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 .
Responsive to communications on 05/19/2026
Claims 1 and 7 amended
Claims 2-6 and 8 original
Claims 1-8 pending
Claims 1-8 rejected
Final Action
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.
Response to Arguments
Issue: Applicants therefore respectfully assert that the amendments to the claims appearing herein above do not introduce any new subject matter. The claims have been amended to include “wherein the Hamiltonian includes at least one excitation hopping term with a phase component that is inversely proportional to the number of ions in the chain of trapped ions” and “wherein the operating the driving laser is according to parameters of the Hamiltonian,” Applicant cites Paragraph 28: “the Hamiltonian includes a hopping term with phase components determined by multiples of cp=2n<l>/N, where N is the number of ions ...” Examiner also locates relevant paragraph 34: “a step 407 driving laser 305 is operated according to the parameters of predetermined Hamiltonian 403 consistent with boundary conditions 404. This will cause the excitation state of ion chain 420 to evolve in a manner that simulates the behavior that would be expected of model 402.”
Rule: The MPEP 2163.07(a) states “By disclosing in a patent application a device that inherently performs a function or has a property, operates according to a theory or has an advantage, a patent application necessarily discloses that function, theory or advantage, even though it says nothing explicit concerning it. The application may later be amended to recite the function, theory or advantage without introducing prohibited new matter.”
Analysis: As the examiner understands, the mathematic formula cp=2n<l>/N, where N is a number of ions, is a mathematic representation of “inversely proportional to the number of ions in the chain of trapped ions.” So while it is not expressly recited, the specification does inherently have a property, and therefore, the application may later be amended to recite the function. Furthermore the second limitation of “wherein the operating the driving laser is according to parameters of the Hamiltonian,” is outlined in par 34
Conclusion: Applicant accepts the amendments introduced into the claims and confirms no new matter has been introduced.
Issue: “To overcome the above-referenced 3 5 U.S. C. § I 03 rejections, Applicants are amending independent claims I and 7 to recite the limitation pertaining to the Hamiltonian: wherein the Hamiltonian includes at least one excitation hopping term with a phase component that is inversely proportional to the number of ions in the chain of trapped ions.” Applicant argues that the prior arts cited of “Schneider, Ramm, Ackland, and Chieda fail to disclose or fairly suggest an excitation hopping term in the Hamiltonian.” Applicant argues while “ The prior art of Boada does disclose lattice-site hopping with corresponding Hamiltonian terms. … Boada
Rule: The MPEP 2144.01 states "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom."
Analysis: The examiner will outline the prior art references used and how they potentially relate to the amended claim limitations.
Schneider_2012 discusses quantum simulation of various systems with trapped ions using Hamiltonians. The Hamiltonian outlined in equation (3.1) does not expressly recite a phase component that is inversely proportional to the number of ions in the chain of trapped ions as outlined in the claim. Ramm_2014 similarly does not contain a Hamiltonian which a phase component that is inversely proportional to the number of ions in the chain of trapped ions. Ackland_2011 is a short article which defines what “lifting degeneracy” means, and does not discuss Hamiltonian phase components. Chieda_2012 is a scientific article which discuses BCF and also does not discuss Hamiltonian phase components.
Boada_2015 is a scientific journal which discusses simulating topologies as well as hopping terms in the Hamiltonian. See page 2 equation 1 “For definiteness ,let us discuss a bosonic 1D hopping model with L sites whose Hamiltonian is merely kinetic.” However the Hamiltonian term does not have a phase component that is inversely proportional to the number of ions in the chain of trapped ions
Conclusion: Examiner confirms that current references do not discuss “Hamiltonian includes at least one excitation hopping term with a phase component that is inversely proportional to the number of ions in the chain of trapped ions.” And previous 103 ground of rejection is withdrawn. Examiner notes that the above prior arts may be used in an obviousness rejection, and as the scope of the claim has been changed, new prior art may be introduced to map to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1,2, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider_2012 (“Experimental quantum simulations of many-body physics with trapped ions”) Ramm_2014 ( “Energy transport in trapped ion chains”) and Hu_2011 (“Dynamics of a tight-binding ring threaded by time-periodic magnetic flux”) as evidenced by Ackland_2011 (“Symmetry and Degeneracy”)
Claim 1:Schneider_2012 makes obvious A method of quantum simulation of a model to be simulated,the method comprising: (page 13 col 1 par 3: “The spin–spin interaction as proposed in [21] and experimentally realized in the simulation of a quantum Ising Hamiltonian” Examiner note: Where the simulation of the quantum Ising Hamiltonian is the simulation of a model. See page 3 col 1 par 2: “However, there remains room for the important discussion as to whether the specific dynamics emulate nature or simulate the implemented model (Hamiltonian)
providing a chain of trapped ions for simulating the model; (page 3 col 2 par 3: “In section 5, we first depict the proof-of-principle experiments on a few trapped ions in linear RF traps” … section 5 page 17 discusses “5.1. Proof-of-principle experiments on quantum spin Hamiltonians” Examiner note: Where experiment on quantum spin Hamiltonian is a simulation of the model as shown by page 3 col 1 par 2: “However, there remains room for the important discussion as to whether the specific dynamics emulate nature or simulate the implemented model (Hamiltonian)
preparing a Hamiltonian according to the model, (Page 15 col 1 par 2 : “To summarize, the complete Hamiltonian is obtained by adding equation (3.46) and equation (3.54). It consists of a spin–spin interaction term and a simulated magnetic field pointing in the x-direction, which add up to the ideal quantum Ising Hamiltonian.” (Examiner note: Where this process as described is preparing a Hamiltonian)
page 17 col 2 par 6: “At this step, the state |→→_|nSTR = 0_ represents the ground state of the first term of the quantum Ising Hamiltonian in equation (3.55) that can be ‘easily’ prepared.” Examiner note: Where this passage makes further obvious that the Hamiltonian is prepared.
page 3 col 1 par 2: “However, there remains room for the important discussion as to whether the specific dynamics emulate nature or simulate the implemented model (Hamiltonian) and whether the results allow the drawing of further conclusions” Examiner note: Where this passage shows that the Hamiltonian is according to the model. )
putting the chain of trapped ions into an initial Schneider_2012 page 7 col 2 par 4: “Initialization of motional and electronic states. The initialization into one of the qubit states, for example |↓_, can be achieved with near-unity efficiency by optical pumping”) … page 16 col 1 par 2: “To realize a QS for a quantum spin Hamiltonian, we have to (1) simulate the spin, provide (2) its initialization and”
Schneider_2012 as evidenced by Ackland_2011 makes obvious establishing a gradient field in the vicinity of the chain of trapped ions,wherein the gradient field alters at least one energy level to differ from an ion of the chain to another ion of the chain by at least one energy gap;
Schneider_2012 page 6 col 1 par 4: “An applied magnetic field (Examiner note: the gradient field) lifts the degeneracy within the manifolds of electronic levels to allow for spectrally resolving the dedicated states.” … Page 7 col 1 par 2: “by applying a static magnetic field gradient along the axis of an ion chain, the transition frequency between |↓_ and |↑_ becomes site dependent due to position-dependent Zeeman shifts.”
Examiner note: Ackland_2011 page 10 par 6: “If we reduce the symmetry of the Hamiltonian, we now ‘lift’ the degeneracy. (i.e. the levels no longer have the same energy). For example, an applied magnetic field defines an axis and lowers the symmetry of the Hamiltonian. If the field is weak, we can use perturbation theory and assume we still have p orbitals (Zeeman effect). Now, the orbitals must be eigenstates not only of ˆH0, but also of µ.B where µ is the magnetic dipole moment. The degenerate energy level splits into several different energy levels, depending on the relative orientation of the moment and the field: The degeneracy is lifted by the reduction in symmetry.”
Schneider_2012 describes the process of lifting a degeneracy using a magnetic field. Ackland_2011 provides context and explains this process in quantum mechanics, Ackland_2011 explains that using a magnetic field to lift the degeneracy results in the splitting into several different energy levels.
Therefore, when Schneider_2012 establishes a magnetic field to lift the degeneracy of the chain of ions, Schneider_2012 is inherently performing the function of splitting the energy level of the ions to different energy levels. Where these energy levels inherently are different by at least one energy gap.
operating a driving laser to stimulate excitation hopping from an excited ion of the chain to another ion of the chain,
page 6 col 1 par 6: “(a) Coupling of the electronic states only (|↓_|n_ _ |↑_|n_).” Examiner note: where the coupling of electronic states is interpretation as excitation hopping, see fig 5(a)
page 7 fig 5 : “Implementations of different interaction types for hyperfine/Zeeman qubits. (a) An operation of type (a) can be implemented, for example, by two-photon stimulated-Raman transitions driven by a pair of laser beams (shown without motional dependence) or directly by a microwave field.”
PNG
media_image1.png
674
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the operating the driving laser is according to parameters of the Hamiltonian, and wherein (See figure 5 above: “This interaction is used in the geometric phase gate for the displacement pulse or in the simulation of the quantum Ising Hamiltonian” ) Examiner note: Which makes obvious the laser is operating in according to the parameters of the Hamiltonian.
the driving laser provides a pulse having a bichromatic driving field pair for bridging an energy gap and thereby enabling excitation hopping in the presence of the gradient field;
page 6 col 2 state dependent forces (c): “State-dependent forces (for example, |↓_|n_ → |↓_|n + 1_). These forces lead to state-dependent displacements. They can be used for conditional interactions between multiple ions, which are exploited for quantum gates (see sections 3.3 and 3.4) or effective spin–spin interactions in the simulation of quantum spin Hamiltonians (see section 3.5).” Examiner note: See figure 5b which depicts the energy hopping.
page 7 col 1 par 1: “State-dependent forces (c) can be provided by a bichromatic light field (see, for example, [85–87] and also section 3.3).”
