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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission has been entered.
The action is in response to claims dated 3/31/2026
Claims pending in the case: 1, 3-11, 13-19
Claims cancelled: 2, 12 and 20
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11, 13-15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stehlik (US 20220300844) in view of Ganzhorn (US 10452991).
Stehlik and Ganzhorn not used in the prior office action.
Regarding claim 11, Stehlik teaches, a method for operating a quantum computing system (QCS) comprising a set of qubits, the method comprising:
determining a source qubit of the set of qubits; determining a target qubit of the set of qubits based on the source qubit and a Ramsey error filter procedure, wherein the source qubit and the target qubit form a qubit pair (Stehlik: [22, 48, 55-56]: identify coupling between two qubits (dominant qubit and spectator qubit);
determining values for a set of compensating parameters … such that providing a compensating signal, in accordance to the determined values, to the receiver qubit compensates for an induced signal that is provided to the receiver qubit and the compensating signal prevents a leakage of the receiver qubit from a computational subspace of the QCS to an excited subspace of the QCS, the induced signal being induced from the control signal being provided to the source qubit (Stehlik: [53, 55]: determine compensating signal, [63-64]: calibration of compensation waveform);
in response to determining the source qubit, providing the control signal to the source qubit; and in response to determining the receiver qubit, providing [[a]] the compensating signal to the receiver qubit, wherein the provided compensating signal is based at least in part on the values for a set of compensating parameters (Stehlik: [53, 55]: determine compensating signal, [66-67]: compensate by cross-talk mitigation unit);
However, Stehlik does not specifically teach, based on the Ramsey error filter procedure;
It is noted here, Ramsey error filter procedure is well known in the art for detecting and measuring state leakage in qubits. Thus the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use Ramsey error filter procedure to measure leakage in the calibration process; Hence the limitations as claimed is obvious over the teachings in Stehlik;
Nonetheless, Ganzhorn teaches, based on the Ramsey error filter procedure (Ganzhorn: col 3 lines 22-29, col 9 lines 4-25: Ramsey measurements to determine compensating signal and mitigate it);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Stehlik and Ganzhorn because the combination would enable using Ramsey measurements to characterize leakage and mitigate crosstalk to improve operation of quantum computing operation (see Ganzhorn col 1 lines 27-54).
Regarding claim 13, Stehlik and Ganzhorn teach the invention as claimed in claim 11 above and, wherein the Ramsey error filter procedure includes actions, the actions comprising:
determining a selected pulse delay for consecutive pulses of a series of qubit rotation pulses that are applied to each qubit of the set of qubits, wherein each qubit rotation pulse of the series of qubit rotation pulses applied to a qubit of the set of qubits generates a rotation of a quantum state of the qubit and the selected pulse delay increases a probability of the series of qubit rotation pulses generating a leakage of the set of qubits from a computational subspace of the QCS to an excited subspace of the QCS (Ganzhorn: col 6 line 60-col 7 line 10: determine primary signal and compensating signal for operation);
identifying, based on the selected pulse delay, a pair of qubits of the set of qubits that contributes to the leakage of the set of qubits from the computational subspace to the excited subspace, wherein the pair of qubits includes the source qubit and the receiver qubit; and employing the pair of qubits to determine the values for the set of compensating parameters for the compensating signal, wherein when the control signal is provided to the source qubit and the compensating signal is provided to the receiver qubit, a probability of the control signal generating a leakage of the receiver qubit from the computational subspace to the excited subspace is decreased (Ganzhorn: col 3 lines 22-29, col 7 lines 44-67, col 9 lines 4-25: compensate for cross talk).
Regarding claim 14, Stehlik and Ganzhorn teach the invention as claimed in claim 13 above and, wherein each qubit rotation pulse of the series of qubit rotation pulses applied to the qubit is a pi-rotation pulse that generates a rotation of the quantum state of the qubit and the rotation is about at least one of an x- axis or a y-axis of a Bloch sphere representation of the quantum state of the qubit (Ganzhorn: col 7 lines 44-67: quantum gate operation using a signal pulse).
