Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final office is a response to the papers filed on 02/22/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rudolph et al. (Pub. No. 12,554,175 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Rudolph discloses:
A method of distributing quantum entanglement to a first quantum receiver and a second quantum receiver (see Fig, 2, Fig. 3A-3C, see par [66-68], In general, in a photonic system, fusion gates can be linear optical circuits that modify a quantum state of two or more photons to generate additional entanglement between the two or more photons…., contrast to the multi-stage fusion gates described with reference to FIG. 3C ….., [wherein fusion gate is quantum receiver and the system is obtain multi-stage fusion gates which is obtain first quantum receiver and second receiver]), the method comprising:
receiving, at the first quantum receiver, a first photon in a heralded photonic Bell pair (see par [66-68], the two or more photons input into the fusion gate may already be respectively entangled with other quantum systems prior to being input into the fusion gate…., see Fig. 21-23B, a system for obtaining a pair of photons in an entangled state, e.g., a Bell state (also referred to herein as a “Bell pair”)….., see par [171-173]);
receiving, at the first quantum receiver, a classical heralding message encoding frequency information about the heralded photonic Bell pair (see par [68], the fusion gate heralds a successful fusion if classical channels 309a and 309b output classical information indicating a result of detection operations of one photon…., see par [74] such classical channel may comprise a bi-directional communication bus carrying one or more reference signals, e.g., one or more clock signals, one or more control signals, or any other signal that contains, represents, or encodes classical information, e.g., heralding signals…, see par [288], [wherein the clock signals obtain the frequency information]);
in response to the classical heralding message, converting the first photon from a first mode to a second mode different than the first mode and selected based on a spin qubit; and directing the first photon in the second mode to the spin qubit (see par [53], quantum systems such as … spin qubits…, see par [127-129], Performing the first fusion further includes determining (1710) that the first detection pattern heralds a photonic state capable of being converted to a predefined photonic resource state…., see par [110-112], the first detection pattern heralds a photonic state capable of being converted to the predefined photonic resource state when zero photons are detected …).
Regarding claim 12, Rudolph discloses:
A quantum receiver comprising:
spin qubits (see par [53], quantum systems such as … spin qubits…);
a mode converter configured to convert a first photon in a heralded photonic Bell pair from a first mode to a second mode different than the first mode and selected based on one of the spin qubits in response to a classical heralding message accompanying the first photon in the heralded photonic Bell pair (see par [53], quantum systems such as … spin qubits…, see par [127-129], Performing the first fusion further includes determining (1710) that the first detection pattern heralds a photonic state capable of being converted to a predefined photonic resource state…., see par [110-112], the first detection pattern heralds a photonic state capable of being converted to the predefined photonic resource state when zero photons are detected …, see par [66-68], [74], [288]); and
a switch, in optical communication with the spin qubits and the mode converter, to route the first photon from the mode converter to the one of the spin qubits (see par [119] in operation (e.g., during an attempt to produce a pair of photons in a Bell state), a single-photon is input into each waveguide of the first plurality of waveguides…, pa [208-211], [wherein input photon in each waveguide is route the photon to the spin qubit]).
Regarding claim 4, Rudolph discloses:
wherein the first mode is a first temporal mode and the second mode is a second temporal mode (see par [45], it is convenient to express the state of the photon as one of a set of discrete spatio-temporal modes….).
Regarding claim 9, Rudolph discloses:
at the first quantum receiver: transferring a quantum state encoded by the heralded photonic Bell pair to the spin qubit (see par [119] in operation (e.g., during an attempt to produce a pair of photons in a Bell state), a single-photon is input into each waveguide of the first plurality of waveguides…, pa [208-211]).
Regarding claim 13, Rudolph discloses:
wherein the spin qubits, the mode converter, and the switch are integrated in a photonic integrated circuit (see par [8], The apparatus further includes a switch configured to output photons from the first optical device in accordance with a determination that the first detection pattern and the second detection pattern herald the predefined photonic state…, see par [55-56], [71-72] and [110-112]).
Regarding claim 18, Rudolph discloses:
A system for distributing quantum entanglement, the system comprising: a first quantum receiver according to claim 12 (see Fig, 2, Fig. 3A-3C, see par [66-68], In general, in a photonic system, fusion gates);
a second quantum receiver according to claim 12 (see Fig, 2, Fig. 3A-3C, see par [66-68], In general, in a photonic system, fusion gates can be linear optical circuits that modify a quantum state of two or more photons to generate additional entanglement between the two or more photons…., contrast to the multi-stage fusion gates described with reference to FIG. 3C ….., [wherein fusion gate is quantum receiver and the system is obtain multi-stage fusion gates which is obtain first quantum receiver and second receiver]); and
a quantum transmitter, in optical communication with the first quantum receiver and the second quantum receiver, to generate the heralded photonic Bell pair and a classical heralding message and to transmit a first photon in the heralded photonic Bell pair (see par [66-68], the two or more photons input into the fusion gate may already be respectively entangled with other quantum systems prior to being input into the fusion gate…., see Fig. 21-23B, a system for obtaining a pair of photons in an entangled state, e.g., a Bell state (also referred to herein as a “Bell pair”)….., see par [171-173]) and the classical heralding message to the first quantum receiver and a second photon in the heralded photonic Bell pair and the classical heralding message to the second quantum receiver (see par [68], the fusion gate heralds a successful fusion if classical channels 309a and 309b output classical information indicating a result of detection operations of one photon…., see par [74] such classical channel may comprise a bi-directional communication bus carrying one or more reference signals, e.g., one or more clock signals, one or more control signals, or any other signal that contains, represents, or encodes classical information, e.g., heralding signals…, see par [288]).
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.
Claims 2-3 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudolph et al. (Pub. No. 12,554,175 B1) further in view of Carolan et al. (US 20200150511 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Rudolph discloses:
wherein converting the first photon from the first mode to the second mode (see par [110-112], the first detection pattern heralds a photonic state capable of being converted to the predefined photonic resource state when zero photons are detected …) comprises: however, Rudolph fails to disclose:
converting the first photon from a first wavelength to a first photon at a second wavelength different than the first wavelength and resonant with the spin qubit.
Thus, Carolan discloses:
converting the first photon from a first wavelength to a first photon at a second wavelength different than the first wavelength and resonant with the spin qubit (see claim 2 and claim 11, pump light at a first wavelength and pump light at a second wavelength greater than the first wavelength and the single photon is at a wavelength between the first wavelength and the second wavelength….).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified a method of generating an entangled state for quantum computing of Rudolph to include converting the first photon from a first wavelength to a first photon at a second wavelength different than the first wavelength in order to converting the first photon from a first wavelength to a first photon at a second wavelength different than the first wavelength (see Carolan par [0006]).
Regarding claim 3, Rudolph and Carolan disclose:
wherein directing the first photon at the second wavelength to the spin qubit comprises: routing the first photon at the second wavelength through a tree of Mach-Zehnder interferometers integrated with a solid-state host of the spin qubit (see Carolan par [0007], [0037-0039] A low-loss filter, such as an asymmetric Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI)…, see Rudolph, par [284], the paths of individual qubits in the circuit are represented by solid lines and entanglement between two qubits is shown as an ellipse).
Regarding claim 16, Rudolph fails to disclose:
wherein the mode converter comprises an array of ring resonators comprising X(2) nonlinear material.
Thus, Carolan discloses:
wherein the mode converter comprises an array of ring resonators comprising X(2) nonlinear material (see par [0005], The resonator (e.g., looped waveguide) is made of or includes a nonlinear material, such as a X(2) nonlinear material…., see par [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified a method of generating an entangled state for quantum computing of Rudolph to include an array of ring resonators comprising X(2) nonlinear material in order to have a quality factor Q of 10,000-100,000; lithium niobate microring resonators can have a quality factor Q of up to 1,000,000 (see Carolan par [0034]).
Regarding claim 17, Carolan discloses:
wherein each ring resonator in the array of ring resonators is resonant at a different wavelength (see par [006-008], Photons with different wavelengths reduce quantum interference….).
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.
Claims 5-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudolph et al. (Pub. No. 12,554,175 B1) further in view of Rahman (US 20210176055 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Rudolph fails to disclose:
generating the heralded photonic Bell pair at a satellite; transmitting the first photon of heralded photonic Bell pair from the satellite to the first quantum receiver; and transmitting a second photon of heralded photonic Bell pair from the satellite to the second quantum receiver.
Thus, Rahman discloses:
generating the heralded photonic Bell pair at a satellite; transmitting the first photon of heralded photonic Bell pair from the satellite to the first quantum receiver; and transmitting a second photon of heralded photonic Bell pair from the satellite to the second quantum receiver (see par [0108-0109], generates quantum entangled group of objects, e.g., a Bell pair. After generating the Bell pair, the satellite 338 is contacted in anticipation of its participation in a quantum channel….).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified a method of generating an entangled state for quantum computing of Rudolph to include generating the heralded photonic Bell pair at a satellite in order to swapping operation step can increase, e.g., double, the span of or a single entangled Bell pair (see Rahman par [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Rahman discloses:
wherein generating the heralded photonic Bell pair comprises using a broadband spontaneous parametric down conversion source (see par [0042], network architecture provides at least one centralized EPR source that can create entangled states by a process of spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC)….).
Regarding claim 19, Rahman discloses:
wherein the quantum transmitter is at a satellite, the first quantum receiver is at a first ground station, and the second quantum receiver is at a second ground station (see Fig. 1-3, see par [0027-0030], par [0141], computing environment 500 can be used in the implementation of network elements 150, 152, 154, 156, access terminal 112, base station or access point 122, switching device 132, media terminal 142, and/or VNEs 430, 432, 434, etc. ….).
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.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudolph et al. (Pub. No. 12,554,175 B1) and Bhaskar et al. (US 12014246 B2) further in view of Bhaskar et al. (US 12014246 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Rudolph and Rahman fail to disclose:
wherein generating the heralded photonic Bell pair comprises combining two unheralded photonic Bell pairs using a beam splitter and a spectrally resolved photon detector array.
Thus, Bhaskar discloses:
wherein generating the heralded photonic Bell pair comprises combining two unheralded photonic Bell pairs using a beam splitter and a spectrally resolved photon detector array (see par [252], fiber beam-splitter (FBS) to the nanophotonic device…, see par [259-260], see par [119], one can make use of spectrally resolved spin conserving optical transitions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified a method of generating an entangled state for quantum computing of Rudolph can make use of spectrally resolved spin in order to build a spin-photon interface using the silicon-vacancy color-center in diamond (see Bhaskar par [119]).
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.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudolph et al. (Pub. No. 12,554,175 B1) further in view of Bhaskar et al. (US 12014246 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Rudolph fails to disclose:
wherein the spin qubits comprise negatively charged silicon vacancies in diamond.
Thus, Bhaskar discloses:
wherein the spin qubits comprise negatively charged silicon vacancies in diamond (see par [36], by coupling a negatively charged silicon-vacancy color-center (SiV) to a diamond nanophotonic cavity and a nearby nuclear spin….).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified a method of generating an entangled state for quantum computing of Rudolph to include the spin qubits comprise negatively charged silicon vacancies in diamond in order to possess multiple properties useful for implementation in a scalable quantum network (see Bhaskar par [36]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitation as in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-7011. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Chiang can be reached at 5712727483. 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.
/BRIAN NGO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851