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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is Final Officer Action, in responses, Applicants arguments/remarks filed 12/11/2025. It is noted, the current Patent Application filed 10/19/2022; is a Continuation of 16514099, filed 07/17/2019, now U.S. Patent # 11556829, 16514099 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 62701128 , filed 07/20/2018. Claim(s) 1-20 are pending. Claim(s) 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claim(s) 1-20 were original.
In addition, 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101, because: The claimed invention is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: YES (Claim(s) is/are process, machine, manufacture or composition of the matter). It is noted, claim(s) 1 and 11 recite processes/device (quantum information processing (QIP) system) for performing the method/system of “controlling”, “propagating”, “monitoring”, “implementing” and “modulating” for controlling quantum states of ions in an ion chain for a quantum operation; .... each of the addressing optical beams to correct for the accumulated phase shift in each ion, ...... and therefore fall into one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture or composition of the matter).
Step 2A : Prong One: ( whether a claim recites a judicial exception ?) the claim(s) recite processes/device (quantum information processing (QIP) system) for performing the method/system of “controlling”, “propagating”, “monitoring”, “implementing” and “modulating” for controlling quantum states of ions in an ion chain for a quantum operation; .... each of the addressing optical beams to correct for the accumulated phase shift in each ion,... These limitation(s) recite mathematical concepts (mathematical calculations) (see the USPGPUB 20230162074 A1 33-37, 44-54 mathematical equation(s) (1) through (5) for the BRI [Broadest Reasonable Interpretations..]
Step 2A : Prong Two: (Do the claim(s) recite “additional element(s) that integrate the “Judicial Exception” into “A Practical Application” ? The claim(s) recite additional limitation(s) such as, “quantum operation” and/or “quantum information processing (QIP) system” (claim(s) 1 and 11), for controlling quantum states of ions in an ion chain for a quantum operation; .... each of the addressing optical beams to correct for the accumulated phase shift in each ion ... These limitation(s) only recite a generic computer component(s) that only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (“quantum operation” and/or “quantum information processing (QIP) system) , and therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: (Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More) ? The claim(s) recite additional limitation(s) such as, “quantum operation” and/or “quantum information processing (QIP) system” (claim(s) 1 and 11)... These limitation(s) only recite a generic computer component(s) that only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (“quantum operation” and/or “quantum information processing (QIP) system), and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05, 2106.05(f)).
As to the dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20, further recite, “propagating in the second direction that is orthogonal/ opposite/ respective channel to the first/second direction”, “multi-channel acousto-optic modulator (AOM)”, “frequency difference or a phase difference associated with the global optical beam and each respective addressing optical beam”, “single qubit rotation before/after a two-qubit gate”, “optical beam characteristics”, “quantum gates”, “one or more single-qubit gates, one or more two-qubit gates, or a combination thereof, and wherein the method further comprises dynamically controlling, for any one of the one or more single-qubit gates, a respective addressing optical beam to have substantially a single frequency or tone without other frequencies or tones to produce a spin flip” and “dynamically controlling .... different quantum gates”.... These limitation(s) only recite a generic computer (system/processes) component(s) that only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (quantum operation” and/or “quantum information processing (QIP) system”), and therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)). Moreover, the claim(s) do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten and/or amending to remedy the 101 rejection(s).
Reason for Allowance
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation which is consistence with the Applicant's Specification, the prior arts of recorded when taken individually or in combination do not expressly teach or render obvious the limitations recited in claim(s) 1 and 11 when taken in the context of the claims as a whole, especially the concept of, for “...controlling quantum states of ions in an ion chain for a quantum operation, comprising: propagating, from a first direction, a global optical beam to at least one ion in the ion chain; propagating, from a second direction different from the first direction, respective addressing optical beams to each ion in a subset of the ions in the ion chain; monitoring an accumulated phase shift in each of the ions in the subset of ions; and implementing one or more quantum gates for the quantum operation by independently modulating and controlling each of the addressing optical beams to correct for the accumulated phase shift in each ion...” as claims and further supports in the USPGPUB 20230162074 A1 in the Abstract and Para(s) 3-4, 7-8 and 33-54.
In addition, neither a reference uncovered that would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in the context of independent claim(s) 1 and 11 as a whole.
