DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 7 July 2022.
Claims 1-6, 9-14, 16-24, 26-29, 31, 40, 42-44, 88 are pending for examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-6, 9-14, 16-24, 26-29, 31, 40, 42-44, 88, which depend directly or indirectly from Claim 1, would be allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art, made of record, does not teach, make obvious, or suggest the claim limitations of Claim 1 required elements, as disclosed in Applicant’s claims. Specifically, the limitations directed to
“the method comprises configuring the matter qubits to provide a plurality of subsequent ones of the 2D slices, each of the plurality of subsequent ones of the 2D slices provided by a corresponding set of the matter qubits wherein: configuring the matter qubits comprises entangling quantum states of matter qubits that correspond to vertices of the plurality of 2D slices that are connected by corresponding edges of the 3D cluster state by one or more steps comprising performing deterministic entangling parity measurements on pairs of the matter qubits; and, performing each of the deterministic entangling parity measurements comprises: configuring the network of photonic links so that each of the matter qubits in the one of the pairs of matter qubits corresponding to the deterministic parity measurement is coupled between first and second ones of the photonic links; injecting a photon into the first photonic link; and detecting the injected photon in the first photonic link or the second photonic link” in exemplary Claim 1 limitations.
The closest prior arts, listed below, discloses:
Monroe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9858531) teaches local entangling quantum gates between qubit memories within a single modular register, accomplished using natural interactions between the qubits, and entanglement between separate modular registers is completed via a probabilistic photonic interface between qubits in different registers.
Wu et al. (NPL: “Quantum-Computing Architecture based on Large-Scale Multi-Dimensional Continuous-Variable Cluster States in a Scalable Photonic Platform”) teaches a one-way quantum computing architecture based on programmable large-scale CV cluster states.
Lu et al. (NPL: “Three-dimensional entanglement on a silicon chip”) teaches a silicon photonic chip that uses novel interferometric resonance-enhanced photon-pair sources, spectral demultiplexers and high-dimensional reconfigurable circuitries to generate, manipulate and analyse path-entangled three-dimensional qutrit states.
Qiang et al. (NPL: “Large-scale silicon quantum photonics implementing arbitrary two-qubit processing”) teaches a silicon photonics and the linear combination of quantum operators scheme to realise a fully programmable two-qubit quantum processor.
Schuck et al. (NPL: “Quantum interference in heterogeneous superconducting-photonic circuits on a silicon chip”) teaches integrated quantum optics by interfering and detecting photon pairs directly on the chip with waveguide-coupled single-photon detectors.
In summary, the references made of record, fail to disclose the required claimed technical features recited by the Claim 1 limitations as a whole.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “3D quantum graph state” in line 2 should be “3D graph state”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the quantum graph states” in line 5 should be “the 2D quantum graph states”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first and second 2D graph states” in line 4 should be “the first one and the second one of the 2D quantum graph states”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first 2D quantum graph state” in line 6 and line 12 should be “the first one of the 2D quantum graph states”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the second 2D quantum graph state” in lines 8, 13, 16 should be “the second one of the 2D quantum graph states”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first set of matter qubits” in line 3-4 should be “the first sets of the matter qubits”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the second set of matter qubits” in line 4-5 should be “the second sets of the matter qubits”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 43 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first set of matter qubits” in lines 2, 3, 4, 5 should be “the first sets of the matter qubits”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 43 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the second set of matter qubits” in line 5 should be “the second sets of the matter qubits”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 44 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the second set of matter qubits” in lines 2, 3, 4, 5 should be “the second sets of the matter qubits”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 44 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first set of matter qubits” in line 5 should be “the first sets of the matter qubits”. Appropriate correction is 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.
Claims 1-6, 9-14, 16-24, 26-29, 31, 40, 42-44, 88 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the 2D slice" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the 2D slice" has been construed to be “a 2D slice”. Claims 2-6, 9-14, 16-24, 26-29, 31, 40, 42-44, 88, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the 3D cluster state" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the 3D cluster state" has been construed to be “a 3D cluster state”. Claims 2-6, 9-14, 16-24, 26-29, 31, 40, 42-44, 88, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the one of the pairs" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the one of the pairs" has been construed to be “one of the pairs”. Claims 2-6, 9-14, 16-24, 26-29, 31, 40, 42-44, 88, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the deterministic parity measurement" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the deterministic parity measurement" has been construed to be “a deterministic parity measurement”. Claims 2-6, 9-14, 16-24, 26-29, 31, 40, 42-44, 88, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, are similarly rejected.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the qubits" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the qubits" has been construed to be “qubits”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the one of the pairs" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the one of the pairs" has been construed to be “one of the pairs”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the single photon sources" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the single photon sources" has been construed to be “single photon sources”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first and second quantum states" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the first and second quantum states" has been construed to be “first and second quantum states”. Claim 14, which depends directly from claim 13, is similarly rejected.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the matter qubit" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the matter qubit" has been construed to be “matter qubit”. Claim 14, which depends directly from claim 13, is similarly rejected.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the single photon" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the single photon" has been construed to be “single photon”. Claim 14, which depends directly from claim 13, is similarly rejected.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the first and second quantum states" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the first and second quantum states" has been construed to be “first and second quantum states”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the matter qubit" in line 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the matter qubit" has been construed to be “matter qubit”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the measurement" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the measurement" has been construed to be either “the measurement cos(a)Xa + sin(a)Ya” of claim 23 or “the measurement cos(a)Xb + sin(a)Yb” of claim 23.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "The method according to claim 30" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 30 is cancelled. For examination purposes, "The method according to claim 30" has been construed to be “The method according to claim 1”.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the regular arrays" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, "the regular arrays" has been construed to be “regular arrays”.
Claim 42 recites the limitation "The method according to claim 41" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 41 is cancelled. For examination purposes, "The method according to claim 41" has been construed to be “The method according to claim 1”. Claims 43-44, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 42, are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGGIE MAIDO whose telephone number is (703) 756-1953. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 6am - 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, Michael Huntley can be reached on (303) 297-4307. 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.
/MM/Examiner, Art Unit 2129
/MICHAEL J HUNTLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2129