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 .
Drawings
The drawing objections of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The independent claims have been amended to recite, “interaction between the photon and the at least one quantum system deterministically produces a state-dependent phase shift of the photon.” The original disclosure only describes this function as the interaction between photons and trapped atoms. However, the new limitation associates this function with any of the disclosed quantum systems, which include quantum dots, nitrogen vacancy centers, etc. As such, the amended claim present new matter by associating a function that is only disclosed for atoms with other qubits. Since the claims include new matter, they are rejected for failing the written description requirement.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 11 recites, “wherein the photon sequentially enters and exits the quantum computing units and half-wave plates to implement a deterministic multi-unit quantum gate.” The original disclosure does not appear to describe the above limitation. As such, the limitation is new matter, and the claim is rejected for failing the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites, “the cooperativity parameter is greater than a first threshold sufficient to enable deterministic photon reflection without loss.” First, it is unclear whether “a first threshold” of claim 5 is different than “a first threshold” of claim 1. Second, “sufficient to enable deterministic photon reflection without loss” is a term of degree. Terms of degree will fail for indefiniteness unless they “provide objective boundaries for those of skill in the art” when read in light of the specification and the prosecution history. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 59 (2015). The applicant has not provided a standard by which one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably determine whether a threshold of a cooperativity parameter is sufficient to enable deterministic photon reflection without loss. Rather, the speciation notes that ““deterministic configuration” herein means a configuration that can give a probability of 100% under ideal conditions (conditions in which an experimental loss can be ignored).” Instant PgPub para 53. That is to say that the “deterministic photon reflection without loss” is not an empirical measurement, but rather one imagined under ideal conditions. Since, different practitioners would have their own ideal conditions, and the applicant has not provided a standard for determining ideal conditions, one of ordinary skill is left without any objective boundaries for determining whether a threshold meets the above noted limitation. Accordingly, the limitation at issue makes the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Claim 6 recites, “the resonator;” however, this phrase has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims. As such, the claim is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites, “wherein the photon sequentially enters and exits the quantum computing units and half-wave plates to implement a deterministic multi-unit quantum gate.” It is unclear if the recitation of “the photon” refers to “a photon” propagating through the fiber of claim 9 or “a photon to enter an optical circuit” of claim 11. As such, the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis and the claim is rejected as indefinite.
The above noted indefinite claims are interpreted as best understood in light of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sayrin, Clément, et al. "Storage of fiber-guided light in a nanofiber-trapped ensemble of cold atoms." Optica 2.4 (2015): 353-356 [hereinafter Sayrin].
Regarding Claim 1:
Sayrin discloses a quantum computing unit for quantum computing (abstract), comprising:
an optical nanofiber optically connected, via a tapered portion, to an optical fiber through which a photon entering thereto is propagated (as shown in Fig. 1 below); and
a plurality of quantum systems arranged outside the optical nanofiber and arrayed at intervals along a longitudinal direction of the optical nanofiber (the trapped atoms in Fig. 1 below are quantum systems),
at least any one of the plurality of quantum systems functioning as a qubit interacting with a state of the photon (the atoms inherently act as qubit via their interaction with trapping photons and probe photons used to reach different Zeeman sublevels),
wherein interaction between the photon and the at least one quantum system deterministically produces a state-dependent phase shift of the photon (the interaction of a photon with a trapped ground state atom inherently results in a state-dependent phase shift of the photon, and is deterministic per the instant specification’s special definition of deterministic, i.e., ““deterministic configuration” herein means a configuration that can give a probability of 100% under ideal conditions (conditions in which an experimental loss can be ignored).”) to implement a quantum gate operation (the abstract specifies that the cold atoms are used for quantum information networks, which are definitionally networks that implement quantum gate operations),
the quantum computing unit having a cooperativity parameter that is higher than a first threshold (the scheme of Fig. 1 has a cooperativity parameter that is larger than an arbitrary threshold).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5:
Sayrin discloses the quantum computing unit as set forth in claim 1, wherein:
each of the plurality of quantum systems functions as a qubit interacting with a state of the photon. All of the cesium atoms in Fig. 1 act as qubits, since all of the atoms inherently act as qubit via their interaction with trapping photons and probe photons used to reach different Zeeman sublevels), wherein the cooperativity parameter is greater than a first threshold sufficient to enable deterministic photon reflection without loss (since the atoms are in a ground state, this the above noted threshold is met).
Regarding Claim 6:
Sayrin discloses the quantum computing unit as set forth in claim 1, wherein:
among the plurality of quantum systems, a quantum system selected by light-shift light functions as a qubit interacting with a state of the photon (The quantum systems, i.e., atoms, are selected by probe light. Pg 354, 2nd and 3rd paragraph. Such a probe is the claimed “light-shift light functions.” That said, the detuned photons used elsewhere in the scheme also reads on the claimed “light-shift light functions.”),
wherein light-shift light selectively enables coupling of selected quantum systems to the resonator to perform a multi-qubit gate (this limitation is an intended use of the system, as is evident since neither a light-shift light nor a resonator are part of the claimed system. The trap of Sayrin is inherently capable of such interaction since it is physical identical to the claimed trap.).
Regarding Claim 7:
Sayrin discloses the quantum computing unit as set forth in claim 1, wherein:
the plurality of quantum systems are arranged in a single row along the longitudinal direction of the optical nanofiber. As shown in Fig. 1(a) and described in last paragraph on page 353.
Regarding Claim 8:
Sayrin discloses the quantum computing unit as set forth in claim 1, wherein:
the plurality of quantum systems include atoms. Fig. 1 teaches atoms.
Regarding Claim 18:
Sayrin discloses a quantum computing method involving use of a quantum computing unit that includes
(a) an optical nanofiber optically connected to an optical fiber via a tapered portion (as shown in Fig. 1 above) and
(b) a plurality of quantum systems arranged outside the optical nanofiber and arrayed at intervals along a longitudinal direction of the optical nanofiber (the trapped atoms in Fig. 1 below are quantum systems),
the quantum computing method comprising the steps of:
emitting light-shift light to at least any one of the plurality of quantum systems (as shown in Fig. 1 above); and
causing a photon to enter the optical fiber (as shown in Fig. 1 above),
the quantum computing unit having a cooperativity parameter that is higher than a first threshold (the scheme of Fig. 1 has a cooperativity parameter that is larger than an arbitrary threshold),
wherein at least any one of the plurality of quantum systems functioning as a qubit interacting with a state of the photon (the atoms inherently act as qubit via their interaction with trapping photons and probe photons used to reach different Zeeman sublevels), and
interaction between the photon and the at least one quantum system deterministically produces a state-dependent phase shift of the photon (the interaction of a photon with a trapped ground state atom inherently results in a state-dependent phase shift of the photon, and is deterministic per the instant specification’s special definition of deterministic, i.e., ““deterministic configuration” herein means a configuration that can give a probability of 100% under ideal conditions (conditions in which an experimental loss can be ignored).”) to implement a quantum gate operation (the abstract specifies that the cold atoms are used for quantum information networks, which are definitionally networks that implement quantum gate operations),
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayrin in view WO 2011/028094 A1 [Faisal]
Regarding Claim 9:
Sayrin discloses a quantum computing device (abstract), comprising:
one or more quantum computing units optically connected to each other, the one or more quantum computing units being configured to carry out distributed quantum computing (Fig. 1 shows one quantum computing unit),
each of the quantum computing units including an optical nanofiber optically connected, via a tapered portion, to an optical fiber through which a photon entering thereto is propagated (as shown in Fig. 1 above); and
a plurality of quantum systems arranged outside the optical nanofiber and arrayed at intervals along a longitudinal direction of the optical nanofiber (the trapped atoms in Fig. 1 below are quantum systems),
at least any one of the plurality of quantum systems functioning as a qubit interacting with a state of the photon (the atoms inherently act as qubit via their interaction with trapping photons and probe photons used to reach different Zeeman sublevels),
wherein interaction between the photon and the at least one quantum system deterministically produces a state-dependent phase shift of the photon (the interaction of a photon with a trapped ground state atom inherently results in a state-dependent phase shift of the photon, and is deterministic per the instant specification’s special definition of deterministic, i.e., ““deterministic configuration” herein means a configuration that can give a probability of 100% under ideal conditions (conditions in which an experimental loss can be ignored).”) to implement a quantum gate operation (the abstract specifies that the cold atoms are used for quantum information networks, which are definitionally networks that implement quantum gate operations),
each of the one or more quantum computing units having a cooperativity parameter that is higher than a first threshold (the scheme of Fig. 1 has a cooperativity parameter that is larger than an arbitrary threshold).
However, Sayrin fails to teach a plurality of quantum computing units optically connected to each other.
Faisal describes atoms trapped on tapered fibers (2:8-26) and teaches coupling trapped atoms on multiple waveguides (Fig. 2) by placing them close enough to each other to facilitate energy interchange therebetween (6:5-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art before the effective time of filing to implement the multiple trap arrangement and optical coupling of Faisal by using the tapered fiber traps of Sayrin and providing optical coupling therebetween, since this would allow for coupling of atoms between traps for quantum information processing (Faisal 2:21-26).
Response to Arguments
The drawing objections of record are withdrawn.
The indefiniteness rejections of claims 9 and 11 presented in the previous action are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that Sayrin fails to anticipate the claims because it fails to teach deterministic photon reflection involving state-dependent phase shifts, or qubit gate operations. This is not persuasive. The instant application describes such deterministic photon reflection involving state-dependent phase shifts as the reflection produced by trapped ground state atoms. Sayrin has the same atoms in the same ground state in the same trap. As such, irrespective of whether Sayrin describes such functionality, it inherently possesses it. As to the claimed gate operation, the claims do not require a particular gate operation or a location of such a gate operation. Sayrin’s abstract provides an extremely broad teaching of using the trapped atoms as part of a quantum information processing network is sufficient to meet the limitation. A quantum information processing network implements quantum gates, thus the “quantum” in its name. As such, the atoms and photon of Sayrin are part of the system, and the interactions therein implement a quantum gate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0116623 A1 speaks to various related qubit schemes and interactions therebetween.
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 WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights