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 .
Prosecution Summary
Claims 1-19 were pending in this application
Claims 1-19 have been rejected
Claims 1,2,4-9, 11-14, and 17-19 have been amended
Claim 3 has been cancelled
Claims 20 and 21 have been added
Claims 1, 2, and 4-21 are now pending
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 10-11), filed January 28, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being unpatentable in view of Maskil, Greenberg, and Crowder; Applicant arguments are fully considered and are rendered moot in light of the new combination of references. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by the amendment is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied references and new prior art as described below. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended to include “wherein the ancilla photon states have values that are known a priori”; therefore, Claims 1 and 11 are now rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over prior art of Maskil, Greenberg, and Crowder in further view of Bedau (US 2021/0391988 A1).
Furthermore, Applicant argues that Maskil does not teach “performing quantum error detection on a return radar signal to determine a level of decoherence, comparing the determined level of decoherence to a specified threshold level of decoherence, and indicating a target as a false target or a true target based on the comparison [and/or] analyzing a target based on a comparison of a determined level of decoherence to a threshold level of decoherence.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Therefore, this argument has been considered but is not persuasive in view of the amended claim.
While Maskil may not use the specific term “decoherence,” the physical process described in Paragraph 59 is the functional equivalent of measuring decoherence in a quantum system. Maskil describes an “interrogating signal… formed by photons that are at least partially entangled with the reference photons.” Maskil further teaches that a “statistical phase distribution” indicates the probability of the photons being a reflected signal. In the field of quantum sensing, the degradation of this “statistical phase distribution” or entanglement (correlation) due to environmental interaction is, by definition, the determination of a level of decoherence.
Applicant further suggests that Maskil lacks the comparison to a threshold to identify true versus false targets. To the contrary, Maskil explicitly teaches that the processing unit selects readings have a correlation that “exceed a predetermined (or selected) threshold as reflected signal” and marks radiation portions “having correlation below the threshold as noise.” A ”reflected signal” as described by Maskil is a “true target,” while “noise” is the “false target.” Therefore, Maskil’s teaching of comparing correlation levels (the inverse of decoherence levels) against a threshold to distinguish signal from noise is the same process as the claimed “quantum error detection… to determine a level of decoherence” to identify a “true” or “false” target. The Applicant has failed to show a patentable distinction between the claimed steps and the technical operations disclosed in Maskil.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “determined based on range”
This should be amended to “determined based on a range”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2-8, 11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskil (US 20240302491 A1) in view of Greenberg et al. (US 20220373649 A1), Crowder et al. (US 10924191 B2) and Bedau (US 2021/0391988 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Maskil teaches a method for false radar target detection ([0059] marked as possible reflected signal to avoid miss readings of objects), the method comprising:
generating pairs of entangled probe and idler photons ([Abstract] generate electromagnetic radiation formed by a plurality of quantum entangled photons comprising first transmitted photon (signal) and second reference photon (idler));
preparing a plurality of photon states to generate an ancilla photon state for each of the probe photons and the idler photons ([0069] The transmitted and reference photons are entangled between them by one or more quantum states, caused by preservation of one or more parameters in the nonlinear interaction. For example, the photons may be entangled in polarization (or helicity), phase relation, frequency etc. Examiner note: the quantum states here are the ancilla photon states which have been preserved (and therefore previously prepared));
encoding the probe photons and the idler photons with the ancilla photon states ([0069] The transmitted and reference photons are entangled between them by one or more quantum states, caused by preservation of one or more parameters in the nonlinear interaction. For example, the photons may be entangled in polarization (or helicity), phase relation, frequency etc. Examiner note: the entanglement of the photons by the quantum states implies that the quantum states have been appended (encoded) to the photons);
transmitting the probe photons encoded with the ancilla photon states as a radar signal towards a target ([0038]-[0039] transmitting the first photons toward a selected region (target)…while maintaining entanglement between the first and second photons Examiner note: since the entanglement is “by one or more quantum states (ancilla states),” if entanglement is maintained, the ancilla states have been sent);
receiving a return radar signal from the target, wherein the received return radar signal includes the probe photons encoded with the ancilla photon states ([0023] identify collected photons associated with said first transmitted photons reflected from one or more objects);