Thus, claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are allowed over the prior arts of record. Also, dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20 are also allowable due to its dependency of independent claim(s) 1 and 11 ; if Claim(s) 1-20 rewritten and/or amending to remedy the 101 rejection(s) as recited herein.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because:
Applicant argues, that claims 1-20 rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being direct to nonpatentable subject matter should be “traversed” (see the arguments in page(s) 6-8) )i.e., law cases (i.e. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347,2355 (2014); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., and In Ex parte Rockwell et al.) Also, the specification at Para 32, “For controlling individual trapped ions in a QIP system, an array of Raman optical beams to provide individual addressing optical beams for each a single trapped ion. By using a multi-channel acousto-optic modulator (AOM), each of the individual addressing optical beams can be controlled to thereby have the ability to individually correct for any systematic errors that are collected by the trapped ions.” Id. Therefore, even if the features of independent claim 1 are not directed toward patent eligible subject matter (not admitted as discussed above), these features integrate one of the judicial exceptions (not admitted) into a practical application of operating a QIP system with reduced error....
The examiner disagrees. As discussed in the rejection above, claims 1-20 fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101, because: The claimed invention is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Moreover, Step 1: claim(s) 1 and 11 recite processes/device (quantum information processing (QIP) system) for performing the method/system of “controlling”, “propagating”, “monitoring”, “implementing” and “modulating” for controlling quantum states of ions in an ion chain for a quantum operation; .... each of the addressing optical beams to correct for the accumulated phase shift in each ion, ...... and therefore fall into one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture or composition of the matter).
Step 2A : Prong One: ( whether a claim recites a judicial exception ?) the claim(s) recite processes/device (quantum information processing (QIP) system) for performing the method/system of “controlling”, “propagating”, “monitoring”, “implementing” and “modulating” for controlling quantum states of ions in an ion chain for a quantum operation; .... each of the addressing optical beams to correct for the accumulated phase shift in each ion,... These limitation(s) recite mathematical concepts (mathematical calculations) (see the USPGPUB 20230162074 A1 33-37, 44-54 mathematical equation(s) (1) through (5) for the BRI [Broadest Reasonable Interpretations..]
Step 2A : Prong Two: (Do the claim(s) recite “additional element(s) that integrate the “Judicial Exception” into “A Practical Application” ? The claim(s) recite additional limitation(s) such as, “quantum operation” and/or “quantum information processing (QIP) system” (claim(s) 1 and 11), for controlling quantum states of ions in an ion chain for a quantum operation; .... each of the addressing optical beams to correct for the accumulated phase shift in each ion ... These limitation(s) only recite a generic computer component(s) that only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (“quantum operation” and/or “quantum information processing (QIP) system) , and therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: (Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More) ? The claim(s) recite additional limitation(s) such as, “quantum operation” and/or “quantum information processing (QIP) system” (claim(s) 1 and 11)... These limitation(s) only recite a generic computer component(s) that only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (“quantum operation” and/or “quantum information processing (QIP) system), and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05, 2106.05(f)).
In addition, Please noted, the claim(s) recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim(s) fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. ... such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)).
Examiner is noted, the applicant’s remarks i.e., the specification at Para 32, “For controlling individual trapped ions in a QIP system, an array of Raman optical beams to provide individual addressing optical beams for each a single trapped ion. By using a multi-channel acousto-optic modulator (AOM), each of the individual addressing optical beams can be controlled to thereby have the ability to individually correct for any systematic errors that are collected by the trapped ions.” Id. Therefore, even if the features of independent claim 1 are not directed toward patent eligible subject matter (not admitted as discussed above), these features integrate one of the judicial exceptions (not admitted) into a practical application of operating a QIP system with reduced error....[These limitation(s) would be helpful, if incorporated into the claim(s) and further more details of how these features integrate one of the judicial exceptions (not admitted) into a practical application of operating a QIP system with reduced error].
Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101 at least at this time. Also, deepened claims 2-10 and 12-20, further additional limitations, that only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (quantum operation” and/or “quantum information processing (QIP) system”. i.e., (i.e., abstract idea) and therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)). Moreover, the claim(s) do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 fail to recite statutory subject matter, as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101... for at least all the above evidence claims 1-20 remain rejected. (The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 EST for Examiner interviews are available via telephone).
Conclusion
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 QUOC A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Cesar Paula can be reached at 571-272-4128. 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.
/QUOC A TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2145