PNG
media_image1.png
674
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
operating a scattering laser to enable state-selective fluorescence of the ions of the chain;
Page 7 col 2 par 5: “Readout of electronic and motional states. We distinguish the two electronic states by observing state-dependent laser fluorescence. The dipole allowed transition to an excited state starting in the state |↓_ is driven resonantly (see the transition labelled ‘BD’ in figure 4) in a closed cycle completed by spontaneous emission back to the state |↓_ due to selection rules. For state |↑_ the detection laser is off-resonant. The ion therefore appears ‘bright’ for |↓_, while it remains ‘dark’ for |↑_. Typically, a few per mill of the scattered photons are detected by a photomultiplier tube or a CCD camera.” Examiner note: where the scattered photons implies the use of a scattering laser.
and operating a photon detector to determine from the state-selective fluorescence which ions of the chain are in an excited state, thereby determining a state of the simulation of the model.
Page 7 col 2 par 5: “Readout of electronic and motional states. We distinguish the two electronic states by observing state-dependent laser fluorescence. The dipole allowed transition to an excited state starting in the state |↓_ is driven resonantly (see the transition labelled ‘BD’ in figure 4) in a closed cycle completed by spontaneous emission back to the state |↓_ due to selection rules. For state |↑_ the detection laser is off-resonant. The ion therefore appears ‘bright’ for |↓_, while it remains ‘dark’ for |↑_. Typically, a few per mill of the scattered photons are detected by a photomultiplier tube or a CCD camera.” Examiner note: Where a photomultiplier tube is an example of a photon detector. And the state of simulation is determined based on the results of the detection.
Schnieder_2012 does not expressly recite wherein the Hamiltonian includes at least one excitation hopping term with a phase component that is inversely proportional to the number of ions in the chain of trapped ions
Ramm_2014 however makes obvious putting the chain of trapped ions into an initial excitation state, wherein at least some of the ions are in an excited state but not all of the ions are in an excited state;
Par 3: “In this work, we perform first experiments towards realizing the aforementioned proposals with long ion chains. We make use of the motional degree of freedom of long chains of trapped ions to study transport of energy in the system. We prepare an out-of-equilibrium state of the chain by rapidly imparting momentum onto a single ion at one end of the chain. (Examiner note: some but not all of the ions) We then monitor the energy of the ions in the chain as the initial excitation propagates, leading to multiple revivals of energy. The energy revivals persist for a surprisingly long time indicating that the system does not thermalize on the experimental timescale, an important requirement to study the aforementioned model systems. Our work extends the results obtained for two ions [16] to much longer chains of up to 37 ions. The resultant dynamics are more complex as they involve participation of a greater number of normal modes of the chain.”
Schneider_2012 and Ramm_2014 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called quantum mechanics. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schneider_2012 and Ramm_2014.
The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching proposed in the art.
Ramm_2014 provides “initial excitation” into the chain, in order to monitor the energy of the chain as the excitation propagates. They do this in order to abstract: “study energy transport in chains of trapped ions. … provides an experimental toolbox for the study of thermodynamics of closed systems and energy transport in both classical and quantum regimes.” Prior to applying magnetic shifts and lasers to modify energy levels in ions, the user of Schneider_2012 would be motivated to first initially excite the chain in order to monitor the energy transport and to ensure that the ions are initialized as expected. This is especially relevant for increased diversity in quantum simulations, as stated by Schneider_2012 page 16 col 1 par 2: “Additional diversity for QS arises by the capability of precise initialization, control and readout of the motional states.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the workflow including an initialization of Schneider_2012 with the excitation initialization of Ramm_2014 for the benefit of detecting the current initialization state of the model to ensure precise control and redout of the motional state to allow greater diversity for quantum simulations.
Schnieder_2012 and Ramm_2014 do not expressly recite wherein the Hamiltonian includes at least one excitation hopping term with a phase component that is inversely proportional to the number of ions in the chain of trapped ions
Hu_2011 however makes obvious wherein the Hamiltonian includes at least one excitation hopping term with a phase component that is inversely proportional to the number of ions in the chain of trapped ions
PNG
media_image2.png
207
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Where this is a Hamiltonian which contains the above limitations.
Schnieder_2012 and Hu_2011 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called quantum mechanics. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Schnieder_2012 and Hu_2011. The rational for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the prior art. Schneider_2012 discusses quantum simulations of physics using trapped ions. Schneider_2012 states in the abstract: “However, one could gain deeper insight into complex quantum dynamics by experimentally simulating the quantum behavior of interest in another quantum system, where the relevant parameters and interactions can be controlled and robust effects detected sufficiently well.” An example is “simulating the magnetic field” (page 16 section 4.2). Hu_2011 states page 1 col 2 par 4: “Consider a ring lattice with N sites threaded by a magnetic field, as illustrated schematically in Fig. 1. The Hamiltonian of the corresponding tight-binding model.” In order to use the magnetic field simulation of Schnieder_2012 for simulating a ring lattice structure of interest with a magnetic field, the user of Shnceider_2012 would be motivated to use the same Hamiltonian corresponding to the ring with magnetic field of Hu_2011 in order to simulate the quantum behavior of the other system (ring with magnetic field) using the quantum simulator of Schneider_2012.
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine the magnetism trapped ion simulation of Schneider_2012 with the Hamiltonian for ring lattice with a magnetic field for the benefit of simulating the quantum behavior of the ring lattice structure using another quantum system to gain deeper insights into complex quantum dynamics to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 2:
The method of claim 1,
Schneider_2012 makes obvious wherein the gradient field is a magnetic field. (page 6 col 1 par 4: “An applied magnetic field” … “by applying a static magnetic field gradient along the axis of an ion chain, the transition frequency between |↓_ and |↑_ becomes site dependent due to position-dependent Zeeman shifts.”)
Claim 7:
An apparatus for quantum simulation of a model to be simulated, the apparatus comprising: (page 2 col 1 par 3: “Richard Feynman originally proposed [5] using a well controlled quantum system to efficiently track problems that are very hard to address on classical computers and named the device a ‘quantum computer’ (QC). Nowadays his proposal can be seen closer to the description of a quantum simulator (QS)5. In any case, his idea has been theoretically investigated and further developed”)
a chain of trapped ions for simulating the model ; (page 1 abstract: “We then report on the experimental and theoretical progress in simulating quantum many-body physics with trapped ions and present current approaches for scaling up to more ions and more-dimensional systems.” … page 5 figure 3: “Fluorescence images of laser-cooled ions in a common confining potential of a linear RF trap (see figure 2), forming differently structured Coulomb crystals. (a) A single ion (Mg+). (b) A linear chain of 40 ions at ωX/Y _ ωZ.”)
Schneider_2012 as evidenced by Ackland_2011 makes obvious a device for establishing a gradient field in the vicinity of the chain of trapped ions ,wherein the gradient field alters at least one energy level to differ from an ion of the chain to another ion of the chain by at least one energy gap;
Schneider_2012 page 6 col 1 par 4: “An applied magnetic field (Examiner note: the gradient field) lifts the degeneracy within the manifolds of electronic levels to allow for spectrally resolving the dedicated states.” … Page 7 col 1 par 2: “by applying a static magnetic field gradient along the axis of an ion chain, the transition frequency between |↓_ and |↑_ becomes site dependent due to position-dependent Zeeman shifts.” Examiner note: Where the magnetic field being applied makes obvious that a physical device is doing the application.
Examiner note: Ackland_2011 page 10 par 6: “If we reduce the symmetry of the Hamiltonian, we now ‘lift’ the degeneracy. (i.e. the levels no longer have the same energy). For example, an applied magnetic field defines an axis and lowers the symmetry of the Hamiltonian. If the field is weak, we can use perturbation theory and assume we still have p orbitals (Zeeman effect). Now, the orbitals must be eigenstates not only of ˆH0, but also of µ.B where µ is the magnetic dipole moment. The degenerate energy level splits into several different energy levels, depending on the relative orientation of the moment and the field: The degeneracy is lifted by the reduction in symmetry.”
Schneider_2012 describes the process of lifting a degeneracy using a magnetic field. Ackland_2011 provides context and explains this process in quantum mechanics, Ackland_2011 explains that using a magnetic field to lift the degeneracy results in the splitting into several different energy levels.
Therefore, when Schneider_2012 establishes a magnetic field to lift the degeneracy of the chain of ions, Schneider_2012 is inherently performing the function of splitting the energy level of the ions to different energy levels. Where these energy levels inherently are different by at least one energy gap.
a driving laser for stimulating excitation hopping from an excited ion of the chain to another ion of the chain,
page 23 col 1 par 1: “We estimate the strength of simulated spin–spin interactions for the case of Mg+ ions in such devices with currently available laser equipment” page 6 col 1 par 6: “(a) Coupling of the electronic states only (|↓_|n_ _ |↑_|n_).” Examiner note: where the coupling of electronic states is interpretation as excitation hopping, see fig 5(a)
page 7 fig 5 : “Implementations of different interaction types for hyperfine/Zeeman qubits. (a) An operation of type (a) can be implemented, for example, by two-photon stimulated-Raman transitions driven by a pair of laser beams (shown without motional dependence) or directly by a microwave field.”
PNG
media_image1.png
674
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the driving laser is operative to provide a pulse having a bichromatic driving field pair for bridging an energy gap and thereby enabling excitation hopping in the presence of the gradient field;
page 6 col 2 state dependent forces (c): “State-dependent forces (for example, |↓_|n_ → |↓_|n + 1_). These forces lead to state-dependent displacements. They can be used for conditional interactions between multiple ions, which are exploited for quantum gates (see sections 3.3 and 3.4) or effective spin–spin interactions in the simulation of quantum spin Hamiltonians (see section 3.5).” Examiner note: See figure 5(b) which depicts the energy hopping as outlined.
page 7 col 1 par 1: “State-dependent forces (c) can be provided by a bichromatic light field (see, for example, [85–87] and also section 3.3).”
PNG
media_image1.png
674
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a scattering laser for enabling state-selective fluorescence of the ions of the chain; Page 7 col 2 par 5: “Readout of electronic and motional states. We distinguish the two electronic states by observing state-dependent laser fluorescence. The dipole allowed transition to an excited state starting in the state |↓_ is driven resonantly (see the transition labelled ‘BD’ in figure 4) in a closed cycle completed by spontaneous emission back to the state |↓_ due to selection rules. For state |↑_ the detection laser is off-resonant. The ion therefore appears ‘bright’ for |↓_, while it remains ‘dark’ for |↑_. Typically, a few per mill of the scattered photons are detected by a photomultiplier tube or a CCD camera.” Examiner note: where the scattered photons implies the use of a scattering laser.
a photon detector for determining from the state-selective fluorescence which ions of the chain are in an excited state, and which is thereby operative to determine a state of the simulation of the model; Schneider_2012 Page 7 col 2 par 5: “Readout of electronic and motional states. We distinguish the two electronic states by observing state-dependent laser fluorescence. The dipole allowed transition to an excited state starting in the state |↓_ is driven resonantly (see the transition labelled ‘BD’ in figure 4) in a closed cycle completed by spontaneous emission back to the state |↓_ due to selection rules. For state |↑_ the detection laser is off-resonant. The ion therefore appears ‘bright’ for |↓_, while it remains ‘dark’ for |↑_. Typically, a few per mill of the scattered photons are detected by a photomultiplier tube or a CCD camera.” Examiner note: Where a photomultiplier tube is an example of a photon detector.
and a controller for controlling the apparatus,wherein the controller is operative to: page 16 col 1 par 2: “To realize a QS for a quantum spin Hamiltonian, we have to (1) simulate the spin, provide (2) its initialization and (3) the interaction of this ‘spin’ with a simulated magnetic field, (4) realize an interaction between several spins (spin–spin interaction) and (5) allow for efficient detection of the final spin state. Additional diversity for QS arises by the capability of precise initialization, control and readout of the motional states.” Examiner note: Where the capability of control implies a controller for controlling the apparatus which is operative to perform the functions outlined below.
receive a Hamiltonian according to the model, page 3 col 1 par 2: “However, there remains room for the important discussion as to whether the specific dynamics emulate nature or simulate the implemented model (Hamiltonian) and whether the results allow the drawing of further conclusions”
Page 15 col 1 par 2 : “To summarize, the complete Hamiltonian is obtained by adding equation (3.46) and equation (3.54). It consists of a spin–spin interaction term and a simulated magnetic field pointing in the x-direction, which add up to the ideal quantum Ising Hamiltonian.” Examiner note: Where this process as described is preparing a Hamiltonian
page 17 col 2 par 6: “At this step, the state |→→_|nSTR = 0_ represents the ground state of the first term of the quantum Ising Hamiltonian in equation (3.55) that can be ‘easily’ prepared.” Examiner note: Where this passage makes further obvious that the Hamiltonian can easily be prepared, where its obvious a prepared Hamiltonian can also be “received”
control the apparatus to:put the chain of trapped ions into an initial Schneider_2012 page 7 col 2 par 4: “Initialization of motional and electronic states. The initialization into one of the qubit states, for example |↓_, can be achieved with near-unity efficiency by optical pumping”) … page 16 col 1 par 2: “To realize a QS for a quantum spin Hamiltonian, we have to (1) simulate the spin, provide (2) its initialization and”
and operate the driving laser according to parameters of the Hamiltonian,See figure 5 above: “This interaction is used in the geometric phase gate for the displacement pulse or in the simulation of the quantum Ising Hamiltonian” ) Examiner note: Which makes obvious the laser is operating in according to the parameters of the Hamiltonian.
Schneider_2012 as evidenced by Ackland_2011 makes obvious establish a gradient field in the vicinity of the chain of trapped ions, wherein the gradient field alters at least one energy level to differ from an ion of the chain to another ion of the chain by at least one energy gap; Schneider_2012 page 6 col 1 par 4: “An applied magnetic field (Examiner note: the gradient field) lifts the degeneracy within the manifolds of electronic levels to allow for spectrally resolving the dedicated states.” … Page 7 col 1 par 2: “by applying a static magnetic field gradient along the axis of an ion chain, the transition frequency between |↓_ and |↑_ becomes site dependent due to position-dependent Zeeman shifts.”
Examiner note: Ackland_2011 page 10 par 6: “If we reduce the symmetry of the Hamiltonian, we now ‘lift’ the degeneracy. (i.e. the levels no longer have the same energy). For example, an applied magnetic field defines an axis and lowers the symmetry of the Hamiltonian. If the field is weak, we can use perturbation theory and assume we still have p orbitals (Zeeman effect). Now, the orbitals must be eigenstates not only of ˆH0, but also of µ.B where µ is the magnetic dipole moment. The degenerate energy level splits into several different energy levels, depending on the relative orientation of the moment and the field: The degeneracy is lifted by the reduction in symmetry.”
Schneider_2012 describes the process of lifting a degeneracy using a magnetic field. Ackland_2011 provides context and explains this process in quantum mechanics, Ackland_2011 explains that using a magnetic field to lift the degeneracy results in the splitting into several different energy levels.
Therefore, when Schneider_2012 establishes a magnetic field to lift the degeneracy of the chain of ions, Schneider_2012 is inherently performing the function of splitting the energy level of the ions to different energy levels. Where these energy levels inherently are different by at least one energy gap.
stimulate excitation hopping from an excited ion of the chain to another ion of the chain, page 6 col 1 par 6: “(a) Coupling of the electronic states only (|↓_|n_ _ |↑_|n_).” Examiner note: where the coupling of electronic states is interpretation as excitation hopping, see fig 5(a)
page 7 fig 5 : “Implementations of different interaction types for hyperfine/Zeeman qubits. (a) An operation of type (a) can be implemented, for example, by two-photon stimulated-Raman transitions driven by a pair of laser beams (shown without motional dependence) or directly by a microwave field.”
PNG
media_image1.png
674
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
enable state-selective fluorescence of the ions of the chain; and determine from the state-selective fluorescence which ions of the chain are in an excited state, thereby determining a state of the simulation of the model; and output the state of the simulation of the model. Page 7 col 2 par 5: “Readout of electronic and motional states. We distinguish the two electronic states by observing state-dependent laser fluorescence (Examiner note: implies an enablement of state selective fluorescence). The dipole allowed transition to an excited state starting in the state |↓_ is driven resonantly (see the transition labelled ‘BD’ in figure 4) in a closed cycle completed by spontaneous emission back to the state |↓_ due to selection rules. For state |↑_ the detection laser is off-resonant. The ion therefore appears ‘bright’ for |↓_, while it remains ‘dark’ for |↑_. (Examiner note: determining which ions are in an excited state) Typically, a few per mill of the scattered photons are detected by a photomultiplier tube or a CCD camera.” Examiner note: Where the detection of the photons is the determination and output of the state of the model.
Schneider_2012 does not expressly recite excitation …., wherein at least some of the ions are in an excited state but not all of the ions are in an excited state;
wherein the Hamiltonian includes at least one excitation hopping term with a phase component that is inversely proportional to the number of ions in the chain of trapped ions
Ramm_2014 however makes obvious excitation …., wherein at least some of the ions are in an excited state but not all of the ions are in an excited state; Par 3: “In this work, we perform first experiments towards realizing the aforementioned proposals with long ion chains. We make use of the motional degree of freedom of long chains of trapped ions to study transport of energy in the system. We prepare an out-of-equilibrium state of the chain by rapidly imparting momentum onto a single ion at one end of the chain. (Examiner note: some but not all of the ions) We then monitor the energy of the ions in the chain as the initial excitation propagates, leading to multiple revivals of energy. The energy revivals persist for a surprisingly long time indicating that the system does not thermalize on the experimental timescale, an important requirement to study the aforementioned model systems. Our work extends the results obtained for two ions [16] to much longer chains of up to 37 ions. The resultant dynamics are more complex as they involve participation of a greater number of normal modes of the chain.”
Schneider_2012 and Ramm_2014 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called quantum mechanics. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schneider_2012 and Ramm_2014.
The rationale for doing so would have been to follow a teaching proposed in the art.
Ramm_2014 provides “initial excitation” into the chain, in order to monitor the energy of the chain as the excitation propagates. They do this in order to abstract: “study energy transport in chains of trapped ions. … provides an experimental toolbox for the study of thermodynamics of closed systems and energy transport in both classical and quantum regimes.” Prior to applying magnetic shifts and lasers to modify energy levels in ions, the user of Schneider_2012 would be motivated to first initially excite the chain in order to monitor the energy transport and to ensure that the ions are initialized as expected. This is especially relevant for increased diversity in quantum simulations, as stated by Schneider_2012 page 16 col 1 par 2: “Additional diversity for QS arises by the capability of precise initialization, control and readout of the motional states.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the workflow including an initialization of Schneider_2012 with the excitation initialization of Ramm_2014 for the benefit of detecting the current initialization state of the model to ensure precise control and redout of the motional state to allow greater diversity for quantum simulations.
Schnieder_2012 and Ramm_2014 do not expressly recite wherein the Hamiltonian includes at least one excitation hopping term with a phase component that is inversely proportional to the number of ions in the chain of trapped ions
Hu_2011 however makes obvious wherein the Hamiltonian includes at least one excitation hopping term with a phase component that is inversely proportional to the number of ions in the chain of trapped ions
PNG
media_image2.png
207
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner note: Where this is a Hamiltonian which contains the above limitations.
