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 .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on August 7, 2014. Claims 1-21 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 14, and 19 are the independent claims.
This action is non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are 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 or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, the limitation “the hyperfine coupling” lacks antecedent basis. It cannot be determined whether this limitation is intended to refer to a new limitation (hyperfine coupling) or if it is intended to refer to the “hyperfine constant” which is recited in claim 1. In the interest of providing full examination on the merits, this limitation is interpreted as referring to the hyperfine constant as is previously recited in claim 1.
With respect to claim 4, the claim recites “effective hyperfine constants.” Claim 1 recites a single “hyperfine constant.” It cannot be determined whether the limitation in claim 4 is intended to refer to the previously recited hyperfine constant or multiple hyperfine constants. In addition, if the limitation refers to multiple hyperfine constants, it cannot be determined whether the single hyperfine constant recited in claim 1 is one of the multiple hyperfine constants, or if the limitation recited in claim 4 is intended to recite to multiple additional hyperfine constants which are different from the single hyperfine constant recited in claim 1. In the interest of providing full examination on the merits, this limitation is interpreted as reciting multiple hyperfine constants, where this may include the single hyperfine constant recited in claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102€, (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon C Benjamin, Daniel E Browne, Joe Fitzsimons and John J L Morton. Brokered graph-state quantum computation. New Journal of Physics, Volume 8. 23 August 2006. DOI 10.1088/1367-2630/8/8/141. (hereinafter “Benjamin”). in view of W.M. Witzel, Xuedon Hu, and S. Das Sarma. Decoherence induced by anisotropic hyperfine interaction in Si spin qubits. American Physical Society. Phys. Rev. B 76, 035212. 31 July, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.76.035212. (hereinafter “Witzel”).
With respect to claim 1, Benjamin teaches a quantum information system comprising:
a physical broker-client system comprising a client quantum system, and a broker quantum system wherein a first hyperfine interaction between the client quantum system and the broker quantum system and there exists at least a first direction in space relative to the locations of the client quantum system and broker quantum system for which an effective hyperfine constant is zero when a magnetic field is aligned with the first direction in space (e.g. page 2, second and third paragraphs, physical nanostructures representing qubits effectively each in its own dedicated apparatus; broker-client model assigning multi-level nanostructure two logical qubits, the broker and the client; brokers negotiate new graph-state fragments, and graph fragments are mapped from each broker to its client; clients role is to store nascent graph long term and remain insulated from failures during brokerage; solid state implementation using N-V centres in diamond, where brokers and clients are naturally embodied as electron and nuclear spins; page 3, Fig. 1, showing schematic of basic apparatus in which individual atoms/atom-like structures are each isolated within a separate cavity, and each system can define two qubits, i.e. the broker and the client; each cavity apparatus implementing deterministic local broker-client interactions; page 7 Fig. 3 and its caption, small magnetic field to spit states and lifts degeneracy of nuclear spin in the Ms = 0 manifold where, where the hyperfine interaction is 0; compare with paragraph 0070 of the specification of the instant application, indicating effective hyperfine constant is zero or at least small, and with paragraph 00768, indicating that the hyperfine constant is set to zero by applying the magnetic field in the direction such that hyperfine coupling is minimized, and with paragraph 0078, indicating that hyperfine coupling is effectively turned off by orienting the magnetic field in this direction such that the effective hyperfine constant is zero; i.e. as described in the specification, orienting the magnetic field in a direction that result in suppression/turning off of hyperfine coupling appears to be analogous to turning the magnetic field in a direction such that the hyperfine constant is zero);
a magnet configured to apply to the broker-client system a first magnetic field along a direction that is substantially aligned with the first direction (e.g. page 6, first full paragraph, applying magnetic field to system, such as N-V centres based system; page 7, Fig. 3, showing diagram for N-V centre in diamond, including electron and nuclear spin states; magnetic field required to split Ms states);
a controller configured to cause a change in a quantum state of the broker quantum system while the magnet is applying the first magnetic field (e.g. page 6, first full paragraph, applying magnetic field to system, such as N-V centres based system to employ Raman type transition; transitions to excited state; page 6 final paragraph through page 7, footnote 5, achieving entanglement between broker (electron) spins by suitable entangling operation, where Raman-like entangling operations requiring strong external magnetic field may be employed).
Benjamin does not explicitly disclose that the first hyperfine interaction between the client quantum system and the broker quantum system is anisotropic. However, Witzel teaches that the first hyperfine interaction between the client quantum system and the broker quantum system is anisotropic (e.g. page 1, left column, second paragraph, strong anisotrophic hyperfine (AHF) interaction in Si).
Further, assuming arguendo that Benjamin does not explicitly disclose the first direction in space relative to the locations of the client quantum system and broker quantum system for which an effective hyperfine constant is zero when a magnetic field is aligned with the first direction in space and that the magnet is configured to apply the first magnetic field along a direction that is substantially aligned with the first direction (e.g. page 2, left column, second-fourth paragraphs, Hamiltonian with term Bn containing AHF interaction and giving relevant anisotrophy; page 6, Fig. 5 and its caption, first paragraph, showing special applied magnetic field directions allowing effective removal of echo modulation contributions, where the arrows and translucent sheets indicate directions perpendicular and parallel to the applied magnetic field; sites in these directions give no anisotropic contribution (Bn = 0) because these directions are, by symmetry along the principal axes of the A tensor; thus the top site in b and the two in-plane sites in c do not contribute to ESEEM; reducing AHF-induced decoherence by carefully choosing strength and direction of applied magnetic field).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Benjamin and Witzel in front of him to have modified the teachings of Benjamin (directed to brokered graph-state quantum computation), to incorporate the teachings of Witzel (directed to decoherence induced by anisotropic hyperfine interaction in Si spin qubits) to include the capability to implement the broker-client system (of Benjamin) in an embodiment having anisotropic hyperfine interaction, and in which the effective hyperfine constant (such as a term containing anisotropic hyperfine interaction) is zero when a magnetic field is aligned and applied in a direction in space relative to the broker and client qubits (as taught by Witzel). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide a solution to the problem of nuclear spin decoherence that provides the quantum computer architect with more flexibility as described in Witzel (page 7, right column, section VII, Conclusion).
With respect to claim 2, Benjamin in view of Witzel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed, and Benjamin further teaches wherein the controller is configured to reset the quantum state of the broker quantum system while the magnet is applying the first magnetic field by applying a pulse of light to the broker-client system, the pulse of light having a wavelength corresponding to a transition of the broker quantum system to an excited state (e.g. page 3 Fig. 1 and caption, showing classical laser excitation pulse; implementing deterministic broker-client interactions by exciting level transitions; entangling broker qubits via emission of photon into path erasure optical apparatus; broker state mapped into photon via optically-allowed transition; page 6, first full paragraph, using two-photon polarization interference to implement Raman-type transitions for broker qubits which possess transition to excited state via different polarizations; page 6, final full paragraph through page 7 first paragraph, footnote 5, and Fig. 3, ground state electron which has strong dipole-allowed optical transition to a first excited spin triplet state; electron spin initialized in ground state through laser cooling, and entanglement achieved through suitable entangling operation, including Raman-like entangling operations requiring magnetic field).
With respect to claim 3, Benjamin in view of Witzel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed, and Witzel further teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the magnet to apply the first magnetic field or a third magnetic field having a direction and magnitude, wherein the hyperfine coupling between the client quantum system and the broker quantum system is greater in the presence of the third magnetic field than in the presence of the first magnetic field (e.g. page 4 Fig. 2 and its caption, describing AHF induced ESEEM in applied magnetic field in the [001] direction; page 5, Fig. 3 and its caption, showing AHF-induced ESEEM for ten different magnetic field angles ranging from [001] to [110] directions; page 6, Fig. 5 and its caption, first paragraph, showing special applied magnetic field directions allowing effective removal of echo modulation contributions, where the arrows and translucent sheets indicate directions perpendicular and parallel to the applied magnetic field; sites in these directions give no anisotropic contribution (Bn = 0) because these directions are, by symmetry along the principal axes of the A tensor; thus the top site in b and the two in-plane sites in c do not contribute to ESEEM; reducing AHF-induced decoherence by carefully choosing strength and direction of applied magnetic field; i.e. magnetic fields are applied in multiple directions, where at least one direction results in AHF induced ESEEM (i.e. has an anisotropic contribution, such that Bn > 0) and at least one direction gives no anisotropic contribution (i.e. no AHF induced ESEEM, such that Bn = 0)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Benjamin and Witzel in front of him to have modified the teachings of Benjamin (directed to brokered graph-state quantum computation), to incorporate the teachings of Witzel (directed to decoherence induced by anisotropic hyperfine interaction in Si spin qubits) to include the capability to implement the broker-client system (of Benjamin) in an embodiment having anisotropic hyperfine interaction, and in which the effective hyperfine constant (such as a term containing anisotropic hyperfine interaction) is zero when a magnetic field is aligned and applied in a direction in space relative to the broker and client qubits, and multiple magnetic field directions may be applied such that a hyperfine constant/interaction/coupling is greater in one direction (i.e. a magnetic field direction in which AHF induced ESEEM is present) than another (in which AHF ESEEM is not present) (as taught by Witzel). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide a solution to the problem of nuclear spin decoherence that provides the quantum computer architect with more flexibility as described in Witzel (page 7, right column, section VII, Conclusion).
With respect to claim 4, Benjamin in view of teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed, and further teaches wherein a strength of the hyperfine coupling for different directions of an applied magnetic field is characterized by effective hyperfine constants determined by a hyperfine tensor having the property that there exist different directions of the applied magnetic field for which the effective hyperfine constants have different signs (e.g. page 1 second column, second paragraph, describing the hyperfine tensor A; page 2, left column, second-fourth paragraphs, Hamiltonian with term Bn containing AHF interaction and giving relevant anisotrophy and term An containing contact HF and SI part of the AHF interaction; page 4 Fig. 2 and its caption, describing AHF induced ESEEM in applied magnetic field in the [001] direction; page 5, Fig. 3 and its caption, showing AHF-induced ESEEM for ten different magnetic field angles ranging from [001] to [110] directions; page 6, Fig. 5 and its caption, first paragraph, showing special applied magnetic field directions allowing effective removal of echo modulation contributions, where the arrows and translucent sheets indicate directions perpendicular and parallel to the applied magnetic field; sites in these directions give no anisotropic contribution (Bn = 0) because these directions are, by symmetry along the principal axes of the A tensor; thus the top site in b and the two in-plane sites in c do not contribute to ESEEM; reducing AHF-induced decoherence by carefully choosing strength and direction of applied magnetic field).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Benjamin and Witzel in front of him to have modified the teachings of Benjamin (directed to brokered graph-state quantum computation), to incorporate the teachings of Witzel (directed to decoherence induced by anisotropic hyperfine interaction in Si spin qubits) to include the capability to implement the broker-client system (of Benjamin) in an embodiment having anisotropic hyperfine interaction, and in which the effective hyperfine constant (such as a term containing anisotropic hyperfine interaction) is zero when a magnetic field is aligned and applied in a direction in space relative to the broker and client qubits and multiple magnetic field directions may be applied, with strength of hyperfine constants/coupling based on the different directions (as taught by Witzel). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide a solution to the problem of nuclear spin decoherence that provides the quantum computer architect with more flexibility as described in Witzel (page 7, right column, section VII, Conclusion).
With respect to claim 5, Benjamin in view of Witzel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed, and Benjamin further teaches wherein the broker-client system comprises a luminescence centre (e.g. page 3, Fig. caption, N-V centre in diamond).
With respect to claim 7, Benjamin in view of Witzel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed, and Benjamin further teaches wherein the broker quantum system and the client quantum system are respectively provided by an intrinsic spin of a first particle and an intrinsic spin of a second particle (e.g. page 2, third paragraph, brokers and clients naturally embodied as electron and nuclear spins; compare with specification of the instant application at paragraph 0014, indicating that an example of the recited intrinsic spins of first and second particles include an electron spin and a nuclear spin).
With respect to claim 8, Benjamin in view of Witzel teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 as previously discussed, and Witzel further teaches wherein the broker quantum system comprises an electron spin and the client quantum system comprises a nuclear spin (e.g. page 2, third paragraph, brokers and clients naturally embodied as electron and nuclear spins; page 3, first paragraph, electron spin qubit for the broker and nuclear spin qubit for the client).
With respect to claim 12, Benjamin in view of Witzel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed, and Witzel further teaches wherein the client quantum system is a first client quantum system and the physical broker-client system comprises a second client quantum system (e.g. page 2, second and third paragraphs, physical nanostructures representing qubits effectively each in its own dedicated apparatus; broker-client model assigning multi-level nanostructure two logical qubits, the broker and the client; brokers negotiate new graph-state fragments, and graph fragments are mapped from each broker to its client; clients role is to store nascent graph long term and remain insulated from failures during brokerage; solid state implementation using N-V centres in diamond, where brokers and clients are naturally embodied as electron and nuclear spins; page 3, Fig. 1, showing schematic of basic apparatus in which individual atoms/atom-like structures are each isolated within a separate cavity, and each system can define two qubits, i.e. the broker and the client; each cavity apparatus implementing deterministic local broker-client interactions).
Witzel further teaches wherein a second hyperfine interaction between the broker quantum system and the second client system is anisotropic and there exists at least a second direction in space relative to the locations of the second client quantum system and broker quantum system for which an effective hyperfine constant for the second hyperfine interaction is zero and the controller is configured to control the magnet to selectively apply the first magnetic field or a second magnetic field substantially aligned with the second direction (e.g. page 1, left column, second paragraph, strong anisotrophic hyperfine (AHF) interaction in Si; page 2, left column, second-fourth paragraphs, Hamiltonian with term Bn containing AHF interaction and giving relevant anisotrophy; page 6, Fig. 5 and its caption, first paragraph, showing special applied magnetic field directions allowing effective removal of echo modulation contributions, where the arrows and translucent sheets indicate directions perpendicular and parallel to the applied magnetic field; sites in these directions give no anisotropic contribution (Bn = 0) because these directions are, by symmetry along the principal axes of the A tensor; thus the top site in b and the two in-plane sites in c do not contribute to ESEEM; reducing AHF-induced decoherence by carefully choosing strength and direction of applied magnetic field; i.e. as shown in Fig. 5 there are multiple special applied magnetic field directions for which the term Bn (indicating AHF interaction) is zero, and these may be selectively applied).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Benjamin and Witzel in front of him to have modified the teachings of Benjamin (directed to brokered graph-state quantum computation), to incorporate the teachings of Witzel (directed to decoherence induced by anisotropic hyperfine interaction in Si spin qubits) to include the capability to implement the broker-client system (of Benjamin) in an embodiment having anisotropic hyperfine interaction, and in which the effective hyperfine constant (such as a term containing anisotropic hyperfine interaction) is zero when a magnetic field is aligned and applied in a direction in space relative to the broker and client qubits (as taught by Witzel). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide a solution to the problem of nuclear spin decoherence that provides the quantum computer architect with more flexibility as described in Witzel (page 7, right column, section VII, Conclusion).
With respect to claim 13, Benjamin in view of Witzel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed, and Benjamin further teaches wherein the client quantum system is a first client quantum system and the physical broker-client system comprises a second client quantum system (e.g. page 2, second and third paragraphs, physical nanostructures representing qubits effectively each in its own dedicated apparatus; broker-client model assigning multi-level nanostructure two logical qubits, the broker and the client; brokers negotiate new graph-state fragments, and graph fragments are mapped from each broker to its client; clients role is to store nascent graph long term and remain insulated from failures during brokerage; solid state implementation using N-V centres in diamond, where brokers and clients are naturally embodied as electron and nuclear spins; page 3, Fig. 1, showing schematic of basic apparatus in which individual atoms/atom-like structures are each isolated within a separate cavity, and each system can define two qubits, i.e. the broker and the client; each cavity apparatus implementing deterministic local broker-client interactions).
Witzel further teaches wherein a second hyperfine interaction between the broker quantum system and the second client system is anisotropic, wherein:
there exists a first trajectory in spherical coordinate space such that when a magnetic field is aligned with any direction on the first trajectory an effective hyperfine constant for the hyperfine interaction between the broker quantum system and the first client quantum system is zero (e.g. page 2, left column, second-fourth paragraphs, Hamiltonian with term Bn containing AHF interaction and giving relevant anisotrophy; page 6, Fig. 5 and its caption, first paragraph, showing special applied magnetic field directions allowing effective removal of echo modulation contributions, where the arrows and translucent sheets indicate directions perpendicular and parallel to the applied magnetic field; sites in these directions give no anisotropic contribution (Bn = 0) because these directions are, by symmetry along the principal axes of the A tensor; thus the top site in b and the two in-plane sites in c do not contribute to ESEEM; reducing AHF-induced decoherence by carefully choosing strength and direction of applied magnetic field);
there exists a second trajectory in spherical coordinate space such that when a magnetic field is aligned with any direction on the second trajectory an effective hyperfine constant for the second hyperfine interaction is zero (e.g. as cited above, there are multiple special applied magnetic field directions, such that there also exists a second direction/trajectory such that when the magnetic field is aligned with it, the effective hyperfine constant (i.e. value Bn indicating AHF interaction/anisotropic contribution) is zero); and
the controller is configured to cause the magnet to apply a magnetic field to the broker-client system that has a direction that is within five degrees of: a) a direction corresponding to an intersection of the first and second trajectories; or b) a direction corresponding to the centre of a line extending between the points on the first and second trajectories that correspond to the smallest angular distance between the first and second trajectories (e.g. page 1, left column, second paragraph, strong anisotrophic hyperfine (AHF) interaction in Si; page 2, left column, second-fourth paragraphs, Hamiltonian with term Bn containing AHF interaction and giving relevant anisotrophy; page 4 Fig. 2 and its caption, describing AHF induced ESEEM in applied magnetic field in the [001] direction; page 5, Fig. 3 and its caption, showing AHF-induced ESEEM for ten different magnetic field angles ranging from [001] to [110] directions; page 6, Fig. 5 and its caption, first paragraph, showing special applied magnetic field directions allowing effective removal of echo modulation contributions, where the arrows and translucent sheets indicate directions perpendicular and parallel to the applied magnetic field; sites in these directions give no anisotropic contribution (Bn = 0) because these directions are, by symmetry along the principal axes of the A tensor; thus the top site in b and the two in-plane sites in c do not contribute to ESEEM; reducing AHF-induced decoherence by carefully choosing strength and direction of applied magnetic field; i.e. as shown in Fig. 5 there are multiple special applied magnetic field directions for which the term Bn (indicating AHF interaction) is zero, and these may be selectively applied; i.e. the system is configured to apply magnetic fields in a variety of different directions, including at directions corresponding to 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 degrees (as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, where these correspond to directions having AHF-induced ESEEM) and additional directions (as shown in Fig. 5, where these correspond to directions having no anisotropic contribution), such that the system is configured to apply a magnetic field that has a direction that is within five degrees of some other possible magnetic field direction, which may correspond to an intersection of two directions, etc.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Benjamin and Witzel in front of him to have modified the teachings of Benjamin (directed to brokered graph-state quantum computation), to incorporate the teachings of Witzel (directed to decoherence induced by anisotropic hyperfine interaction in Si spin qubits) to include the capability to implement the broker-client system (of Benjamin) in an embodiment having anisotropic hyperfine interaction, and in which the effective hyperfine constant (such as a term containing anisotropic hyperfine interaction) is zero when a magnetic field is aligned and applied in a direction in space relative to the broker and client qubits, and where the system is further configured to apply the magnetic field in a wide variety of directions, including first and second directions corresponding to the effective hyperfine constant being zero and additional directions within five degrees of these directions (or their intersection) (as taught by Witzel). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide a solution to the problem of nuclear spin decoherence that provides the quantum computer architect with more flexibility as described in Witzel (page 7, right column, section VII, Conclusion).
With respect to claim 14, Benjamin teaches a method for protecting a quantum state of a client quantum system of a broker-client system comprising the client quantum system and a broker quantum system coupled by hyperfine coupling wherein the hyperfine coupling between the client quantum system and the broker quantum is characterized by a magnitude of an effective hyperfine constant that depends on an applied magnetic field relative to the locations of the client quantum system and broker quantum system (e.g. page 2, second and third paragraphs, physical nanostructures representing qubits effectively each in its own dedicated apparatus; broker-client model assigning multi-level nanostructure two logical qubits, the broker and the client; brokers negotiate new graph-state fragments, and graph fragments are mapped from each broker to its client; clients role is to store nascent graph long term and remain insulated from failures during brokerage; solid state implementation using N-V centres in diamond, where brokers and clients are naturally embodied as electron and nuclear spins; page 3, Fig. 1, showing schematic of basic apparatus in which individual atoms/atom-like structures are each isolated within a separate cavity, and each system can define two qubits, i.e. the broker and the client; each cavity apparatus implementing deterministic local broker-client interactions; page 7 Fig. 3 and its caption, small magnetic field to spit states and lifts degeneracy of nuclear spin in the Ms = 0 manifold where, where the hyperfine interaction is 0; page 8, section 5, first paragraph, electron-nuclear hyperfine interaction permitting selective transitions corresponding to operations between client and broker; i.e. the system includes both client and broker quantum systems/qubits which have hyperfine interaction/coupling, including a corresponding value/magnitude for the hyperfine interaction/constant which is based on an applied magnetic field; compare with paragraph 0070 of the specification of the instant application, indicating effective hyperfine constant is zero or at least small, and with paragraph 00768, indicating that the hyperfine constant is set to zero by applying the magnetic field in the direction such that hyperfine coupling is minimized, and with paragraph 0078, indicating that hyperfine coupling is effectively turned off by orienting the magnetic field in this direction such that the effective hyperfine constant is zero; i.e. as described in the specification, orienting the magnetic field in a direction that result in suppression/turning off of hyperfine coupling appears to be analogous to turning the magnetic field in a direction such that the hyperfine constant is zero); the method comprising:
suppressing the hyperfine interaction by applying a first magnetic field to the broker-client system that has a magnitude and orientation selected to cause the effective hyperfine constant to have a first magnitude that is less than 10% of the largest principal value magnitude of the hyperfine tensor (e.g. page 6, first full paragraph, applying magnetic field to system, such as N-V centres based system; page 7, Fig. 3, showing diagram for N-V centre in diamond, including electron and nuclear spin states; magnetic field required to split states and lift degeneracy of nuclear spin in the Ms = 0 manifold where, where the hyperfine interaction is 0; i.e. where applying a magnetic field such that hyperfine interaction is 0 is analogous to suppressing the hyperfine interaction by applying the magnetic field, and where the interaction being 0 is a magnitude that is less than 10% of any largest magnitude of the hyperfine tensor); and
while the hyperfine interaction is suppressed, altering a quantum state of the broker quantum system (e.g. page 6, first full paragraph, applying magnetic field to system, such as N-V centres based system to employ Raman type transition; transitions to excited state; page 6 final paragraph through page 7, footnote 5, achieving entanglement between broker (electron) spins by suitable entangling operation, where Raman-like entangling operations requiring strong external magnetic field may be employed).
Benjamin does not explicitly disclose wherein the hyperfine coupling between the client quantum system and the broker quantum system is anisotropic and characterized by a magnitude of an effective hyperfine constant that depends on an orientation of an applied magnetic field relative to the locations of the client quantum system and broker quantum system. However, Witzel teaches wherein the hyperfine coupling between the client quantum system and the broker quantum system is anisotropic and characterized by a magnitude of an effective hyperfine constant that depends on an orientation of an applied magnetic field relative to the locations of the client quantum system and broker quantum system (e.g. page 1, left column, second paragraph, strong anisotrophic hyperfine (AHF) interaction in Si; page 2, left column, second-fourth paragraphs, Hamiltonian with term Bn containing AHF interaction and giving relevant anisotrophy; page 6, Fig. 5 and its caption, first paragraph, showing special applied magnetic field directions allowing effective removal of echo modulation contributions, where the arrows and translucent sheets indicate directions perpendicular and parallel to the applied magnetic field; sites in these directions give no anisotropic contribution (Bn = 0) because these directions are, by symmetry along the principal axes of the A tensor; thus the top site in b and the two in-plane sites in c do not contribute to ESEEM; reducing AHF-induced decoherence by carefully choosing strength and direction of applied magnetic field).
Assuming arguendo that Benjamin does not explicitly disclose that the setting of the hyperfine interaction is suppressing the hyperfine interaction, such that the altering of the quantum state occurs while the hyperfine interaction is suppressed (e.g. page 1, right column, first paragraph, AHF interaction contributing/inducing decoherence; suppressing AHF induced decoherence).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Benjamin and Witzel in front of him to have modified the teachings of Benjamin (directed to brokered graph-state quantum computation), to incorporate the teachings of Witzel (directed to decoherence induced by anisotropic hyperfine interaction in Si spin qubits) to include the capability to implement the broker-client system (of Benjamin) in an embodiment having anisotropic hyperfine interaction, and in which the effective hyperfine constant (such as a term containing anisotropic hyperfine interaction) has a magnitude which is dependent upon the magnitude and direction of an applied a magnetic field relative to the broker and client qubits (as taught by Witzel). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide a solution to the problem of nuclear spin decoherence that provides the quantum computer architect with more flexibility as described in Witzel (page 7, right column, section VII, Conclusion).
With respect to claim 15, Benjamin in view of Witzel teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as previously discussed, and Benjamin further teaches wherein altering the quantum state of the broker quantum system comprises optically exciting the broker quantum system (e.g. page 3 Fig. 1 and caption, showing classical laser excitation pulse; implementing deterministic broker-client interactions by exciting level transitions; entangling broker qubits via emission of photon into path erasure optical apparatus; broker state mapped into photon via optically-allowed transition; page 6, first full paragraph, using two-photon polarization interference to implement Raman-type transitions for broker qubits which possess transition to excited state via different polarizations; page 6, final full paragraph through page 7 first paragraph, footnote 5, and Fig. 3, ground state electron which has strong dipole-allowed optical transition to a first excited spin triplet state).
With respect to claim 16, Benjamin in view of Witzel teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as previously discussed, and Benjamin further teaches wherein altering the quantum state of the broker quantum system comprises resetting the quantum state of the broker quantum system to a predetermined initial quantum state (e.g. page 3 Fig. 1 and caption, showing classical laser excitation pulse; implementing deterministic broker-client interactions by exciting level transitions; entangling broker qubits via emission of photon into path erasure optical apparatus; broker state mapped into photon via optically-allowed transition; page 6, first full paragraph, using two-photon polarization interference to implement Raman-type transitions for broker qubits which possess transition to excited state via different polarizations; page 6, final full paragraph through page 7 first paragraph, footnote 5, and Fig. 3, ground state electron which has strong dipole-allowed optical transition to a first excited spin triplet state; electron spin initialized in ground state through laser cooling, and entanglement achieved through suitable entangling operation, including Raman-like entangling operations requiring magnetic field).
With respect to claim 17, Benjamin in view of Witzel teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 as previously discussed, and Witzel further teaches subsequent to changing the quantum state of the broker quantum system, changing the magnetic field to a second magnetic field having a magnitude and orientation selected to cause the effective hyperfine constant to have a second magnitude that is greater than the first magnitude (e.g. page 1, left column, second paragraph, strong anisotrophic hyperfine (AHF) interaction in Si; page 2, left column, second-fourth paragraphs, Hamiltonian with term Bn containing AHF interaction and giving relevant anisotrophy; page 4 Fig. 2 and its caption, describing AHF induced ESEEM in applied magnetic field in the [001] direction; page 5, Fig. 3 and its caption, showing AHF-induced ESEEM for ten different magnetic field angles ranging from [001] to [110] directions; page 6, Fig. 5 and its caption, first paragraph, showing special applied magnetic field directions allowing effective removal of echo modulation contributions, where the arrows and translucent sheets indicate directions perpendicular and parallel to the applied magnetic field; sites in these directions give no anisotropic contribution (Bn = 0) because these directions are, by symmetry along the principal axes of the A tensor; thus the top site in b and the two in-plane sites in c do not contribute to ESEEM; reducing AHF-induced decoherence by carefully choosing strength and direction of applied magnetic field ; i.e. as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 the system is configured to apply magnetic fields in a variety of different directions, including at directions corresponding to 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 degrees (as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, where these correspond to directions having AHF-induced ESEEM) and additional directions (as shown in Fig. 5, where these correspond to directions having no anisotropic contribution), such that the system is configured to apply a magnetic field that has a magnitude and orientation in which the effective hyperfine constant is zero (Bn = 0, indicating no anisotropic contribution) and a magnetic field having a different orientation in which the hyperfine constant is greater than 0 (i.e. as indicated by the presences of AHF ESEEM for those orientations)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Benjamin and Witzel in front of him to have modified the teachings of Benjamin (directed to brokered graph-state quantum computation), to incorporate the teachings of Witzel (directed to decoherence induced by anisotropic hyperfine interaction in Si spin qubits) to include the capability to implement the broker-client system (of Benjamin) in an embodiment having anisotropic hyperfine interaction, and in which the effective hyperfine constant (such as a term containing anisotropic hyperfine interaction) has a magnitude which is dependent upon the magnitude and direction of an applied a magnetic field relative to the broker and client qubits, including at least one magnetic field direction in which the hyperfine constant is zero (such that there is zero contribution to AHF induced decoherence), and at least one magnetic field direction in which the hyperfine constant is nonzero/greater than zero (such that there is contribution to AFH induced decoherence) (as taught by Witzel). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide a solution to the problem of nuclear spin decoherence that provides the quantum computer architect with more flexibility as described in Witzel (page 7, right column, section VII, Conclusion).
With respect to claim 18, Benjamin in view of Witzel teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 as previously discussed, and Witzel further teaches wherein the first magnitude of the effective hyperfine constant is not more than 10% of the second magnitude of the effective hyperfine constant (e.g. page 4 Fig. 2 and its caption, describing AHF induced ESEEM in applied magnetic field in the [001] direction; page 5, Fig. 3 and its caption, showing AHF-induced ESEEM for ten different magnetic field angles ranging from [001] to [110] directions; page 6, Fig. 5 and its caption, first paragraph, showing special applied magnetic field directions allowing effective removal of echo modulation contributions, where the arrows and translucent sheets indicate directions perpendicular and parallel to the applied magnetic field; sites in these directions give no anisotropic contribution (Bn = 0) because these directions are, by symmetry along the principal axes of the A tensor; thus the top site in b and the two in-plane sites in c do not contribute to ESEEM; i.e. where the magnitude of the term Bn = 0 (i.e. zero, indicating no contribution to AHF induced ESEEM) is not more than 10% of any magnitude corresponding to a magnetic field direction in which AHF induced ESEEM is present).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Benjamin and Witzel in front of him to have modified the teachings of Benjamin (directed to brokered graph-state quantum computation), to incorporate the teachings of Witzel (directed to decoherence induced by anisotropic hyperfine interaction in Si spin qubits) to include the capability to implement the broker-client system (of Benjamin) in an embodiment having anisotropic hyperfine interaction, and in which the effective hyperfine constant (such as a term containing anisotropic hyperfine interaction) has a magnitude which is dependent upon the magnitude and direction of an applied a magnetic field relative to the broker and client qubits, including at least one magnetic field direction in which the hyperfine constant is zero (such that there is zero contribution to AHF induced decoherence), and at least one magnetic field direction in which the hyperfine constant is nonzero/greater than zero (such that there is contribution to AFH induced decoherence), where the zero magnitude is less than 10% of any magnitude corresponding to a magnetic field direction having AFH-induced decoherence (as taught by Witzel). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide a solution to the problem of nuclear spin decoherence that provides the quantum computer architect with more flexibility as described in Witzel (page 7, right column, section VII, Conclusion).
With respect to claim 19, Benjamin teaches a method for maintaining fidelity of a quantum state of a client quantum system, the method comprising:
providing a node comprising a client quantum system and a broker quantum system and characterized by a local interaction between the client quantum system and the broker quantum system, the local interaction having a value that depends on an applied magnetic field relative to the locations of the client quantum system and broker quantum system, where a value of zero indicates a minimum interaction strength (e.g. page 2, second and third paragraphs, physical nanostructures representing qubits effectively each in its own dedicated apparatus; broker-client model assigning multi-level nanostructure two logical qubits, the broker and the client; brokers negotiate new graph-state fragments, and graph fragments are mapped from each broker to its client; clients role is to store nascent graph long term and remain insulated from failures during brokerage; solid state implementation using N-V centres in diamond, where brokers and clients are naturally embodied as electron and nuclear spins; page 3, Fig. 1, showing schematic of basic apparatus in which individual atoms/atom-like structures are each isolated within a separate cavity, and each system can define two qubits, i.e. the broker and the client; each cavity apparatus implementing deterministic local broker-client interactions; page 7 Fig. 3 and its caption, small magnetic field to spit states and lifts degeneracy of nuclear spin in the Ms = 0 manifold where, where the hyperfine interaction is 0; page 8, section 5, first paragraph, electron-nuclear hyperfine interaction permitting selective transitions corresponding to operations between client and broker; i.e. the system includes both client and broker quantum systems/qubits which have hyperfine interaction/coupling, including a corresponding value/magnitude for the hyperfine interaction/constant which is based on an applied magnetic field; compare with paragraph 0025 of the specification of the instant application, indicating that the local interaction may be a hyperfine interaction), and;
suppressing the local interaction between the client quantum system and the broker quantum system by applying a magnetic field having a magnitude and direction (e.g. page 6, first full paragraph, applying magnetic field to system, such as N-V centres based system; page 7, Fig. 3, showing diagram for N-V centre in diamond, including electron and nuclear spin states; magnetic field required to split states and lift degeneracy of nuclear spin in the Ms = 0 manifold where, where the hyperfine interaction is 0; i.e. where applying a magnetic field such that hyperfine interaction is 0 is analogous to suppressing the hyperfine interaction by applying the magnetic field, and where the interaction being 0 is a magnitude that is less than 10% of any largest magnitude of the hyperfine tensor).
Benjamin does not explicitly disclose
anisotropic local interaction between the client quantum system and the broker quantum system, the anisotropic local interaction having a value that depends on an orientation of an applied magnetic field and ranges from a minimum value to a maximum value, where a value of zero indicates a minimum interaction strength
a magnetic field having a magnitude and direction selected to cause the strength of the local interaction to be 0 ± 10% of the difference between the minimum value and the maximum value.
However, Witzel teaches
anisotropic local interaction between the client quantum system and the broker quantum system, the anisotropic local interaction having a value that depends on an orientation of an applied magnetic field and ranges from a minimum value to a maximum value, where a value of zero indicates a minimum interaction strength (e.g. page 1, left column, second paragraph, strong anisotrophic hyperfine (AHF) interaction in Si; page 2, left column, second-fourth paragraphs, Hamiltonian with term Bn containing AHF interaction and giving relevant anisotrophy; page 6, Fig. 5 and its caption, first paragraph, showing special applied magnetic field directions allowing effective removal of echo modulation contributions, where the arrows and translucent sheets indicate directions perpendicular and parallel to the applied magnetic field; sites in these directions give no anisotropic contribution (Bn = 0) because these directions are, by symmetry along the principal axes of the A tensor; thus the top site in b and the two in-plane sites in c do not contribute to ESEEM; reducing AHF-induced decoherence by carefully choosing strength and direction of applied magnetic field);
a magnetic field having a magnitude and direction selected to cause the strength of the local interaction to be 0 ± 10% of the difference between the minimum value and the maximum value ( e.g. page 6, Fig. 5 and its caption, first paragraph, showing special applied magnetic field directions allowing effective removal of echo modulation contributions, where the arrows and translucent sheets indicate directions perpendicular and parallel to the applied magnetic field; sites in these directions give no anisotropic contribution (Bn = 0); i.e. the magnetic field in the special direction causes the strength of the local interaction to be 0, which is within the range 0 ± 10% of the difference between the minimum value and the maximum value).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Benjamin and Witzel in front of him to have modified the teachings of Benjamin (directed to brokered graph-state quantum computation), to incorporate the teachings of Witzel (directed to decoherence induced by anisotropic hyperfine interaction in Si spin qubits) to include the capability to implement the broker-client system (of Benjamin) in an embodiment having anisotropic hyperfine interaction, and in which the effective hyperfine constant (such as a term containing anisotropic hyperfine interaction) has a magnitude which is dependent upon the magnitude and direction of an applied a magnetic field relative to the broker and client qubits, and causes the strength of the anisotropic hyperfine interaction (local interaction) to be 0, and therefore within the range 0 ± 10% of the difference between the minimum value and the maximum value of the local interaction (as taught by Witzel). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide a solution to the problem of nuclear spin decoherence that provides the quantum computer architect with more flexibility as described in Witzel (page 7, right column, section VII, Conclusion).
With respect to claim 20, Benjamin in view of Witzel teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 as previously discussed, and Benjamin further teaches while suppressing the local interaction between the client quantum system and the broker quantum system, resetting the broker quantum system and/or executing a protocol to entangle the broker quantum system with another quantum system (e.g. page 3 Fig. 1 and caption, showing classical laser excitation pulse; implementing deterministic broker-client interactions by exciting level transitions; entangling broker qubits via emission of photon into path erasure optical apparatus; broker state mapped into photon via optically-allowed transition; page 6, first full paragraph, using two-photon polarization interference to implement Raman-type transitions for broker qubits which possess transition to excited state via different polarizations; page 6, final full paragraph through page 7 first paragraph, footnote 5, and Fig. 3, ground state electron which has strong dipole-allowed optical transition to a first excited spin triplet state; electron spin initialized in ground state through laser cooling, and entanglement achieved through suitable entangling operation, including Raman-like entangling operations requiring magnetic field).
Claims 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benjamin in view of Witzel, further in view of Simmons et al. (US 20210142203 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Benjamin in view of Witzel teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as previously discussed. Benjamin and Witzel do not explicitly disclose and further teaches wherein the luminescence centre comprises a T-centre. However, Simmons teaches wherein the luminescence centre comprises a T-centre (e.g. paragraph 0065, indicating that a T-centre is an example of a luminescence centre).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Benjamin, Witzel, and Simmons in front of him to have modified the teachings of Benjamin (directed to brokered graph-state quantum computation) and Witzel (directed to decoherence induced by anisotropic hyperfine interaction in Si spin qubits), to incorporate the teachings of Simmons (directed to using luminescent local defects/centres to implement qubit operations) to include the capability to implement the broker-client system (of Benjamin) in an embodiment having a luminescence centre which is a T-centre (as taught by Simmons). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide quantum information processing systems having well-defined qubits, reliable state preparation, low decoherence rates, accurate quantum gate operations, multi-qubit operations, and quantum measurements as described in Simmons (paragraph 0026).
With respect to claim 9, Benjamin in view of Witzel teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed. Benjamin and Witzel do not explicitly disclose wherein the broker-client system is in or on a substrate and the system comprises a photonic layer on the substrate wherein the broker quantum system is optically coupled to an optical resonator and/or an optical waveguide of the photonic layer. However, Simmons teaches wherein the broker-client system is in or on a substrate and the system comprises a photonic layer on the substrate wherein the broker quantum system is optically coupled to an optical resonator and/or an optical waveguide of the photonic layer (e.g. paragraph 0056, semiconductor device includes substrate of semiconductor material; paragraph 0059, semiconductor material is an epilayer of isotopically purified silicon, grown on top of natural silicon included in or overlying a silicon wafer; paragraphs 0094-0095, photonic crystals defined in semiconductor material; paragraphs 0099-0100, body of semiconductor material including defect implanted therein, with first optical structure being a resonator proximate to the defect and second optical structure being a waveguide; defect coupled to first or second optical structure).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Benjamin, Witzel, and Simmons in front of him to have modified the teachings of Benjamin (directed to brokered graph-state quantum computation) and Witzel (directed to decoherence induced by anisotropic hyperfine interaction in Si spin qubits), to incorporate the teachings of Simmons (directed to using luminescent local defects/centres to implement qubit operations) to include the capability to implement the broker-client system (of Benjamin) in an embodiment in which the broker-client system (of Benjamin) is in or on a substrate (such as of semiconductor material) and the system comprises a photonic layer on the substrate (such as photonic crystals) wherein the broker quantum system is optically coupled to an optical resonator and/or an optical waveguide of the photonic layer (such as the defect implementing the qubits of the system being coupled to a resonator and/or waveguide, as taught by Simmons). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide quantum information processing systems having well-defined qubits, reliable state preparation, low decoherence rates, accurate quantum gate operations, multi-qubit operations, and quantum measurements as described in Simmons (paragraph 0026).
With respect to claim 10, Benjamin in view of Witzel, further in view of Simmons teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 as previously discussed, and further teaches wherein the optical resonator is tuned to a frequency corresponding to a transition from one of a plurality of ground state energy levels of the broker quantum system to an excited state of the broker quantum system (e.g. paragraph 0049, resonator supports one or more photonic modes, and frequency shift for the photonic modes can be detected; paragraph 0099, defect coupled to first optical structure which is a resonator; state of defect read out by interaction including the defect, second optical structure, and the first optical structure/resonator; paragraphs 0104-0105, energy levels for defect include ground level and excited level; distinguishing between presence/absence of photons in optical resonator; readout of the state of the optical resonator; paragraph 0108, driving state of defect between ground state and excited state; paragraph 0110, luminescence occurs when carrier moves from one of excited state levels to ground state level; paragraph 0114, using optical input device to excite defect into computational state).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Benjamin, Witzel, and Simmons in front of him to have modified the teachings of Benjamin (directed to brokered graph-state quantum computation) and Witzel (directed to decoherence induced by anisotropic hyperfine interaction in Si spin qubits), to incorporate the teachings of Simmons (directed to using luminescent local defects/centres to implement qubit operations) to include the capability to implement the broker-client system (of Benjamin) such that the optical resonator is configured/tuned to support multiple modes and corresponding frequencies/frequency shift, where this is indicative of a transition of the defect/qubit between a ground state and an excited state (as taught by Simmons). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide quantum information processing systems having well-defined qubits, reliable state preparation, low decoherence rates, accurate quantum gate operations, multi-qubit operations, and quantum measurements as described in Simmons (paragraph 0026).
With respect to claim 11, Benjamin in view of Witzel further in view of Simmons teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 as previously discussed, and Simmons further teaches wherein the excited state of the broker quantum system comprises an exciton (e.g. paragraph 0065, luminescent excited states are excitonic).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Benjamin, Witzel, and Simmons in front of him to have modified the teachings of Benjamin (directed to brokered graph-state quantum computation) and Witzel (directed to decoherence induced by anisotropic hyperfine interaction in Si spin qubits), to incorporate the teachings of Simmons (directed to using luminescent local defects/centres to implement qubit operations) to include the capability to implement the broker-client system (of Benjamin) such that the excited state comprises an exciton/is excitonic (as taught by Simmons). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to provide quantum information processing systems having well-defined qubits, reliable state preparation, low decoherence rates, accurate quantum gate operations, multi-qubit operations, and quantum measurements as described in Simmons (paragraph 0026).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benjamin in view of Witzel, further in view of Moritz Fuchs, Valentin Rychkov, and Bjorn Trauzettel. Spin decoherence in graphene quantum dots due to hyperfine interaction. American Physical Society. Phys. Rev. B 86, 085301. 1 August, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.86.085301. (hereinafter “Fuchs”).
With respect to claim 21, Benjamin in view of Witzel teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 as previously discussed. Benjamin and Witzel do not explicitly disclose wherein the maximum value is greater than zero and the minimum value is less than zero. However, Fuchs teaches wherein the maximum value is greater than zero and the minimum value is less than zero (e.g. page 2, second column, table 1, showing that the values of the anisotropy constant depend on orientation of external magnetic field, and respectively include values both greater than and less than zero; see also page 3, left column, first paragraph, anisotrophy coupling constants; wide range of values/possible anisotropies, including both positive and negative values).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Benjamin, Witzel, and Fuchs in front of him to have modified the teachings of Benjamin (directed to brokered graph-state quantum computation) and Witzel (directed to decoherence induced by anisotropic hyperfine interaction in Si spin qubits), to incorporate the teachings of Fuchs (directed to spin decoherence in graphene quantum dots due to hyperfine interaction) to include the capability to implement the broker-client system (of Benjamin) the maximum and minimum values for the anisotrophic local interaction value are respectively greater than zero and less than zero (as taught by Simmons). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform such a modification in order to make the design of qubits less challenging as described in Fuchs (page 13, right column, final full paragraph).
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain,” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting in re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (GCPA 1968)). Further, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co, v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F,3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir, 2005): Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY L STANLEY whose telephone number is (469)295-9105. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abdullah Al Kawsar, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-3169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JEREMY L STANLEY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127