Regarding claim 15, Stehlik and Ganzhorn teach the invention as claimed in claim 13 above and, wherein the leakage of the receiver qubit from the computational subspace to the excited subspace includes a transition of a quantum state of the receiver qubit from a first excited state to a second excited state (Ganzhorn: col 7 lines 44-67: quantum gate operation).
Regarding claim 18, Stehlik and Ganzhorn teach the invention as claimed in claim 11 above and, wherein the values for the set of compensating parameters for the compensating signal are selected from a space of possible values for the set of compensating parameters, the selected values being values from the space of possible values that decreases a probability of the control signal generating a leakage of the receiver qubit from the computational subspace to the excited subspace (Stehlik: [53, 55]: determine compensating signal, [66-67]: compensate by cross-talk mitigation unit) (Ganzhorn: col 3 lines 22-29, col 9 lines 4-25: Ramsey measurements to determine compensating signal and mitigate it).
Regarding Claim(s) 19, this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 11. Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections using prior art
For claims 1, 3-10, no prior art was found to teach or make obvious all the limitations as claimed. These claims are allowed.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form in its entirety including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, having addressed and corrected any other objections and rejections presented for the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
Claim 1, 11 and 19 of this application is patentably indistinct from one or more claims of Application No. 19079197 as explained below. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp
Claims 1, 11 and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over one or more claims (see mapping below) of copending Application No. 19079197.
The claims of the instant application and the claims of the references are compared in table below with the limitations similar in scope highlighted using underlines.
Instant application
US 19079197
1. A method for operating a quantum computing system (QCS) comprising a set of qubits, the method comprising: determining a selected pulse delay for consecutive pulses of a series of qubit rotation pulses that are applied to each qubit of the set of qubits, wherein each qubit rotation pulse of the series of qubit rotation pulses applied to a qubit of the set of qubits generates a rotation of a quantum state of the qubit and the selected pulse delay increases a probability of the series of qubit rotation pulses generating a leakage of at least a portion of the set of qubits from a computational subspace of the QCS to an excited subspace of the QCS; and identifying, based on the selected pulse delay, a pair of qubits of the set of qubits that contributes to the leakage of the set of qubits from the computational subspace to the excited subspace, wherein the pair of qubits includes a source qubit and a receiver qubit; and employing the pair of qubits to determine values for a set of compensating parameters for a compensating signal, wherein when a control signal is provided to the source qubit and the compensating signal is provided to the receiver qubit, a probability of the control signal generating a leakage of the receiver qubit from the computational subspace to the excited subspace is decreased.
Claims 11 and 19 are similar in scope to claim 1.
1. A method comprising: implementing a calibration procedure to determine a particular value of one or more parameters of a secondary drive pulse for inclusion in a control signal for a quantum computing system (QCS), wherein a leakage risk associated with qubit transition within the QCS from a computational state to a non-computational state is reduced by including the secondary drive pulse in the control signal; and generating the control signal including a primary drive pulse and the secondary drive pulse for leakage cancellation, wherein the secondary drive pulse is based on the determined particular value for the one or more parameters of the secondary drive pulse; wherein the control signal is configured for coupling to a particular qubit within a set of qubits of the QCS.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein implementing the calibration procedure to determine the particular value of the one or more parameters of the secondary drive pulse comprises: providing a series of qubit rotation pulses to a particular qubit of the set of qubits; measuring a leakage probability of the particular qubit over the series of qubit rotation pulses; and determining the particular value of the one or more parameters that optimizes the leakage probability over the series of qubit rotation pulses.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein: the leakage probability includes an interleaved series of first peaks and second peaks associated with different respective first and second time delays within the series of qubit rotation pulses; and the particular value of the one or more parameters are determined that optimize the leakage probability over both the first peaks and the second peaks within the interleaved series.
Response to Arguments
Applicant requests that all such non-statutory double patenting rejections are held in abeyance until patentable subject matter is agreed upon. Thus the double patenting rejections are maintained.
Applicants’ amendments overcome some of the 112b rejections. Those rejections are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered. They are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above using different prior arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDRITA BRAHMACHARI whose telephone number is (571)272-9735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11 am to 8 pm 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, Tamara Kyle can be reached at 571 272 4241. 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.
/Mandrita Brahmachari/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights