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 .
The 35 USC § 101 rejection regarding to claims 1 and 5 is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: typo.
Claim 1 recites “a attenuation drive…” which appears an attenuation drive.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites wherein overlap between the stabilized states suppresses transitions between the third eigenstates, and wherein said suppression of the transitions between the third eigenstates suppresses qubit-qubit interactions mediated by the coupler. But it is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter since the third eigenstates lacks of antecedent basis and “between the third eigenstates” is not clear. For the purpose of the examination, the claim will be given BRI. Please further clarity the claim limitations to help move forward the prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein US 2018/0032893 in view of Tomsovic et al. (Tomsovic) “Eigenstate entanglement between quantum chaotic subsystems: Universal transitions and power laws in the entanglement spectrum”. PHYSICAL REVIEW E 98, 032209 (2018), published 14 September 2018, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.98.032209 and Zhou et al. (Zhou) US 2021/0270608
In regard to claim 1, Epstein disclose A quantum system comprising: ([0004]-[0006] system)
a first qubit having a first set of eigenstates; (Fig.1-7, etc. 12 at fig. 1, 43 at fig. 2, etc. [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] etc. first qubit 12, 43 with eigenstates)
a second qubit having a second set of eigenstates; (Fig.1-7, etc, Fig.1, 14 at fig. 1, 47 at fig. 2 [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] etc. second qubit 14, 47, with eigenstates)
a coupler connected to both the first qubit and to the second qubit, the coupler having a third set of eigenstates; (Fig.1-7, etc, Fig.1, 16, [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] [0028]-[0040] etc. coupler 16 connected with first and second qubit 12 and 14, for example at fig. 1, coupling mechanism with eigenstates)
at least one interaction drive associated to a respective one of the first qubit, the second qubit and the coupler, the at least one interaction drive configured to control interaction between the first set of eigenstates and the second set of eigenstates via transitions within the third set of eigenstates; (Fig.1-7, etc, Fig.1, 18, [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] [0028]-[0033] control mechanism 18, associated with 12, 14 and 16, for example at fig 1, 18 control interaction between eigenstates in12, eigenstates in 14 transformed through the eigenstates of coupler 16)
an auxiliary drive connected to the coupler; (Fig.2-7, etc, [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] [0028]-[0033] control mechanism 44, in fig. 2, etc, control mechanism 44 connected to the coupler and tune a coupling strength of the coupling mechanism 36)
and an attenuation drive selectively operable at a drive amplitude to generate a set of stabilized states in the auxiliary quantum system, (Fig.2-7, etc. [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0037] control mechanism 44, in fig. 2, etc., control mechanism 44 tune a coupling strength of the coupling mechanism 36 to generate states in 44)
But Epstein fail to explicitly disclose “said set of stabilized states being entangled with the third set of eigenstates.”
Tomsovic disclose said set of stabilized states being entangled with the third set of eigenstates. (I. INTRODUCTION, II. ENTANGLEMENT IN BIPARTITE SYSTEMS, III. UNIVERSAL ENTANGLEMENT TRANSITION, states are entangled with the eigenstates of the coupling)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems into Epstein’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of quantum computing. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems’s would help to provide more eigenstate manipulation to Epstein’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more eigenstates entanglement would help to provide a means to detect nonuniversal behaviors in terms of deviations from the obtained universal result and help develop dynamical system.
But Epstein and Tomsovic fail to explicitly disclose “a first resonator; a second resonator; the first resonator; the second resonator; the first resonator; the second resonator;”
Zhou disclose a first resonator; a second resonator; the first resonator; the second resonator; the first resonator; the second resonator; ([0010]-[0019] a first resonator and a second resonator and they are coupled with a mechanical coupling)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to substitute Tomsovic and Epstein’s qubit with Zhou’s resonators with mechanical coupling as they are related to the same field endeavor of energy control between components of a system. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Zhou’s resonators with mechanical coupling would help to provide more physical structures into Tomsovic and Epstein’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing resonators with mechanical coupling physical structure would help to tuning and mode matching between the components in the system.
In regard to claim 2, Epstein and Tomsovic, Zhou disclose The quantum system of claim 1, the rejection incorporated herein.
But Epstein and Zhou fail to explicitly disclose “wherein the set of stabilized states are entangled with the third set of eigenstates in a manner that the probability of said transition within the third set of eigenstates is set by a probability of transition in the set of stabilized states, said probability of transition in the set of stabilized states being reduced exponentially as a function of an increase in drive amplitude.”
Tomsovic disclose wherein the set of stabilized states are entangled with the third set of eigenstates in a manner that the probability of said transition within the third set of eigenstates is set by a probability of transition in the set of stabilized states, (I. INTRODUCTION, II. ENTANGLEMENT IN BIPARTITE SYSTEMS, III. UNIVERSAL ENTANGLEMENT TRANSITION, states are entangled with the eigenstates of the coupling mechanism to make weakly interacting between the bipartite systems via coupling with a transition probability with the states) said probability of transition in the set of stabilized states being reduced exponentially as a function of an increase in drive amplitude. (I. INTRODUCTION, III. UNIVERSAL ENTANGLEMENT TRANSITION, G. Floquet system: Coupled kicked rotors, the probability of interaction in the states decreased exponentially when interaction strength tuned to be bigger (Equ. 51, 52))
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems into Zhou and Epstein’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of quantum computing. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems’s would help to provide more eigenstate manipulation to Zhou and Epstein’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more eigenstates entanglement would help to provide a means to detect nonuniversal behaviors in terms of deviations from the obtained universal result and help develop dynamical system.
In regard to claim 3, Epstein and Tomsovic, Zhou disclose The quantum system of claim 1, the rejection incorporated herein.
Epstein disclose wherein the auxiliary quantum subsystem is a first auxiliary quantum subsystem, the attenuation drive is at least one attenuation drive, the set of stabilized states is a first set of stabilized states, (Fig.2-7, etc, [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0037] control mechanism 44, in fig. 2, etc, control mechanism 44 connected to the coupler and tune a coupling strength of the coupling mechanism 36)
control mechanism 44, in fig. 2, etc., control mechanism 44 tune a coupling strength of the coupling mechanism 36 to generate states in 44) further comprising:
a second auxiliary quantum subsystem connected to at least one of the coupler and the first auxiliary quantum subsystem; wherein the at least one attenuation drive further generates a second set of stabilized states in the second auxiliary quantum system, (fig. 6-7, [0034]-[0037] fig. 6, 136/ 138 connects to the coupler and provide multiple control signal to tune the strength of interaction and generate different set of states)
But Epstein and Zhou fail to explicitly disclose “said second set of stabilized states being entangled with the first set of stabilized states and the third set of eigenstates in a manner that the probability of said transition in the third set of eigenstates is further set by a probability of transition in the second set of stabilized states, said probability of transition in the second set of stabilized states being reduced exponentially as a function of an increase in the drive amplitude.”
Tomsovic disclose said second set of stabilized states being entangled with the first set of stabilized states and the third set of eigenstates in a manner that the probability of said transition in the third set of eigenstates is further set by a probability of transition in the second set of stabilized states, (I. INTRODUCTION, II. ENTANGLEMENT IN BIPARTITE SYSTEMS, III. UNIVERSAL ENTANGLEMENT TRANSITION, states are entangled with the eigenstates of the coupling mechanism to make weakly interacting between the bipartite systems via coupling with a transition probability with the states) said probability of transition in the second set of stabilized states being reduced exponentially as a function of an increase in the drive amplitude. (I. INTRODUCTION, III. UNIVERSAL ENTANGLEMENT TRANSITION, G. Floquet system: Coupled kicked rotors, the probability of interaction in the states decreased exponentially when interaction strength tuned to be bigger (Equ. 51, 52))
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems into Zhou and Epstein’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of quantum computing. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems’s would help to provide more eigenstate manipulation to Zhou and Epstein’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more eigenstates entanglement would help to provide a means to detect nonuniversal behaviors in terms of deviations from the obtained universal result and help develop dynamical system.
In regard to claim 4, Epstein and Tomsovic, Zhou disclose The quantum system of claim 1, the rejection incorporated herein.
Epstein disclose provided in the form of a superconducting circuit, ([0015]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] with superconducting circuits) wherein the auxiliary quantum subsystem and coupler are embodied as a circuit element having a three-node superconducting loop involving two Josephson junctions in parallel, and an inductance. ([0015]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] a superconducting loop interrupted by two Josephson junctions in parallel and inductively couple qubits together)
In regard to claim 5, Epstein and disclose A method of operating a quantum system comprising: ([0004]-[0006] quantum system)
using an interaction drive, controlling eigenstates of at least one of a first qubit, a second qubit, and a coupler, to stimulate a quantum interaction between the first qubit and the second qubit; (Fig.1-7, etc, Fig.1, 18, [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] [0028]-[0040] etc. coupler 16 connected with first and second qubit 12 and 14, for example at fig. 1, control mechanism 18, associated with 12, 14 and 16, for example at fig 1, 18 control interaction between eigenstates in12, eigenstates in 14 transformed through the coupling mechanism and to ramp up the quantum interaction between the qubit 12 and 14, for example) and, subsequently
using an attenuation drive, generating a set of stabilized states in an auxiliary quantum subsystem, (Fig.2-7, etc, [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0037] control mechanism 44, in fig. 2, etc., control mechanism 44 tune a coupling strength of the coupling mechanism 36 to generate states in 44, Note: please do not use intended use language, “using…” and use functional description language and please made claim 5 corresponding to claim 1 to help move forward the prosecution)
But Epstein fail to explicitly disclose “and entangling the set of stabilized states of the auxiliary quantum subsystems with the eigenstates of the coupler to impede quantum interactions between the first and second qubits via the coupler.”
Tomsovic disclose and entangling the set of stabilized states of the auxiliary quantum subsystems with the eigenstates of the coupler to impede quantum interactions between the first and second quantum subsystems via the coupler.
(I. INTRODUCTION, II. ENTANGLEMENT IN BIPARTITE SYSTEMS, III. UNIVERSAL ENTANGLEMENT TRANSITION, states are entangled with the eigenstates of the coupling mechanism to make weakly interacting between the bipartite systems via coupling)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems into Epstein’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of quantum computing. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Tomsovic’s eigenstate entanglement between the subsystems’s would help to provide more eigenstate manipulation to Epstein’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing more eigenstates entanglement would help to provide a means to detect nonuniversal behaviors in terms of deviations from the obtained universal result and help develop dynamical system.
But Epstein and Tomsovic fail to explicitly disclose “a first resonator; a second resonator; the first resonator; the second resonator; the first and second resonators;”
Zhou disclose a first resonator; a second resonator; the first resonator; the second resonator; the first and second resonators; ([0010]-[0019] a first resonator and a second resonator and they are coupled with a mechanical coupling)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to substitute Tomsovic and Epstein’s qubit with Zhou’s resonators with mechanical coupling as they are related to the same field endeavor of energy control between components of a system. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Zhou’s resonators with mechanical coupling would help to provide more physical structures into Tomsovic and Epstein’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing resonators with mechanical coupling physical structure would help to tuning and mode matching between the components in the system.
In regard to claim 7, Epstein and Tomsovic, Zhou disclose The quantum system of claim 1
Epstein disclose wherein the quantum system forms part of a gate-based quantum computer. (Fig.1-7, etc. 12 at fig. 1, 43 at fig. 2, etc. [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] etc. first qubit at 12, and second qubit at 14, the first physical qubit 12, the second physical qubit 14, and the coupling mechanism 16 collectively form a logical qubit for at least part of the quantum gate)
In regard to claim 9, Epstein and Tomsovic, Zhou disclose The quantum system of claim 13
Epstein disclose wherein overlap between the stabilized states suppresses transitions between the third eigenstates, ([0006][0015]-[0018] [0023]-[0027] the overlap between the states constraining the transformation of the logical operations, therefore the eigenstates. Note: please further clarify “between the third eigenstates”, to help move forward the prosecution.)
and wherein said suppression of the transitions between the third eigenstates suppresses qubit-qubit interactions mediated by the coupler. ([0006][0015]-[0018] [0023]-[0027] the interactions are suppressed between qubit to qubit controlled by the control mechanism, the control signal can be ramped down.)
In regard to claim 11, Epstein and Tomsovic, Zhou disclose The quantum system of claim 1
Epstein disclose wherein the first resonator is a first qubit, and the second resonator is a second qubit. (Fig.1-7, etc. 12 at Fig. 1, 43 at Fig. 2, etc. [0004]-[0006] [0016]-[0019] [0020]-[0027] etc. first qubit 12, 43 and second qubit 14, 47)
In regard to claim 13, claim 13 is a method claim corresponding to the system claim 11 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 11.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein US 2018/0032893 and Tomsovic et al. (Tomsovic) “Eigenstate entanglement between quantum chaotic subsystems: Universal transitions and power laws in the entanglement spectrum”. PHYSICAL REVIEW E 98, 032209 (2018), published 14 September 2018, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.98.032209 and Zhou et al. (Zhou) US 2021/0270608 as applied to claim 1, further in view of Yazawa et al. (Yazawa) US 2024/0007183
In regard to claim 6, Epstein and Tomsovic, Zhou disclose The quantum system of claim 1
But Epstein and Tomsovic, Zhou fail to explicitly disclose “wherein the quantum system is a routing system, further comprising a waveguide/transmission line connected to the coupler.”
Yazawa disclose wherein the quantum system is a routing system, further comprising a waveguide/transmission line connected to the coupler. (Fig. 2, [0030]-[0035] “A first output port of the beam splitter 254 is connected to a first input port of the coupler 256 by a waveguide 258, and a second output port of the beam splitter 254 is connected to a second input port of the coupler 256 by a waveguide 260” with a optical transmission line, using beam splitter to rout the signals)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Yazawa’s quantum measurement into Zhou, Tomsovic and Epstein’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of quantum computing. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because Yazawa’s quantum measurement using waveguide would help to provide quantum related measurement method to Zhou, Tomsovic and Epstein’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing quantum related measurement using waveguide would help to facilitate quantum computing.
Claims 8, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Epstein US 2018/0032893 and Tomsovic et al. (Tomsovic) “Eigenstate entanglement between quantum chaotic subsystems: Universal transitions and power laws in the entanglement spectrum”. PHYSICAL REVIEW E 98, 032209 (2018), published 14 September 2018, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.98.032209 and Zhou et al. (Zhou) US 2021/0270608 as applied to claim 1, further in view of Smith et al. (Smith) US 11010145
In regard to claim 8, Epstein and Tomsovic, Zhou disclose The quantum system of claim 1
But Epstein and Tomsovic fail to explicitly disclose “wherein the auxiliary quantum subsystem is a resonator.”
Smith disclose wherein the auxiliary quantum subsystem is a resonator. (col. 10, line 22-col. 11, line 18, a resonator device)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Smith’s resonator device into Zhou, Tomsovic and Epstein’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of quantum computing. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because incorporate Smith’s resonator device would help to provide quantum related readout method to Zhou, Tomsovic and Epstein’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing quantum related readout resonator using would help to facilitate quantum computing.
In regard to claim 12, Epstein and Tomsovic, Zhou disclose The quantum system of claim 1
But Epstein and Tomsovic fail to explicitly disclose “wherein the attenuation drive is a microwave drive.”
Smith disclose wherein the attenuation drive is a microwave drive. (col. 10, line 42-col. 12, line 27, controlled by microwave signals)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Smith’s microwave drive into Zhou, Tomsovic and Epstein’s invention as they are related to the same field endeavor of quantum computing. The motivation to combine these arts, as proposed above, at least because incorporate Smith’s microwave drive would help to provide quantum related signal control method to Zhou, Tomsovic and Epstein’s system. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention was made that providing quantum related microwave signal control would help to facilitate quantum computing.
In regard to claim 14, claim 14 is a method claim corresponding to the system claim 12 above and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 filed on 6/11/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Documents PATENT DATE INVENTOR(S) TITLE
US 20100148589 A1 2010-06-17 Hamam et al.
EFFICIENT NEAR-FIELD WIRELESS ENERGY TRANSFER USING ADIABATIC SYSTEM VARIATIONS
Hamam et al. disclose a method for transferring energy wirelessly including transferring energy wirelessly from a first resonator structure to an intermediate resonator structure, wherein the coupling rate between the first resonator structure and the intermediate resonator structure is .kappa..sub.1B, transferring energy wirelessly from the intermediate resonator structure to a second resonator structure, wherein the coupling rate between the intermediate resonator structure and the second resonator structure is .kappa..sub.B2, and during the wireless energy transfers, adjusting at least one of the coupling rates .kappa..sub.1B and .kappa..sub.B2 to reduce energy accumulation in the intermediate resonator structure and improve wireless energy transfer from the first resonator structure to the second resonator structure through the intermediate resonator structure… see abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUYANG XIA whose telephone number is (571)270-3045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, 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, Jennifer Welch can be reached at 571-272-7212. 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.
XUYANG XIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2143
/XUYANG XIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2143
Prosecution Insights