 1054: “We have used random white Gaussian noise generated within the cavity for our studies of the coherent response of the semiconductor microcavity.”).
Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004) does not explicitly teach
in response to the determined time evolution of the quantum optical system failing to achieve the desired result, redesigning the quantum optical system and repeating the method of claim to validate the redesigned quantum optical system.
However, Kuzumaki teaches comparing a design to a desired result; validating the design based on the comparison; modifying the design when found not satisfactory; and manufacturing the product based on the validated design ([0002]: “Product design of each component is performed based on this initial design, and CAD data for product design is generated (S20). Next, structural analysis, productivity evaluation, and mold design are performed using this product design CAD data (S30). The CAD data for product design is corrected by incorporating the results of the structural analysis (S40). Here, when the initial design is modified and the final design is determined, the final design CAD data is newly input (S 50). … The CAD data for product design is modified in a manner that incorporates the results of the structural analysis (S80), and then a die is manufactured based on the obtained CAD data for product design (S9).”) ([0006]: “That is, the present invention is, in a product designing apparatus for designing the structure of a product based on the design of the product, an initial design receiving section for receiving the initial design information of the product, and the initial design information. … And a product design information reconstructing unit that reconstructs the product design information so as to satisfy the constraint condition for the product structure defined by the product evaluation means and the product evaluation, and adds the constraint condition to the design procedure information. A modified design receiving unit that receives modified design information in which the initial design information is modified, and a product design information reading unit that reads the reconstructed product design information, Based on the serial modified design information, and a product design information adjustment unit that adjusts the product design information the reconstructed to meet he constraints.”).
Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004) and Kuzumaki are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of modeling and validating a design.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kuzumaki for modifying a design in response to a validation result into Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004) to redesign the quantum optical system if the validation result is found not satisfactory and repeat the validation process with the redesigned quantum optical system.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because validating and modifying a design would allow correcting the design and thereby producing a more accurate product based on the validated design (Kuzumaki, [0002]: “Each time, the CAD data for product design is generated, the structural analysis is performed, and the CAD data for product design is corrected based on the structural analysis.”) (Kuzumaki, [0012]: “The equipment evaluation means simulating the process and equipment required for product manufacturing from the product design CAD data”).
Therefore, the combination of Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004) and Kuzumaki teaches
in response to the determined time evolution of the quantum optical system failing to achieve the desired result, redesigning the quantum optical system and repeating the method of claim to validate the redesigned quantum optical system (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-11: “In order to complete our study, we validated our 2D model against the predictions of the pulse area theorem for the time evolution of an arbitrary shaped pulse (e.g., Gaussian) with initial pulse area
π
<
θ
pulse(
z
=
0
)
<
2
π
. According to the theorem, a pulse with initial pulse area in the interval (
π
, 2
π
) should evolve into a SIT 2
π
soliton with hyperbolic-secant envelope [27]. In order to prove this statement, we have performed the following numerical experiment. … The time evolution of the pulse shape has been monitored at evenly spaced time intervals. The actual pulse reshaping during the propagation in the absorbing medium due to the absorption of the leading edge of the pulse and stimulated emission induced by the trailing edge is clearly seen.”) (Kuzumaki, [0002]: “Product design of each component is performed based on this initial design, and CAD data for product design is generated (S20). Next, structural analysis, productivity evaluation, and mold design are performed using this product design CAD data (S30). The CAD data for product design is corrected by incorporating the results of the structural analysis (S40). Here, when the initial design is modified and the final design is determined, the final design CAD data is newly input (S 50). … The CAD data for product design is modified in a manner that incorporates the results of the structural analysis (S80), and then a die is manufactured based on the obtained CAD data for product design (S9).”) (Kuzumaki, [0006]: “That is, the present invention is, in a product designing apparatus for designing the structure of a product based on the design of the product, an initial design receiving section for receiving the initial design information of the product, and the initial design information. … And a product design information reconstructing unit that reconstructs the product design information so as to satisfy the constraint condition for the product structure defined by the product evaluation means and the product evaluation, and adds the constraint condition to the design procedure information. A modified design receiving unit that receives modified design information in which the initial design information is modified, and a product design information reading unit that reads the reconstructed product design information, Based on the serial modified design information, and a product design information adjustment unit that adjusts the product design information the reconstructed to meet he constraints.”).
Regarding claim 2, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki teaches
wherein the second set of grid points comprises a first subset of grid points associated with the electric field components and a second subset of grid points associated with the pseudospin components, wherein the first subset of grid points and second subset of grid points are spatially offset (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-17: “The electric-field components and the magnetic-field components are spatially separated by Δy/2 and Δz/2 in y-z plane and temporally by Δt/2. The E components are situated in the middle of the edges, and the H components are in the center of the cell”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-18: “As a result, a discretized version of the 2D Maxwell-pseudospin system is developed”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-8: “the quantum system material variables (S1,…,S8) are assigned to the empty nodes in the grid”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-17: “We associate the quantum system variables with the empty nodes in the 2D Yee grid”).
Regarding claim 3, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki teaches
wherein each grid point in the second set of grid points is associated with an electric field component and a pseudospin component (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-17: “The electric-field components and the magnetic-field components are spatially separated by Δy/2 and Δz/2 in y-z plane and temporally by Δt/2. The E components are situated in the middle of the edges, and the H components are in the center of the cell”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-18: “As a result, a discretized version of the 2D Maxwell-pseudospin system is developed”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-8: “the quantum system material variables (S1,…,S8) are assigned to the empty nodes in the grid”).
Regarding claim 5, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki teaches
wherein the quantum optical system is described as an N-level quantum system, wherein N≥2 (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-3: “In this paper we apply and develop further the real-vector representation formalism to the problem of single electromagnetic wave propagation and its resonant coherent interaction with a degenerate three-level quantum system in two spatial dimensions in planar optical waveguide geometry.”), and
wherein the set of pseudospin equations comprises a differential equation describing time evolution of a real pseudospin vector associated with a density matrix of the quantum optical device component (Slavcheva (2002), Pgs. 063418-3 - 063418-4: “The time evolution of the density matrix can be expressed in terms of the evolution of an (N2 – 1)-dimensional real state vector S=(S1,S2,…,SN2-1), called the pseudospin or coherence vector, in the Hilbert space that is described by the pseudospin equation”).
Regarding claim 6, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki teaches
wherein the set of pseudospin equations comprises the equations:
PNG
media_image1.png
64
136
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where Si are the pseudospin components, fijk are the structure constants of an SU(N) lie algebra representing a density matrix of the quantum optical device component, γj are components of a torque vector representing the effects of the electromagnetic pulse and t is time (Slavcheva (2002), Pgs. 063418-3 - 063418-4: “The time evolution of the density matrix can be expressed in terms of the evolution of an (N2 – 1)-dimensional real state vector S=(S1,S2,…,SN2-1), called the pseudospin or coherence vector, in the Hilbert space that is described by the pseudospin equation … where the dot stands for the time derivative”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-4: Equation 8) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-4: “where summation over j, k is assumed, γj are the components of the torque vector and fijk is a fully antisymmetric tensor of the structure constants of the SU(3) group that for N = 2 is simply the fully antisymmetric, unit tensor εijk . The only nonvanishing values of fijk are the permutations given in Table I.”).
Regarding claim 7, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki teaches
wherein the set of pseudospin equations comprise a damping term, and wherein the damping term comprising a longitudinal relaxation term and/or a dephasing relaxation term (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-1: “The pseudospin equations are phenomenologically extended to include relaxation effects by introducing nonuniform decay times corresponding to the various dipole transitions occurring in a three-level system.”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-5, Fig. 2: “γT represents the dephasing rate (transverse relaxation rate).”).
Regarding claim 8, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki teaches
wherein the set of pseudospin equations is coupled to Maxwell's equations via a macroscopic polarisation of the quantum optical system (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-1: “Maxwell’s curl equations are considered to be coupled via macroscopic medium polarization to the three-level atom model for the resonant medium.”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-6: “In order to couple the semiclassical Maxwell’s equations with the quantum-mechanical pseudospin equations, we need to find a relationship between the polarization and the components of the coherence vector. The macroscopic polarization of the medium is given by the expectation value of the dipole moment operator”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-8: “The coupling between the 2D Maxwell’s equations and the equations describing the time evolution of the quantum system is performed”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-18: “As a result, a discretized version of the 2D Maxwell-pseudospin system is developed”).
Regarding claim 9, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki teaches
wherein performing temporally shifted updating of the electric field components, the magnetic field components and the pseudospin components on the grid comprises using a time-stepping predictor-corrector iterative method (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-8: “The one-way wave equations have been discretized using the Mur finite-difference scheme [24], resulting in the following time-stepping algorithm for the electric-field components along the z = 0 grid boundary”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-1: “The system has been discretized using finite differences on a Yee grid and solved numerically by an iterative predictor-corrector finite-difference time-domain method.”).
Regarding claim 10, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki teaches
wherein performing temporally shifted updating of the electric field components, the magnetic field components and the pseudospin components on the grid comprises: updating the magnetic field components at the first set of grid points at a first set of time steps using a finite-difference method; and updating the electric field components and pseudospin components at the second set of grid points at a second set of time steps using a finite-difference method, wherein the second set of time steps is temporally offset from the first set of time steps (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-1: “The system has been discretized using finite differences on a Yee grid and solved numerically by an iterative predictor-corrector finite-difference time-domain method.”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-17: “The electric-field components and the magnetic-field components are spatially separated by Δy/2 and Δz/2 in y-z plane and temporally by Δt/2.”).
Regarding claim 11, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki teaches
determining the first set of grid points and the second set of grid points in dependence on a geometry of the quantum optical system (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-1: “Self-induced transparency soliton propagation through a degenerate three-level quantum system of absorbers in two spatial dimensions and time is demonstrated in planar parallel-mirror waveguide geometries.”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-8: “In what follows, we shall consider the geometry of the parallel-plate mirror optical waveguide shown in Fig. 1 that is composed of a slab waveguide with bottom and top air buffers.”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-12: “In our numerical simulations, we have applied two electric-field sources, each located at opposite ends of the simulation region, which have the HS shape and initial area equal to 2π”).
Regarding claim 13, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki teaches
wherein the time evolution of the quantum system is used to determine one or more physical properties of the quantum optical system (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-2: “In what follows, we shall be interested in two main aspects of the physical effects, which can be described and explained satisfactorily by resonant, coherent interactions: the coherent dynamical evolution of a quantum system and the lossless propagation of electromagnetic fields through a multi level quantum system.”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-2: “The motivation of the present work is to develop an ab initio accurate and rigorous theoretical model of the spatiotemporal dynamics for ultrashort pulse propagation in two-dimensional planar optical waveguides containing resonant nonlinearities.”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-10: “FIG. 3. (a) Spatial profile (along the propagation axis z) of the normalized field component Ey for a HS pulse with initial pulse area equal to 2π (maximum amplitude E0 = 4.2186×109 V/m) at the simulation times t = 150, 250, 350, and 500 fs.”).
Regarding claim 14, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki teaches
wherein the physical properties of the quantum optical system comprise one or more of: a lifetime of an excited state of the quantum optical device component; a spatial and/or temporal correlation function of electric fields in the quantum optical device component; a polarised Time-Resolved Photoluminescence trace; a Faraday rotation angle; polarisation rotation and/or a phase shift (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-10: “FIG. 3. (a) Spatial profile (along the propagation axis z) of the normalized field component Ey for a HS pulse with initial pulse area equal to 2π (maximum amplitude E0 = 4.2186×109 V/m) at the simulation times t = 150, 250, 350, and 500 fs.”).
Regarding claim 15, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki teaches
wherein the properties of the electromagnetic pulse comprise: properties of electric field source; properties of a magnetic field source; and/or properties of a current density source (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-8: “We choose the source field to be initially a plane-polarized TEM guided mode of the parallel-mirror waveguide, i.e. the TM0 mode, with amplitude E0”) (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-12: “In our numerical simulations, we have applied two electric-field sources, each located at opposite ends of the simulation region, which have the HS shape and initial area equal to 2π”).
Regarding claim 19, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki teaches
manufacturing the quantum optical system according to the validated design (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-1: “Our considerations are based on the generalized pseudospin formalism introduced by Hioe and Eberly [Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 838 (1981)] for treatment of the resonant coherent interactions of ultrashort light pulses with discrete-multilevel systems.”) (Kuzumaki, [0002]: “Product design of each component is performed based on this initial design, and CAD data for product design is generated (S20). Next, structural analysis, productivity evaluation, and mold design are performed using this product design CAD data (S30). The CAD data for product design is corrected by incorporating the results of the structural analysis (S40). Here, when the initial design is modified and the final design is determined, the final design CAD data is newly input (S 50). … The CAD data for product design is modified in a manner that incorporates the results of the structural analysis (S80), and then a die is manufactured based on the obtained CAD data for product design (S9).”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavcheva (2002) in view of Slavcheva (2004) in further view of Kuzumaki in further view of Slavcheva et al. (“Nonlinear coherent magneto-optical response of a single chiral carbon nanotube”), hereinafter Slavcheva (2010).
Regarding claim 4, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki does not explicitly teach a time dependence of the pulse at one or more points in space.
However, Slavcheva (2010) teaches a time dependence of the pulse at one or more points in space as a property of the electromagnetic pulse (Pg. 9: “The proposed theoretical model is based on the self-consistent solution of Maxwell’s equations in vectorial form for the polarized optical pulse propagation and the time-evolution pseudospin equations of the discrete multi-level quantum system in the external time-dependent perturbation [38].”) (Pg. 27: “The time evolution of the four-level quantum system under an external time-dependent dipole coupling perturbation is given by equation (2).”).
Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki and Slavcheva (2010) are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of simulating time evolution of quantum optical system under the electromagnetic pulse using Maxwell-pseudospin equations and finite-difference time-domain method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the quantum optical system and the properties of the electromagnetic pulse of Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki to incorporate the quantum optical system and the properties of the electromagnetic pulse of Slavcheva (2010) to provide a quantum optical system with a property of the electromagnetic pulse including a time dependence of the pulse at one or more points in space.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because both arts describe quantum optical systems that can be described by the Maxwell-pseudospin equations (Slavcheva (2010), Pg. 1: “The time evolution of the quantum system, describing a single nanotube with defined chirality, under an ultrashort polarized pulse excitation is studied using the coupled coherent vector Maxwell-pseudospin equations”).
Therefore, the combination of Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki and Slavcheva (2010) teaches
wherein the properties of the electromagnetic pulse comprise a time dependence of the pulse at one or more points in space (Slavcheva (2010): Pg. 9: “The proposed theoretical model is based on the self-consistent solution of Maxwell’s equations in vectorial form for the polarized optical pulse propagation and the time-evolution pseudospin equations of the discrete multi-level quantum system in the external time-dependent perturbation [38].”) (Slavcheva (2010): Pg. 27: “The time evolution of the four-level quantum system under an external time-dependent dipole coupling perturbation is given by equation (2).”).
Regarding claim 12, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki does not explicitly teach the quantum optical system comprising one or more of: a quantum optical device component; a quantum-optical logic gate; a polarisation switch; a controlled phase gate; a spin-photon entangler; a quantum dot; a carbon nanotube; photonic crystal cavities; ring cavities; spherical cavities; and/or a semiconductor microcavity.
However, Slavcheva (2010) teaches a quantum optical system being a carbon nanotube (Pg. 2: “The model provides a framework for the investigation of the chirality and magnetic field dependence of the ultrafast nonlinear optical response of a single CNT.”) (Figures 2 and 6).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Therefore, the combination of Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki and Slavcheva (2010) teaches
wherein the quantum optical system comprises one or more of: a quantum optical device component; a quantum-optical logic gate; a polarisation switch; a controlled phase gate; a spin-photon entangler; a quantum dot; a carbon nanotube; photonic crystal cavities; ring cavities; spherical cavities; and/or a semiconductor microcavity (Slavcheva (2002), Pg. 063418-3: “In this paper we apply and develop further the real-vector representation formalism to the problem of single electromagnetic wave propagation and its resonant coherent interaction with a degenerate three-level quantum system in two spatial dimensions in planar optical waveguide geometry. The aim is to construct a coupled set of semiclassical Maxwell-Bloch equations in 2D, which would represent a realistic model for studying the time evolution of the optical fields during the interaction with a multilevel quantum system and the related population dynamics.”) (Slavcheva (2010), Pg. 2: “The model provides a framework for the investigation of the chirality and magnetic field dependence of the ultrafast nonlinear optical response of a single CNT.”) (Slavcheva (2010), Pg. 1: “The time evolution of the quantum system, describing a single nanotube with defined chirality, under an ultrashort polarized pulse excitation is studied using the coupled coherent vector Maxwell-pseudospin equations”).
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavcheva (2002) in view of Slavcheva (2004) in further view of Kuzumaki in further view of Mai (CN108345704A).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the similar analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
In addition, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki does not explicitly teach
one or more processors; and
a memory, the memory comprising computer readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to perform the method.
However, Mai teaches
one or more processors ([0269]: “These computer program instructions can be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, a special-purpose computer, an embedded processor or other programmable data processing device to produce a machine”); and
a memory, the memory comprising computer readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to perform the method ([0270]: “These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing device to operate in a specific manner”).
Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki and Mai are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer-implemented simulation of a time-domain electromagnetic field using a finite-difference time-domain method.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method of Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki using a processor and a memory as taught by Mai.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the methods taught by both arts are computer-implemented methods (Mai, [0268]: “It should be apparent to those skilled in the art that the embodiments of the present disclosure may be provided as methods, apparatuses (devices), or computer program products.”).
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the similar analysis as claim 1 is applicable.
In addition, Slavcheva (2002)/Slavcheva (2004)/Kuzumaki/Mai teaches
a computer program product comprising a memory storing computer readable instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method (Mai, [0270]: “These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing device to operate in a specific manner”).
The already provided combination is applicable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martinis et al. (US20210035005A1)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEIN JEONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached on (571) 270-1104. 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.
/HEIN JEONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186