performing a quantum error detection on the received return radar signal to determine a level of decoherence in the received return radar signal ([0059] As the interrogating signal is formed by photons that are at least partially entangled with the reference photons, statistical phase distribution between the collected photons and the reference data indicates a high probability that the collected photons are reflected interrogating signal, reflected from objects in the region of interest. Accordingly, the processing unit 160 selects radiation reading having correlation that exceed a predetermined (or selected) threshold as reflected signal, and marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise. In some embodiments, the threshold may include first and second thresholds, where signal portions between the between the first and second thresholds are marked as possible reflected signal to avoid miss readings of objects. This may be associated with lose of coherence of the transmitted radiation Examiner Note: Please see Response to Arguments section above for more detail on this mapping);
comparing the determined level of decoherence to a specified threshold level of decoherence ([0059] the processing unit 160 selects radiation reading having correlation that exceed a predetermined (or selected) threshold as reflected signal, and marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise… This may be associated with a lose of coherence Examiner Note: Please see Response to Arguments section above for more detail on this mapping); and
indicating the target as a false target in response to the determined level of decoherence exceeding the specified threshold level of decoherence or indicating the target as a true target in response to the determined level of decoherence not exceeding the specified threshold level of decoherence ([0059] the processing unit 160 selects radiation reading having correlation that exceed a predetermined (or selected) threshold as reflected signal, and marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise… This may be associated with a lose of coherence Examiner Note: Please see Response to Arguments section above for more detail on this mapping).
Maskil is not relied upon as teaching receiving target information from a target detection source; that the ancilla photon states have values that are known a priori; storing the idler photons encoded with the ancilla photon states; transmitting the radar signal towards a target, using the received target information;
However, Greenberg teaches receiving target information from a target detection source; and
transmitting the radar signal towards a target, using the received target information ([Abstract] receiving a target state corresponding to parameters of a target, selecting a mode of operation…based on the target state, receiving returns reflected by the target via the laser radar system operating in the selected mode of operation).
Maskil and Greenberg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of radar and target detection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maskil to include the receiving of target information from a target detection source and transmitting the radar signal towards a tare using the received target information as taught by Greenberg with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to improve the spatial efficiency and acquisition speed of the quantum radar system. While Maskil focuses on the quantum correlation and decoherence analysis of a return signal, Greenberg teaches a laser radar system that receives target information (such as parameters or a “target state”) from a source to select a mode of operation and guide the transmission towards said target. By integrating Greenberg’s teaching of using external target information to guide a transmission into the quantum architecture of Maskil, the system can more accurately direct the entangled probe photons toward a specific region of interest. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a pre-existing target detection source to inform the aim of a secondary sensor (the quantum radar) is a well-known optimization technique that yields the predictable result of higher detection probability with reduced computational overhead.
Greenberg is not relied upon as teaching that the ancilla photon states have values that are known a priori and storing the idler photons encoded with the ancilla photon states.
However, Crowder teaches storing the idler photons encoded with the ancilla photon states ([Col. 1 ll. 59-61] The communications apparatus includes a standard quantum memory configured to store the plurality of idler photons Examiner note: the previously encoded ancilla photons are the ones that are being stored here).
Maskil, Greenberg, and Crowder are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of quantum-enhanced sensing and signal processing. Therefore, it would have been to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maskil and Greenberg to include the storing of the idler photons encoded with the ancilla photon states of Crowder with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to synchronize the reference signal with the return signal to enable correlation. While Maskil teaches correlating reflected photons with reference data (idler photons), a physical time of flight delay exists between the transmission of a probe photon and its return from a target. By integrating Crowder’s teaching of a “standard quantum memory configured to store the plurality of idler photons” into the Maskil architecture, the system can physically hold the idler photons in storage until the probe photons return. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that storing a reference signal to account for propagation delay would yield the predictable result of ensuring that the decoherence analysis and threshold comparison taught by Maskil are performed on the correct corresponding photon pairs.
Crowder is not relied upon as teaching that the ancilla photon states have values that are known a priori.
However, Bedau teaches that the ancilla photon states have values that are known a priori ([0047] Alice creates a random bit (0 or 1) and then randomly selects one of her two bases (rectilinear or diagonal in this case) to transmit it in. She then prepares a photon polarization state depending both on the bit value and basis. Alice then transmits a single photon in the state specified to Bob, using the quantum channel).
Maskil, Greenberg, Crowder, and Bedau are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of quantum information processing and signal detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maskil, Greenberg, and Crowder to include the ancilla photons states having values that are known a priori as taught by Bedau with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to establish a reliable reference for error detection and signal verification. While Maskil and Crowder teach the transmission and storage of entangled photons, Bedau teaches a specific protocol where a transmitting entity (“Alice”) prepares a photon polarization state based on a “random bit (0 or 1)” that she creates before transmission ([0047]). By integrating Bedau’s teaching of state preparation into the Maskil architecture, the system ensures that the ancilla states used to encode the probe and idler photons are based on values known to the system beforehand. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using predetermined or a priori known values for quantum encoding would yield the predictable result of allowing the system to accurately determine a level of decoherence or error by comparing the return signal against the original, known values.
Regarding Claim 2, Maskil teaches that performing the quantum error detection determines the level of decoherence in the received return radar signal with respect to the stored idler photons ([0059] As the interrogating signal is formed by photons that are at least partially entangled with the reference photons, statistical phase distribution between the collected photons and the reference data indicates a high probability that the collected photons are reflected interrogating signal, reflected from objects in the region of interest. Accordingly, the processing unit 160 selects radiation reading having correlation that exceed a predetermined (or selected) threshold as reflected signal, and marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise. In some embodiments, the threshold may include first and second thresholds, where signal portions between the between the first and second thresholds are marked as possible reflected signal to avoid miss readings of objects. This may be associated with lose of coherence of the transmitted radiation).
Regarding Claim 4, Maskil teaches that the transmit radar signal is an optical or pulsed microwave signal ([0070] the radiation source…. Using pulsed emission…. The radiation source may be a laser, maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emissions)).
Regarding Claim 5, Maskil teaches evaluating errors in the return radar signal to determine the level of decoherence in the received return radar signal; and
computing a degree of entanglement measure based on a number and distribution of the errors ([0059] determine correlation between the collected photons phase distribution and reference data. As the interrogating signal is formed by photons that are at least partially entangled with the reference photons, statistical phase distribution between the collected photons and the reference data indicates a high probability that the collected photons are… reflected from objects in the region of interest. Accordingly, the processing unit 160 selects radiation reading having correlation that exceed a predetermined (or selected) threshold as reflected signal, and marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise.).
Regarding Claim 6, Maskil teaches that the error is an entanglement measure (0059] marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise… this may be associated with a los[s] of coherence).
Regarding Claim 7, Maskil teaches that the quantum error detection is performed at a time determined based on range to the target ([0059] after transmitting an interrogating signal, the processing unit is configured to receive data on collected photons from the radiation collection unit 140 and determine correlation between the collected photons for phase distribution and the reference data Examiner note: quantum error detection (determination of correlation) is performed when the photons are collected (which is at a time determined based on range to the target)).
Maskil does not teach that the target information was received from the target detection source.
However, Greenberg teaches receiving target information from a target detection source ([Abstract] receiving a target state corresponding to parameters of a target, selecting a mode of operation…based on the target state, receiving returns reflected by the target via the laser radar system operating in the selected mode of operation).
Maskil and Greenberg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because theya re both in the same field of quantum-enhanced radar and target detection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maskil to include performing the quantum error detection at a time determined based on range to the target as taught by Greenberg with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to minimize noise and increase the accuracy of the detection threshold. Maskil teaches the use of a threshold to distinguish “true” signals from “noise” ([0059]). Greenberg teaches receiving target parameters (range information) to guide the operation of a laser radar system (Abstract). By integrating Greenberg’s teaching of target specific parameters into Maskil’s detection method, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to limit the error detection process so that the processor only analyzes return signals during the specific time window when a reflection from the target is expected. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that timing a signal analysis based on the known range to a target (range-gating) is a standard technique in lidar systems that would yield the predictable result of reducing missed readings and preventing false detections from ambient noise outside the target window.
Regarding Claim 8, Maskil does not teach that the target information includes one or more of location, orientation, velocity, trajectory, and signal structure data of the target.
However, Greenberg teaches that the target information includes one or more of location, orientation, velocity, trajectory, and signal structure data of the target ([0027] the system 200 can also be used to identify any suitable parameter or parameters of interest related to the target 202. Example parameters that could be detected by the system 200 include range (i.e., distance) and Doppler velocity (i.e., speed) of the target).
Maskil and Greenberg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of target detection and ranging systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maskil to include target information comprising location and velocity data as taught by Greenberg with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to enable precise target tracking and identification. While Maskil provides a method for identifying a return signal via quantum correlation, Greenberg teaches that identifying parameters such as range and Doppler velocity allows the system to characterize the target. A person of ordinary skill in the at would have been motivated to include these specific parameters in the target information of Maskil’s system to allow the operator to not only detect the presence of a target but also determine its movement and position relative to the sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using standard LIDAR parameters like range and velocity to inform the detection process would yield the predictable result of a more robust and informative target detection signal.
Regarding Claim 11, Maskil teaches a quantum sensor ([Abstract] a radar system…formed by a plurality of quantum entangled photons) comprising:
a transmitter ([Abstract] The system comprises a radiation transmission unit) including:
one or more photon sources configured to generate pairs of entangled probe photons and idler photons ([Abstract] generate electromagnetic radiation formed by a plurality of quantum entangled photons comprising first transmitted photon (signal) and second reference photon (idler)),
a photon state preparer configured to prepare a plurality of photon states to generate an ancilla photon state for each of the probe photons and the idler photons ([0069] The transmitted and reference photons are entangled between them by one or more quantum states, caused by preservation of one or more parameters in the nonlinear interaction. For example, the photons may be entangled in polarization (or helicity), phase relation, frequency etc. Examiner note: the quantum states here are the ancilla photon states which have been preserved (and therefore previously prepared)),
a photon encoder configured to encode the probe photons and the idler photons with the ancilla photon states ([0069] The transmitted and reference photons are entangled between them by one or more quantum states, caused by preservation of one or more parameters in the nonlinear interaction. For example, the photons may be entangled in polarization (or helicity), phase relation, frequency etc. Examiner note: the entanglement of the photons by the quantum states implies that the quantum states have been appended (encoded) to the photons), and
wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit the probe photons encoded with the ancilla photon states as a radar signal towards a target ([0038]-[0039] transmitting the first photons toward a selected region (target)…while maintaining entanglement between the first and second photons Examiner note: since the entanglement is “by one or more quantum states (ancilla states),” if entanglement is maintained, the ancilla states have been sent); and
a receiver ([Abstract] The system comprises… a radiation collection unit) including:
a photon receiver configured to receive a return radar signal from the target and detect the probe photons encoded with the ancilla photon states ([0053] The first transmitted photons may be transmitted toward the region of interest… the radiation transmission unit 120 may include an amplifier 128 configured to receive the first transmitted photons and amplify the signal… a coherent amplifier, configured to preserve the phase of the photons), and
a quantum signal processor configured to:
perform a quantum error detection on the received return radar signal to determine a level of decoherence in the received return radar signal ([0059] after transmitting an interrogating signal, the processing unit is configured to receive data on collected photons from the radiation collection unit 140 and determine correlation between the collected photons for phase distribution and the reference data. As the interrogating signal is formed by photons that are at least partially entangled with the reference photons, statistical phase distribution between the collected photons and the reference data indicates a high probability that the collected photons are reflected interrogating signal, reflected from objects in the region of interest. Accordingly, the processing unit 160 selects radiation reading having correlation that exceed a predetermined (or selected) threshold as reflected signal, and marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise. In some embodiments, the threshold may include first and second thresholds, where signal portions between the between the first and second thresholds are marked as possible reflected signal to avoid miss readings of objects. This may be associated with lose of coherence of the transmitted radiation),
compare the determined level of decoherence to a specified threshold of level of decoherence ([0059] the processing unit 160 selects radiation reading having correlation that exceed a predetermined (or selected) threshold as reflected signal, and marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise… This may be associated with a lose of coherence Examiner Note: Please see Response to Arguments section above for more detail on this mapping), and
indicate the target as a false target in response to the determined level of decoherence exceeding the specified threshold level of decoherence or indicate the target as a true target in response to the determined level of decoherence not exceeding the specified threshold level of decoherence ([0059] the processing unit 160 selects radiation reading having correlation that exceed a predetermined (or selected) threshold as reflected signal, and marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise… This may be associated with a lose of coherence Examiner Note: Please see Response to Arguments section above for more detail on this mapping).
Maskil is not relied upon as teaching that the ancilla photon states have values that are known a priori, an energy storage device configured to store the idler photons encoded with the ancilla photon states, and transmitting the photons using target information received from a target detection source.