Schnieder_2012 and Hu_2011 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called quantum mechanics. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to combine Schnieder_2012 and Hu_2011. The rational for doing so would have been to follow a teaching and motivation proposed in the prior art. Schneider_2012 discusses quantum simulations of physics using trapped ions. Schneider_2012 states in the abstract: “However, one could gain deeper insight into complex quantum dynamics by experimentally simulating the quantum behavior of interest in another quantum system, where the relevant parameters and interactions can be controlled and robust effects detected sufficiently well.” An example is “simulating the magnetic field” (page 16 section 4.2). Hu_2011 states page 1 col 2 par 4: “Consider a ring lattice with N sites threaded by a magnetic field, as illustrated schematically in Fig. 1. The Hamiltonian of the corresponding tight-binding model.” In order to use the magnetic field simulation of Schnieder_2012 for simulating a ring lattice structure of interest with a magnetic field, the user of Shnceider_2012 would be motivated to use the same Hamiltonian corresponding to the ring with magnetic field of Hu_2011 in order to simulate the quantum behavior of the other system (ring with magnetic field) using the quantum simulator of Schneider_2012.
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine the magnetism trapped ion simulation of Schneider_2012 with the Hamiltonian for ring lattice with a magnetic field for the benefit of simulating the quantum behavior of the ring lattice structure using another quantum system to gain deeper insights into complex quantum dynamics to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 8:
The apparatus of claim 7,
Schneider_2012 makes obvious wherein the device for establishing the gradient field is a magnet, and wherein the gradient field is a magnetic gradient field. (page 6 col 1 par 4: “An applied magnetic field”
… Page 7 col 1 par 2: “by applying a static magnetic field gradient along the axis of an ion chain, the transition frequency between |↓_ and |↑_ becomes site dependent due to position-dependent Zeeman shifts.”) Examiner note: Where the function of an applied magnetic field applying a field gradient along the ion chain makes obvious and implies the device for that use.
Claims 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider_2012 as evidenced by Ackland_2011, Ramm_2014, Hu_2011 and further in view of “Biochromatic slowing of metastable helium” (Chieda_2012)
Claim 3:
The method of claim 1,
Schneider_2012 makes obvious wherein Schneider_2012 states Page 19 col 2 par 4: “Using dipole forces acting on ions confined in a microtrap array (see section 6), motional couplings can be controlled such that phonons simulating charged particles experience synthetic gauge fields.” Examiner note: Where these forces themselves are interpreted as the phases.
Schneider_2012 and Ramm_2014 do not expressly recite wherein the bichromatic driving field pair
however, Schneider_2012 in light of Chieda_2012 makes obvious wherein the bichromatic driving field [generated dipole forces]
Chieda_2012 states page 1 col 1 par 2: “Continued refinement of slowing techniques in bichromatic fields by Grimm and co-workers eventually led to the observation of a much larger rectified dipole force in cesium, with a velocity range of 225 m/s [8]. This was the birth of the optical bichromatic force (BCF), which relies on a pair of counterpropagating two-color beams that, when the intensity and standing wavelength are carefully selected, will coherently drive the atom through cycles of photon absorption and stimulated emission much more rapidly than the radiative decay rate.”
Schneider_2012, Ramm_2014 and Chieda_2012 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called quantum mechanics. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schneider_2012, Ramm_2014 and Chieda_2012.
The rationale for doing so would have been to use a known technique to a known device. In the time of the invention, as shown by Schneider_2012 there has been a recognized idea, which is to use dipole forces to simulate synthetic gauge fields. Chieda_2012 in their passage demonstrates the use of biochromatic fields leading to an observation of a large dipole force. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the use of dipole forces in Schneider_2012, and Ramm_2014 with generating dipole forces via bichromatic fields of Chieda_2012 for the benefit of obtaining a large dipole force for generating a synthetic gauge field and to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 4:The method of claim 3,
Schneider_2012 makes obvious wherein the quantum simulation includes simulation of a magnetic field. (Page 13 col 1 par 4: “However, the quantum Ising Hamiltonian contains an additional (simulated) magnetic field pointing in the x-direction. We will adapt our notation in this section and split the total interaction Hamiltonian into the following terms: ˆH S denotes the term that generates the spin–spin interaction and ˆH M denotes the term leading to the simulated magnetic field.”)
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider_2012 as evidenced by Ackland_2011, Ramm_2014, Hu_2011 and further in view of “Quantum simulation of non-trivial topology” (Boada_2015)
Claim 5:The method of claim 1
Schneider_2012 makes obvious wherein there are a plurality of energy gaps (page 6 figure 4 depicts a figure with more than one energy gaps
PNG
media_image3.png
563
621
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Schneider_2012 and Ramm_2014 do not expressly recite and wherein the quantum simulation includes a simulated topology.
Boada_2015, however, makes obvious and wherein the quantum simulation includes a simulated topology. (page 1 abstract: “We propose several designs to simulate quantum many-body systems in manifolds with a non-trivial topology.” … Page 13 conclusions: “We have shown that non-trivial topologies can be simulated by a combination of two techniques.”
Schneider_2012, Ramm_2014 and Boada_2015 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called quantum mechanics. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schneider_2012, Ramm_2014 and Boada_2015 The rationale for doing so would have been to follow teachings as proposed in the art.
Schneider_2012 discusses theoretical proposals to implement topological features Page 19 col 2 par 2 states: “Several pieces have been added to the toolbox of quantum simulation, which definitely allow us to explore physics beyond conventional solid-state paradigms. For example, a theoretical proposal has been presented to implement models, whose ground states show topological features [134].” Schneider_2012 also states in the abstract: “However, one could gain deeper insight into complex quantum dynamics by experimentally simulating the quantum behavior of interest in another quantum system, where the relevant parameters and interactions can be controlled and robust effects detected sufficiently well.”
Boada_2015 introduction par 1-2 states: “The research field of quantum simulation explores, among other goals, the possibility of using well-controlled quantum systems to simulate the behavior of other quantum systems whose dynamics escapes standard theoretical or experimental approaches … On a different line of research, topological models have attracted great interest as well. Topology is a key feature to understand many physical phenomena, such as the quantum Hall and quantum spin-Hall effects [14], quantization of Dirac monopole charge [15], charge fractionalization and non-perturbative properties of vacua of Yang-Mills theories [16–19], etc.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the quantum simulation process and workflow of Schneider_2012 and Ramm_2014 with the simulation of topologies of Boada_2015 for the benefit of simulating quantum behaviors of interest and understanding key physical phenomena only understood through topological simulation to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 6:
The method of claim 5
Schneider_2012, and Ramm_2014 do not expressly recite wherein the simulated topology is selected from a group consisting of:
a ring;
a triangular spin ladder;
a 2-dimensional helix on a cylinder;
a 2-dimensional helix on a torus;
a torus with magnetic flux across a non-simply-connected cycle;
and a Mobius strip.
Boada_2015, however, makes obvious wherein the simulated topology is selected from a group consisting of:
a ring;
a triangular spin ladder;
a 2-dimensional helix on a cylinder;
a 2-dimensional helix on a torus;
a torus with magnetic flux across a non-simply-connected cycle;
and a Mobius strip.
Boada_2015 Page 13 conclusions: “We have shown that non-trivial topologies can be simulated by a combination of two techniques, namely the use of several species at every spatial degrees of freedom and the generation of couplings among these species only at the boundaries of the system. In other words, species work as an extra dimension that allows for the generation of topological transformations from localized interactions. In particular we have presented explicit proposals for the realization of the following geometries:
• a circle,
• a cylinder,
• a torus,
• a Möbius strip,
• a twisted torus.
We have discussed different possibilities of experimental realization of the proposed schemes, extending significantly the ideas of [67]. Finally, we have presented several signatures of the underlying lattice topology both on free and interacting systems. These examples involve synthetic gauge fields and synthetic dimension, including:
• a two-species open Ising chain with localized interactions among them can be converted in a double-length
single-species chain with a synthetic magnetic field.
• Hofstadter-like spectra can be obtained for a circle, a cylinder and a Möbius strip.
• Hubbard systems of moderate size can be engineered on a torus, a Klein bottle, a cylinder and a Möbius strip.”
Examiner note: Where this passage explicitly teaches a mobius strip among other options.
Schneider_2012, Ramm_2014 and Boada_2015 are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor called quantum mechanics. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Schneider_2012, Ramm_2014 and Boada_2015. The rationale for doing so would have been to follow teachings as proposed in the art.
Schneider_2012 states in the abstract: “However, one could gain deeper insight into complex quantum dynamics by experimentally simulating the quantum behavior of interest in another quantum system, where the relevant parameters and interactions can be controlled and robust effects detected sufficiently well.” Boada_2015 introduction par 1-2 states: “The research field of quantum simulation explores, among other goals, the possibility of using well-controlled quantum systems to simulate the behavior of other quantum systems whose dynamics escapes standard theoretical or experimental approaches … On a different line of research, topological models have attracted great interest as well. Topology is a key feature to understand many physical phenomena, such as the quantum Hall and quantum spin-Hall effects [14], quantization of Dirac monopole charge [15], charge fractionalization and non-perturbative properties of vacua of Yang-Mills theories [16–19], etc.”
Boada_2015 introduction par 1-2 states: “The research field of quantum simulation explores, among other goals, the possibility of using well-controlled quantum systems to simulate the behavior of other quantum systems whose dynamics escapes standard theoretical or experimental approaches … On a different line of research, topological models have attracted great interest as well. Topology is a key feature to understand many physical phenomena, such as the quantum Hall and quantum spin-Hall effects [14], quantization of Dirac monopole charge [15], charge fractionalization and non-perturbative properties of vacua of Yang-Mills theories [16–19], etc.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the quantum simulation process and workflow of Schneider_2012, Ramm_2014 with the simulation of topologies of Boada_2015 for the benefit of simulating quantum behaviors of interest such as a mobius strip and understanding physical phenomena to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMAD HUSSAM SHALABY whose telephone number is (571)272-7414. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 5712723652. 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.
/A.H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights