DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has obviated most, but not all, of the objections to the specification and drawings given in the last Office action. To the extent that an objection or rejection appears in the previous Office Action(s) but not this Office Action, that objection or rejection is withdrawn. To the extent that it appears both in a previous Office Action(s) and this Office Action, the objection or rejection is maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the first recitation of “the polarization” should be “a polarization”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a wave plate, the irradiation” should be “a wave plate, and the irradiation”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “irradiation unit” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim limitation “irradiation unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, Applicant has not demonstrated that it had possession of the claimed invention as of the effective filing date. For further analysis, see rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) infra.
Claim 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “irradiation unit” (claim 17) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding the “irradiation unit,” paragraph 57 discloses the use of beams to irradiate qubits, but it is not clear from reading the specification how the “irradiation unit” performs the function of “irradiat[ing] the obtained laser beam” itself, nor of what the “irradiation unit” consists other than the claim’s suggestion that it is an “addressing system”, which is itself a nonce term that does not connote a structure (indeed, it is unclear whether the “addressing system” is embodied in hardware, software, or a combination of the two).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For purposes of examination, any computer hardware running software that performs the claimed function will be deemed to read on the claim.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the functions recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the functions so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed functions, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed functions. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (US 20200369517) (“Nam”) in view of Jiang et al. (WO 2016138399) (“Jiang”) and further in view of Pakkiam et al. (WO 2021243419) (“Pakkiam”).
Regarding claim 1, Nam discloses “[a] method for realizing a quantum operation (Nam paragraph 25 discusses hardware on which the method is performed, including an irradiator, a modulator, and circuitry to manipulate hyperfine states (i.e., a parameter adjustment unit)), comprising:
performing frequency adjustment on a first continuous-wave laser beam to obtain a second continuous-wave laser beam containing at least two frequency components; wherein two frequency components of the at least two frequency components are used for the quantum operation (pulse having determined amplitude and detuning frequency is generated by adjusting amplitudes and frequencies [performing frequency adjustment] of the lasers [continuous-wave laser beam] – Nam, paragraph 69; frequency components of a power-optimal pulse are computed [i.e., there is in general a plurality of frequency components in the laser pulse] – id. at paragraph 80; the method generates an entangling gate in an ion trap quantum computer [i.e., it is for a quantum operation] – id. at paragraph 2); and the quantum operation comprises … construction of a single-qubit gate[] and construction of a two-qubit gate (ions can be manipulated between two hyperfine states (single-qubit gate operations), or a pair of ions can be controllably entangled (two-qubit gate operations) by qubit-state dependent force using laser pulses – Nam, paragraph 4);
performing parameter adjustment on the second continuous-wave laser beam according to a quantum operation to be performed, to obtain a laser beam for performing the quantum operation (ions can be optically pumped to one of the two hyperfine states with high accuracy (preparation of qubits), manipulated between the two hyperfine states (single-qubit gate operations), etc. [i.e., the laser that manipulates the qubits can perform multiple operations, which would require multiple adjustments] – Nam, paragraph 4; see also paragraph 69 (discussing frequency adjustment of the lasers)); and
irradiating the obtained laser beam for performing the quantum operation on a qubit meeting a preset condition to realize the quantum operation (ions have internal hyperfine states separated by frequencies in the several GHz range and can be used as the computational states of a qubit; these hyperfine states can be controlled [i.e., quantum operations can be performed; preset condition = hyperfine states of the ions] using radiation provided from a laser [i.e., the laser irradiates the qubit] – Nam, paragraph 4);
wherein the qubit comprises an ion qubit (disclosure relates to a method of generating an entangling gate in an ion-trap quantum computer – Nam, paragraph 2); the ion qubit comprises a first set of long-lived energy levels for the quantum operation and a second set of long-lived energy levels for the quantum operation (trapped ions [qubits] undergo collective transversal motions, where each mode has a distinct energy associated with it [i.e., there is more than one energy level] – Nam, paragraph 33); each of the first set of long-lived energy levels and the second set of long-lived energy levels contains two or more than two sub-energy levels for qubit encoding (the number of motional modes P in a given transverse direction is equal to the number of trapped ions N in the chain [so when N is greater than or equal to four, there may be four modes/energy levels that can be divided into sets of two] – Nam, paragraph 33; ions have hyperfine states separated by frequencies in the several GHz range and can be used as the computational states of a qubit [i.e., the ions are for qubit encoding] – id. at paragraph 4) ….”
Nam appears not to disclose explicitly the further limitations of the claim. However, Jiang discloses that “the quantum operation comprises coherent transfer between different sets of long-lived energy levels (quantum system has a plurality of coherent quantum states and is coupled to a second quantum system; an input energy signal is provided to the second quantum system that stimulates energy transfer between the quantum systems – Jiang, claim 1) ….”
Jiang and the instant application both relate to quantum computing and are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nam to perform coherent transfer between energy levels, as disclosed by Jiang, and an ordinary artisan could reasonably expect to have done so successfully. Doing so would allow the system to perform arbitrary unitary operations on the coherent states of the system by varying the energy input to the system over time. See Jiang, paragraph 33.
Neither Nam nor Jiang appears to disclose explicitly the further limitations of the claim. However, Pakkiam discloses that “a long-lived energy level in the first set of long-lived energy levels and the second set of long-lived energy levels is an energy level having a lifetime longer than a first preset multiple of a time scale for the quantum operation (within the realm of solid-state spin qubits, P-donor qubits have demonstrated extremely long lifetimes; electrons hosted on P-donor dots have been shown to have lifetimes of up to 30 seconds; by correctly orienting a global magnetic field (applied to separate energy levels of the electron spins) with respect to an electric field, spin-orbit coupling can give rise to spin lifetimes as long as 18 minutes [so the spin lifetime for a given energy level is 36 [multiple] times greater than an operation that last the lifetime of the P-donor dot] – Pakkiam, paragraph 29).”
Pakkiam and the instant application both relate to quantum computing and are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nam and Jiang to provide long-lived energy levels that last longer than a multiple of an operation, as disclosed by Pakkiam, and an ordinary artisan could reasonably expect to have done so successfully. Doing so would reduce bit-flip errors and phase errors in the qubits. See Pakkiam, paragraph 28.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Jiang and Pakkiam and further in view of Röhsner et al. (US 20210334692) (“Röhsner”).
Claim 17 is an apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim, except that claim 17 additionally recites “[a] modulation unit compris[ing] an Electro-Optic Modulator (EOM), [a] parameter adjustment unit compris[ing] an Acousto-Optic Modulator (AOM) and a wave plate, [and an] irradiation unit compris[ing] an addressing system”. Nam discloses the “parameter adjustment unit compris[ing] an Acousto-Optic Modulator (AOM) (diffractive beam splitter creates an array of static Raman beams that are individually switched using a multi-channel acousto-optic modulator (AOM) and is configured to act selectively on individual ions – Nam, paragraph 30) ….”
Neither Nam, Jiang, nor Pakkiam appears to disclose explicitly the further limitations of the claim. However, Röhsner discloses “[a] modulation unit compris[ing] and Electro-Optic Modulator (EOM), … a wave plate, [and an] irradiation unit comprising an addressing system (phase retarder may be an electro-optical modulator; when more than one elementary quantum system is used, the quantum gate corresponds to the set of configurations addressing photons individually [i.e., there is an addresser] – Röhsner, paragraph 38; prepared state may be achieved by means of a half-wave plate or a quarter-wave plate – id. at paragraph 52) ….”
Röhsner and the instant application both relate to quantum computing and are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nam, Jiang, and Pakkiam to employ an electro-optic modulator, wave plate, and addressing system, as disclosed by Röhsner, and an ordinary artisan could reasonably expect to have done so successfully. Doing so would provide a physical system that can be used to perform the quantum operations. See Röhsner, paragraphs 38 and 52.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 3, 2026 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are, except insofar as rendered moot by the entry of a new ground of rejection, not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Nam and Jiang allegedly does not render the independent claims obvious because (a) Nam allegedly fails to disclose two sets of long-lived energy levels each of which contains two or more sub-energy levels because Nam allegedly only discloses one set of energy levels; (b) Nam allegedly discloses motional modes that have nothing to do with the number of energy levels; and (c) Jiang allegedly fails to disclose that a change in quantum states is related to coherent transfer between sets of long-lived energy levels of an ion. Remarks at 11-13.
Regarding (a), the cited portion of Nam states that trapped-ion qubits undergo collective transversal motions, where each mode has a distinct energy associated with it. The number of motional modes P in a given transverse direction is equal to the number of trapped ions N in the chain. Thus, in a case where N is greater than or equal to four, the number of motional modes – i.e., the number of energy levels – can be broken down into two or more sets of two or more motional modes (i.e., energy levels) apiece.
Regarding (b), as noted above, the cited portions of Nam explicitly state that each motional mode has a distinct energy associated with it. When there is more than one motional mode, there is more than one energy level in general. Regarding Applicant’s argument that the motional modes of Nam have a one-to-one correspondence with trapped ions, the claim does not specify any relationship between energy levels and the number of ions (only between the energy levels and the number of qubits), so even assuming arguendo that this is an accurate characterization of Nam, which Examiner does not concede, Nam would still read on the claim.
Regarding (c), the cited portions of Jiang state that a quantum system has a plurality of coherent quantum states and is coupled to a second quantum system. Jiang further discloses that an input energy signal is provided to the second quantum system that stimulates energy transfer between the quantum systems. Applicant provides no argument for its apparent contention that coherent transfer is different from transfer of energy between coherent quantum states. Moreover, insofar as the energy transfer changes the energy levels of the system, the transfer is a transfer between sets of energy levels.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN C VAUGHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4849. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a-5:00p 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, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at 571-272-7796. 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.
/RYAN C VAUGHN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125