However, Greenberg teaches transmitting photons using target information received from a target detection source ([Abstract] receiving a target state corresponding to parameters of a target, selecting a mode of operation…based on the target state, receiving returns reflected by the target via the laser radar system operating in the selected mode of operation).
Maskil and Greenberg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of radar and target detection systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maskil to include the receiving of target information from a target detection source and transmitting the radar signal towards a tare using the received target information as taught by Greenberg with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to improve the spatial efficiency and acquisition speed of the quantum radar system. While Maskil focuses on the quantum correlation and decoherence analysis of a return signal, Greenberg teaches a laser radar system that receives target information (such as parameters or a “target state”) from a source to select a mode of operation and guide the transmission towards said target. By integrating Greenberg’s teaching of using external target information to guide a transmission into the quantum architecture of Maskil, the system can more accurately direct the entangled probe photons toward a specific region of interest. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a pre-existing target detection source to inform the aim of a secondary sensor (the quantum radar) is a well-known optimization technique that yields the predictable result of higher detection probability with reduced computational overhead.
Greenberg is not relied upon as teaching that the ancilla photon states have values that are known a priori, and an energy storage device configured to store the idler photons encoded with the ancilla photon states.
However, Crowder teaches an energy storage device configured to store the idler photons encoded with the ancilla photon states ([Col. 1 ll. 59-61] The communications apparatus includes a standard quantum memory configured to store the plurality of idler photons Examiner note: the previously encoded ancilla photons are the ones that are being stored here).
Maskil, Greenberg, and Crowder are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of quantum-enhanced sensing and signal processing. Therefore, it would have been to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maskil and Greenberg to include the storing of the idler photons encoded with the ancilla photon states of Crowder with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to synchronize the reference signal with the return signal to enable correlation. While Maskil teaches correlating reflected photons with reference data (idler photons), a physical time of flight delay exists between the transmission of a probe photon and its return from a target. By integrating Crowder’s teaching of a “standard quantum memory configured to store the plurality of idler photons” into the Maskil architecture, the system can physically hold the idler photons in storage until the probe photons return. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that storing a reference signal to account for propagation delay would yield the predictable result of ensuring that the decoherence analysis and threshold comparison taught by Maskil are performed on the correct corresponding photon pairs.
Crowder is not relied upon as teaching that the ancilla photon states have values that are known a priori.
However, Bedau teaches that the ancilla photon states have values that are known a priori ([0047] Alice creates a random bit (0 or 1) and then randomly selects one of her two bases (rectilinear or diagonal in this case) to transmit it in. She then prepares a photon polarization state depending both on the bit value and basis. Alice then transmits a single photon in the state specified to Bob, using the quantum channel).
Maskil, Greenberg, Crowder, and Bedau are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of quantum information processing and signal detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maskil, Greenberg, and Crowder to include the ancilla photons states having values that are known a priori as taught by Bedau with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to establish a reliable reference for error detection and signal verification. While Maskil and Crowder teach the transmission and storage of entangled photons, Bedau teaches a specific protocol where a transmitting entity (“Alice”) prepares a photon polarization state based on a “random bit (0 or 1)” that she creates before transmission ([0047]). By integrating Bedau’s teaching of state preparation into the Maskil architecture, the system ensures that the ancilla states used to encode the probe and idler photons are based on values known to the system beforehand. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using predetermined or a priori known values for quantum encoding would yield the predictable result of allowing the system to accurately determine a level of decoherence or error by comparing the return signal against the original, known values.
Regarding Claim 15, Maskil does not teach the energy storage device is a quantum memory.
However, Crowder teaches the energy storage device is a quantum memory (Col. 1 ll. 59-61, The communications apparatus includes a standard quantum memory configured to store the plurality of idler photons).
Maskil and Crowder are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of quantum-enhanced sensing and signal processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maskil to include an energy storage device that is a quantum memory as taught by Crowder with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide a physically capable medium for the stage of quantum states. While Maskil teaches that a reference signal must be correlated with a return signal, it does not specify the hardware for maintaining the integrity of those photons during the time of flight delay. By integrating Crowder’s teaching of a “standard quantum memory configured to store the plurality of idler photons” (Col. 1 ll. 59-61) into the Maskil architecture, the system is provided with a specific energy storage device capable of preserving the idler photons’ quantum states. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that utilizing a quantum memory to store quantum information for later retrieval is a standard technical solution in the field that would yield the predictable result of successful correlation.
Regarding Claim 16, Maskil teaches that the photon receiver is a phase-conjugate receiver or a spontaneous parametric down-converter ([0077] the simulated radar system according to the present technique utilizes spontaneous parametric down conversation (SPDC)).
Regarding Claim 17, Maskil teaches that the quantum signal processor is configured to determine the level of decoherence in the received return radar signal with respect to the stored idler photons ([0059] the interrogating signal is formed by photons that are at least partially entangled with the reference photons… marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise… may be associated with a los[s] of coherence of the transmitted regulation).
Regarding Claim 18, The quantum sensor of claim 11, wherein the quantum signal processor is configured to:
evaluate errors in the return radar signal to determine the level of decoherence in the received return radar signal; and
compute a degree of entanglement measure based on a number of distribution errors signal ([0059] As the interrogating signal is formed by photons that are at least partially entangled with the reference photons, statistical phase distribution between the collected photons and the reference data indicates a high probability that the collected photons are reflected interrogating signal, reflected from objects in the region of interest. Accordingly, the processing unit 160 selects radiation reading having correlation that exceed a predetermined (or selected) threshold as reflected signal, and marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise. In some embodiments, the threshold may include first and second thresholds, where signal portions between the between the first and second thresholds are marked as possible reflected signal to avoid miss readings of objects. This may be associated with lose of coherence of the transmitted radiation).
Regarding Claim 19, Maskil teaches that the errors represent an entanglement measure (0059] marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise… this may be associated with a los[s] of coherence).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskil (US 20240302491 A1), Greenberg et al. (US 20220373649 A1), Crowder et al. (US 10924191 B2) and Bedau (US 2021/0391988 A1) in further view of Lucarelli (US 2020/01119748 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Maskil is not relied upon as teaching that the quantum error detection is performed using stabilizers and syndrome extraction to determine an error.
However, Lucarelli teaches that the quantum error detection is performed using stabilizers ([0049] the logical parity decoder D include (1) a quantum stabilizer operator associated with a quantum error correcting code) and syndrome extraction to determine an error ([0088] the conventional fault-tolerant quantum error correction and syndrome extraction).
Maskil and Lucarelli are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of quantum information processing and error detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maskil to include quantum error detection performed using stabilizers and syndrome extraction to determine an error as taught by Lucarelli with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to systematize the identification of quantum noise and decoherence. While Maskil teaches a general method for detecting decoherence by comparing a return signal to reference data, Lucarelli teaches a specific framework for this task using “a quantum stabilizer operator associated with a quantum error correcting code” and “a syndrome extraction to determine an error.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate Lucarelli’s stabilizer and syndrome extraction techniques into Maskil’s radar architecture to provide a mathematically rigorous way to categorize the specific “level of decoherence” or errors encountered by the probe photons during flight. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using standard stabilizer codes for error detection would yield the predictable result of more precise target verification in a noisy quantum environment.
Regarding Claim 10, Maskil is not relied upon as teaching that the error is a bit-flip or a phase-flip.
However, Lucarelli teaches that the error is a bit-flip or a phase-flip ([0014] a quantum error syndrome for the three-qubit bit-flip quantum code).
Maskil and Lucarelli are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of quantum information processing and error detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maskil to include the error being a bit-flip or phase-flip as taught by Lucarelli with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to address the most common types of quantum noise in signal transmission. While Maskil teaches a general detection of decoherence, Lucarelli identifies specific, well-characterized error types, such as the ”three-qubit bit-flip quantum code.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure Maskil’s system to specifically identify bit-flip or phase-flip errors to enable more efficient error correction and improve the overall quality of the radar return signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that optimizing a quantum sensor for standard error models yields the predictable result of increased system reliability and detection accuracy.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskil (US 20240302491 A1), Greenberg et al. (US 20220373649 A1), Crowder et al. (US 10924191 B2) and Bedau (US 2021/0391988 A1) in further view of Torromé et al. ((February 2, 2021) "Introduction to Quantum Radar," Department of Mathematics Faculty of Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Information Technologies University of Primorska).
Regarding Claim 12, Maskil does not teach that the one or more photon sources include a laser pump and a non-linear crystal.
However, Torromé teaches that the one or more photon sources include a laser pump and a non-linear crystal (p. 15 generation, two beams composed by pairs of entangled frequencies… by pumping with a frequency ωp a crystal with a second order non-linear susceptibility).
Maskil and Torromé are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of quantum enhanced radar and photon generation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maskil to include one or more photon sources comprising a laser pump and a non-linear crystal as taught by Torromé with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to utilize a reliable method for producing entangled photon pairs. While Maskil teaches the general use of entangled probe and idler photons in a radar system, Torromé provides the specific implementation for generating these photons. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Torromé’s specific photon source architecture into Maskil’s system because laser-pumped non-linear crystals are a standard means of achieving the entanglement required for quantum sensing. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using standard SPDC hardware (laser and crystal) to generate the interrogating signal would yield the predictable result of a stable and consistent source of entangled photons for the radar apparatus.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskil (US 20240302491 A1), Greenberg et al. (US 20220373649 A1), Crowder et al. (US 10924191 B2) and Bedau (US 2021/0391988 A1) in further view of Vogt (US 2025/0013904 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Maskil is not relied upon as teaching that the photon state preparer is configured to eliminate mixed states or force the photon states of the probe and idler photons to a predetermined set.
However, Vogt teaches that the photon state preparer is configured to eliminate mixed states or force the photon states of quantum bits (qubits) to a predetermined set ([0063] thereby modifying a quantum state of said respective qubit… using the predetermined information content… (e.g., a quantum state of respective one or more ancilla qubits)).
Maskil and Vogt are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of quantum information processing and signal detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum state preparation of Maskil to include the unitary transformations and predetermined state forcing of Vogt with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to increase signal to noise ratios and ensure high-fidelity entanglement. By integrating Vogt’s teaching of modifying a quantum state using predetermined information content into Maskil’s generation of probe and idler photons, the system can ensure the transmitted radar signal is in a known state. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using standard unitary gates to force a qubit (realized as a photon in Maskill) to a specific state would yield the predictable result of more accurate correlation and false target detection.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskil (US 20240302491 A1), Greenberg et al. (US 20220373649 A1), Crowder et al. (US 10924191 B2), Bedau (US 2021/0391988 A1) and Vogt (US 2025/0013904 A1) in further view of Antanavicius et al. (US 2024/0027873 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Maskil teaches the photon state preparer ([0069] The transmitted and reference photons are entangled between them by one or more quantum states, caused by preservation of one or more parameters in the nonlinear interaction. For example, the photons may be entangled in polarization (or helicity), phase relation, frequency etc. Examiner note: the quantum states here are the ancilla photon states which have been preserved (and therefore previously prepared)).
Maskil is not relied upon as teaching a polarizer configured to intercept a portion of a pump beam from the one or more photon sources.
However, Antanavicius teaches a polarizer configured to intercept a portion of a pump beam from the one or more photon sources ([0099]-[0100] a resonator branch between the polarizer 2 and the mirror… a beam dump 51 absorbs the unabsorbed pump radiation which passes through the polarizer).
Maskil and Antanavicius are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of quantum-enhanced radar and optical signal processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Maskil to include a polarizer configured to intercept a portion of a pump beam from the one or more photon sources as taught by Antanavicius with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to efficiently manage and filter beam radiation within the optical path. While Maskil teaches the use of an SPDC-based entangled source, Antanavicius teaches a specific optical arrangement where a “resonator branch between the polarizer 2 and the mirror” is used to intercept and manage pump radiation (p0099]-[0100]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include such a polarizer in the Maskil architecture to ensure that only the desired signal components proceed through the system while unwanted pump radiation is intercepted or absorbed. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a polarizer to filter or redirect a pump beam is a standard optical engineering practice that yields the predictable result of improved signal-to-noise ratio and protection of downstream sensor components.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskil (US 20240302491 A1) in view of Bedau (US 2021/0391988 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Maskil teaches a method for false radar target detection ([0059] marked as possible reflected signal to avoid miss readings of objects), the method comprising:
generating ancilla photon states for a plurality of pairs of entangled probe and idler photons ([0069] The transmitted and reference photons are entangled between them by one or more quantum states, caused by preservation of one or more parameters in the nonlinear interaction. For example, the photons may be entangled in polarization (or helicity), phase relation, frequency etc. Examiner note: the quantum states here are the ancilla photon states which have been preserved (and therefore previously prepared));
encoding the probe photons and the idler photons with the ancilla photon states ([0069] The transmitted and reference photons are entangled between them by one or more quantum states, caused by preservation of one or more parameters in the nonlinear interaction. For example, the photons may be entangled in polarization (or helicity), phase relation, frequency etc. Examiner note: the entanglement of the photons by the quantum states implies that the quantum states have been appended (encoded) to the photons);
transmitting the probe photons encoded with the ancilla photon states as a radar signal towards a target([0038]-[0039] transmitting the first photons toward a selected region (target)…while maintaining entanglement between the first and second photons Examiner note: since the entanglement is “by one or more quantum states (ancilla states),” if entanglement is maintained, the ancilla states have been sent);
receiving a return radar signal from the target, wherein the received return radar signal includes the probe photons encoded with the ancilla photon states ([0023] identify collected photons associated with said first transmitted photons reflected from one or more objects);
performing a quantum error detection on the received return radar signal to determine a level of decoherence in the received return radar signal ([0059] As the interrogating signal is formed by photons that are at least partially entangled with the reference photons, statistical phase distribution between the collected photons and the reference data indicates a high probability that the collected photons are reflected interrogating signal, reflected from objects in the region of interest. Accordingly, the processing unit 160 selects radiation reading having correlation that exceed a predetermined (or selected) threshold as reflected signal, and marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise. In some embodiments, the threshold may include first and second thresholds, where signal portions between the between the first and second thresholds are marked as possible reflected signal to avoid miss readings of objects. This may be associated with lose of coherence of the transmitted radiation Examiner Note: Please see Response to Arguments section above for more detail on this mapping);
comparing the determined level of decoherence to a specified threshold level of decoherence ([0059] the processing unit 160 selects radiation reading having correlation that exceed a predetermined (or selected) threshold as reflected signal, and marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise… This may be associated with a lose of coherence Examiner Note: Please see Response to Arguments section above for more detail on this mapping); and
indicating the target as a false target in response to the determined level of decoherence exceeding the specified threshold level of decoherence or indicating the target as a true target in response to the determined level of decoherence not exceeding the specified threshold level of decoherence ([0059] the processing unit 160 selects radiation reading having correlation that exceed a predetermined (or selected) threshold as reflected signal, and marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise… This may be associated with a lose of coherence Examiner Note: Please see Response to Arguments section above for more detail on this mapping).
Maskil is not relied upon as teaching that the ancilla photon states have values that are known a priori.
However, However, Bedau teaches that the ancilla photon states have values that are known a priori ([0047] Alice creates a random bit (0 or 1) and then randomly selects one of her two bases (rectilinear or diagonal in this case) to transmit it in. She then prepares a photon polarization state depending both on the bit value and basis. Alice then transmits a single photon in the state specified to Bob, using the quantum channel).
Maskil and Bedau are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the same field of quantum information processing and signal detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Maskil to include generating and encoding photons with ancilla photon states having values that are known a priori as taught by Bedau with a reasonable expectation of success. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to establish a verifiable baseline for error detection and target identification. While Maskil provides the framework for determining decoherence by comparing a return signal to reference data, Bedau teaches a specific protocol where a transmitter prepares a photon state based on a random bit created before transmission. By integrating Bedau’s teaching of state preparation into the Maskil architecture, the system ensures that the ancilla states used to encode the probe and idler photons are based on values known to the system beforehand. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using predetermined or a priori known values for quantum encoding would yield the predictable result of allowing the system to accurately determine a level of decoherence or error by comparing the return signal against the original, known values.
Regarding Claim 21, Maskil teaches that performing the quantum error detection determines the level of decoherence in the received return radar signal with respect to the idler photons ([0059] As the interrogating signal is formed by photons that are at least partially entangled with the reference photons, statistical phase distribution between the collected photons and the reference data indicates a high probability that the collected photons are reflected interrogating signal, reflected from objects in the region of interest. Accordingly, the processing unit 160 selects radiation reading having correlation that exceed a predetermined (or selected) threshold as reflected signal, and marks radiation portions having correlation below the threshold as noise. In some embodiments, the threshold may include first and second thresholds, where signal portions between the between the first and second thresholds are marked as possible reflected signal to avoid miss readings of objects. This may be associated with lose of coherence of the transmitted radiation).
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 EVAN H HAUT whose telephone number is (571)272-7927. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-3pm EST.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 272-9358. 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.
/E.H.H./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3645