DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15 and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Rejections under 35 USC § 112(b)
The remarks have been found persuasive. The amendments to claims 1-2 have clarified the indefiniteness issues.
Rejections under 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
The remarks take the position that Chen’s first round and second round cannot be interpreted as an incremental, measurement based calibration technique. In particular, the remarks suggest that Chen appears to use the same pre-assigned ion mode mapping for its “first round” and “second round”, and while certain modes appear twice to improve cooling of higher heating modes, this is a pre-designed heuristic choice not a result of analysis pulse measurements iteratively determining new optimal parameters.
This has not been found persuasive. Specifically, the claim does not require any pulse measurements to iteratively determine new different optimal parameters. Instead, the claim requires an analysis pulse and an iterative process. In Chen, the first round is measured as evidenced by figure 1, caption which recites “measurements”, thus reasonably understood to be an analysis pulse.
Moreover, it is noted that the claim does not actually require the optimal detuning frequency and optimal SBC pulse duration to be any different from in the additional analysis pulse from that of the initial one. Therefore, the claim does not require any change to the SBC pulse frequency or pulse duration. That is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim the pulse frequency and duration of the first analysis may be the same, provided the result of maximizing a qubit state from an |0> to |1> is achieved.
However it is agreed that Chen does not teach the amended subject matter. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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.
Claims 1 and 17 fail to meet the written description requirement for “using a reduction in qubit flip probability observed in the at least one additional analysis pulse as an indicator of phonon temperature reduction to determine a termination point of the SBC cooling routine.
Specifically, the instant disclosure suggests that a computer 300 includes a processor 310 for “carrying out processing functions associated with one or more of the features described herein” ([0035]). Therefore, this limitation is interpreted as a computer implemented functional limitation in claim 1 and necessarily in claim 17, which requires the use to be performed by a controller.
Paragraph [0047] of the instant disclosure recites:
“the technique further involves additionally using the degree of qubit flip in detuning and duration analysis pulses as an indicator of the reduction of phonon temperature, where the lower qubit flip indicates a lower phonon temperature achieved. Based on this, it is possible to decide or determine the length of the SBC pulse sequence, thereby minimizing overall time, keeping it only as long as necessary for achieving an acceptable low temperature.”
Specifically, the instant disclosure and claim makes a determination of the length of the SBC pulse sequence based on the degree of qubit flip in detuning and duration analysis pulses.
However, the specification is notably silent with respect to how the determination is made because there is no discussion with respect to at what degree of qubit flip determines that the pulse sequence should stop. The specification continues at paragraph [0070] by reciting:
“One of the aspects to optimize is the number of batches to be performed, or in other words, how many batches to perform before stopping. The side-band cooling may not need to be kept going for a long time as there may be intrinsic heating rates that excite phonons and longer cooling may result in diminishing returns”
Here, the specification suggests again determining the number of batches should be optimized to avoid diminishing returns. Again, the specification is silent with respect to how that determination is made. That is, at what point is it determined that a reduction in qubit probability is considered a condition to stop. There is no disclosure of any procedure that suggests what is considered a lower qubit flip degree to indicate that termination of the sequence should be made.
Paragraph [0071] further recites:
“For determining the batch size, it is important to recall that the analysis pulse is used to look at the detuning scan response and the duration scan response to see where the qubit flip probability maximizes, which in turn is an indirect measurement of the temperature of the trapped ion chain. As this is done repeatedly, the scans start to show a lower value of the qubit flip probability maximum, which indicates that the side-band cooling has cool the chain a lot and it is probably a good point to stop. This can be used as an indicator of the optimized length of the side-band cooling pulse sequence, and thus the number of batches to use”
That is, the specification appears to suggest that the qubit flip probability maximizes and as the pulse is done repeatedly the scans start to show a lower value of qubit flip probability maximum and it is probably a good point to stop. This discussion raises the question as to when the determination to terminate should be made. Specifically, at what “termination point” as required by the claim should the SBC cooling routine be stopped.
The specification is silent with respect to what is considered a lower value, is it significantly lower (i.e. a 50% of the max. probability) or slightly lower (99% probability). Because there is no standard to determine what is considered “a reduction in qubit flip probability”, the instant specification fails to provide sufficient disclosure that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2161.01 (I) recites:
“Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed”
Here, the instant specification reiterates the claim language, but fails to disclose how the termination point is determined based on a reduction in qubit flip probability because the specification is silent as to what degree of a reduction in qubit flip probability is necessary to determine the termination point. At best the specification suggests avoiding diminishing returns by running the sequence too long ([0070]) and that when “a lower value of qubit flip probability maximum” occurs it is “probably a good point to stop”. However, the specification does not specifically suggest when the termination point determination is made because there is no standard as to what would be considered enough of a reduction in qubit flip probability to judge the sequence should stop.
Additionally, it is noted that the determination as disclosed in paragraph [0071] is based on “For determining the batch size, it is important to recall that the analysis pulse is used to look at the detuning scan response and the duration scan response to see where the qubit flip probability maximizes…the scans start to show a lower value of the qubit flip probability maximum, which indicates that the side-band cooling has cool the chain a lot and it is probably a good point to stop”
That is, the determination of maximum probability of flip (or the claimed reduction therefrom) is based on the detuning scan response (figure 6a and paragraph [0043]). However, as discussed in the Final Rejection (11 August 2025, pages 2-3) and the Interview summary (10 October 2025), there is no disclosure as to how the detuning index is determined. Therefore, there is no disclosure as to how to determine the optimal set of detuning assignments to determine the maximum probability of flip necessary to make the determination as to whether the probability of flip has reduced as required by claim 1. Moreover, in order to actually determine the optimal detuning or duration, in order to determine any maximum probability of flip or reduction thereof as required by claims 1 and 17, there must be some device to actually measure or image the scan. However, as discussed in detail the interview summary of 10 October 2025, the specification is notably silent as to how this is achieved. It is noted here, that the remarks of 11 December 2025 attempt to fill in the deficiencies of the specification and suggest these features are known to the art. However, this is not just a question of measuring the scan, but taking data to generate graphs as seen in figures 6a-6b and determine optical conditions. These optimal parameters are required in order to determine any reduction in probability of flip.
MPEP 2161.01(I) recites:
“It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ”
Here, the entire basis of determining a reduction of probability of flip is based on the ability to actually determine the maximum probability of flip by detuning scan ([0043] and 6a) and duration scan ([0044] and 6b). However, the specification is devoid of any means to 1) measure the scans and 2) determine a SBC detuning index. As expressly recited in claim 17, these steps are all performed by a controller (i.e. a computer), however the specification is notably silent with respect to how the inventor intends to achieve the measurement of the detuning/duration scans and detuning index such that an optimal detuning/duration may be determined allowing for a “reduction in qubit flip probability” to be determined. This is in addition to the fact that the specification is silent with what degree is considered a reduction in qubit flip probability as discussed in detail above is evidence that the claims fail to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention as required by 35 USC § 112(a).
Lastly, claims 1 and 17 lack written description for “a reduction in the quibit probability observed in the at least one additional analysis pulse”.
Specifically, the specification is devoid of any means of observing a reduction in in qubit probability in the at least one additional analysis pulse. At best, there is reference to the detuning and duration scans (figs. 6a and 6b), however (even assuming the specification has support for the generation of the graphs of figures 6a and 6b) in order for an observation of a reduction ([0071]), there must be some means to observe a reduction in peak (i.e. some comparison of values or values to a threshold). The specification is devoid of any means of observing such a reduction as required by claims 1 and 17. Therefore, the observation required by claims 1 and 17 also fail to meet the written description requirement.
All dependent claims fail to meet the written description requirement by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claims.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15 and 17-20 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.
The term “a reduction in qubit flip probability” in claims 1 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a reduction in qubit flip probability” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, as discussed above, paragraph [0047], [0070] and [0071] describes the a lower qubit flip probability as an indicator for “a termination point of the SBC cooling routine” as claimed, however there is no standard to determine at what degree of reduction in qubit flip probability is considered to determine the termination of the SBC cooling routine. Specifically, paragraph [0071] recites that “ As this is done repeatedly, the scans start to show a lower value of the qubit flip probability maximum, which indicates that the side-band cooling has cool the chain a lot and it is probably a good point to stop”. Probably is not a definitive point to stop. Claims 1 and 17 require “a reduction in qubit flip probability… to determine a termination point of the SBC cooling routine”. Since the claims require a termination point is determined based on “a reduction in qubit flip probability”, the suggestion of probably does not render the determination of a point clear as the boundaries of when to stop cannot be ascertained.
Moreover, paragraph [0070] suggests that the SBC may need to be kept only as it is “desirable for a particular system”, suggesting that the claimed “reduction in qubit flip probability…to determine a termination point of the SBC cooling routine” is subjective. Therefore, a reduction in qubit routine depends on the operators or programmers subjective decision as to what is considered “a reduction in qubit flip probability” to determine a termination point. Because the specification does not provide a reasonably clear exclusive definition of “a reduction in qubit probability” there is no boundary as to where the termination point is determined. See MPEP 2173.05 (a) (I) and MPEP 2173.05 (a) (VI).
All dependent claims are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on respective rejected independent claims 1 and 17.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a reduction in qubit flip probability observed in the at least one additional analysis pulse” is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. the controller, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the controller in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen as discussed in the Non-Final rejection of 18 December 2025 anticipates most of the claims. However, fails to specifically suggest using a reduction in qubit flip probability…to determine a termination point of the SBC cooling routine.
Amini (US pgPub 2020/0005178) suggests applying doppler cooling followed by SBC ([0054] and discussion in Non-Final Rejection of 30 April 2020)
Debnath et al. (US pgPub 20200321949) suggests a parallel optimization of detuning and pulse duration (see figure 15 and associated text).
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 MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool.
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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881