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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-15, 17-19 and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claim is directed to a method/process.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
The limitations of:
performing a first measurement of bright-state population of each ion in an ion chain comprising a plurality of ions at a fixed time duration, the each ion coupled to one of motional modes of the ion chain, while varying laser coupling frequency for coupling the each ion and the one of the motional modes; (mental evaluation, a human can perform the measurement by looking at data or sensor readings)
computing mode frequency of the one of the motional mode based on a frequency at which the bright-state population of the each ion measured in the first measurement is maximized; (mathematical concepts, mode frequency is computed using various equations)
computing coupling strength of the each ion and the one of the motional modes by fitting the maximized bright-state population of the each ion measured in the first measurement to a value of the bright-state population computed based on the computed mode frequency of the one of the motional modes and non-zero temperature effect of the motional modes; (mathematical concepts, coupling strength is computed using various equations)
performing a second measurement of bright-state population of each ion in the ion chain at a fixed time duration, each ion coupled to one of the motional modes, to which the each ion has not been coupled in the first measurement, while the laser coupling frequency for coupling the each ion and the one of the motional modes is fixed; (mental evaluation, a human can perform the measurement by looking at data or sensor readings)
computing coupling strength of the each ion and the one of the motional mode by fitting the bright-state population of the each ion measured in the second measurement to a value of the bright-state population computed based on the computed mode frequency of the one of the motional modes and non-zero temperature effect of the motional modes (mathematical concepts, coupling strength is computed using various equations)
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
There are no additional elements recited.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
There are no additional elements recited.
Note that independent claims 9 and 17 recite the same substantial subject matter as independent claim 1, slightly differing in (broader) scope and embodiment. There differences in scope and embodiments do not meaningfully change the above analysis and therefore the claims are subject to the same rejection. The additional computer harder recited in claim 17 amount to generic computer hardware to carry out the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 recites initializing each ion, applying the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 4 recites measuring ions, mental process.
Dependent claim 5 recites measuring ions, mental process.
Dependent claim 6 recites computing coupling strength, mathematical calculations.
Dependent claim 7 recites computing coupling strength, mathematical calculations.
Dependent claims 11-15 correspond to claims 3-7 as shown above.
Dependent claims 21 and 22 correspond to dependent claims 3 and 6 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9, 11-13, 17-19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. US 2022/0328296 in view of Blümel, Reinhold, et al. "Efficient stabilized two-qubit gates on a trapped-ion quantum computer." [herein Blu].
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, Cao teaches “a method of using an ion trap quantum computer, comprising: performing a first measurement of bright-state population of each ion in an ion chain comprising a plurality of ions at a fixed time duration” ([0051] “general method is to focus the laser on the ions for operations by using a specially designed lens, or by using a specially designed optical waveguide. After a quantum operation is completed, a state of the ion needs to be read. Currently, a general method for reading the stale of the ion is to detect a state of a photon entitled by the ion. In this case, the imaging module needs to record intensity and a location of the photon” wherein “bright-state” is interpreted as ions which are fluorescing i.e. measuring state of a photon), “the each ion coupled to one of motional modes of the ion chain, while varying laser coupling frequency for coupling the each ion and the one of the motional modes” ([0054] “A specific process is as follows (as shown in FIG. 3 by using Ca ions as an example): Two calcium ions in the ion trap are prepared into ground states (SS) of the two calcium ions. In this case, vibration modes of the two calcium ions are assumed to be n. Then, lasers of about 729 nm are applied to the two Ca ions (as shown in FIG. 2). Frequencies of the two beams of lasers are respectively frequencies of increasing/decreasing a vibration mode (n+1 and n−1). After the lasers act for a specific time, the two Ca ions enter an entangled state (SS+DD), so that the two-bit quantum logic gate is implemented.”);
“performing a second measurement of bright-state population of each ion in the ion chain at a fixed time duration […]” ([0051] “general method is to focus the laser on the ions for operations by using a specially designed lens, or by using a specially designed optical waveguide. After a quantum operation is completed, a state of the ion needs to be read. Currently, a general method for reading the stale of the ion is to detect a state of a photon entitled by the ion. In this case, the imaging module needs to record intensity and a location of the photon” wherein “bright-state” is interpreted as ions which are fluorescing i.e. measuring state of a photon, measurement of ions stays the same),
The Cao reference has been addressed above. More explicitly, Blu teaches “computing mode frequency of the one of the motional mode based on a frequency at which the bright-state population of the each ion measured in the first measurement is maximized” (Blu pg. 9
PNG
media_image1.png
558
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
“computing coupling strength of the each ion and the one of the motional modes by fitting the maximized bright-state population of the each ion measured in the first measurement to a value of the bright-state population computed based on the computed mode frequency of the one of the motional modes and non-zero temperature effect of the motional modes” (Blu pg. 4 right col. “We then calculate the minimal Rabi frequency Ω0 = sΩmax needed to perform a maximally entangling gate, where s ≤ 1 is a scale factor and Ωmax is the maximum Rabi rate available. We further verify the creation of the maximally entangled state by measuring the parity contrast for some of the pulses” Rabi frequency is interpreted as coupling strength,);
“[…] each ion coupled to one of the motional modes, to which the each ion has not been coupled in the first measurement, while the laser coupling frequency for coupling the each ion and the one of the motional modes is fixed” (Blu pg. 9 left col.
PNG
media_image2.png
328
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
); and
“computing coupling strength of the each ion and the one of the motional mode by fitting the bright-state population of the each ion measured in the second measurement to a value of the bright-state population computed based on the computed mode frequency of the one of the motional modes and non-zero temperature effect of the motional modes” (Blu pg. 4 right col. “We then calculate the minimal Rabi frequency Ω0 = sΩmax needed to perform a maximally entangling gate, where s ≤ 1 is a scale factor and Ωmax is the maximum Rabi rate available. We further verify the creation of the maximally entangled state by measuring the parity contrast for some of the pulses” Rabi frequency is interpreted as coupling strength,)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention as effectively filed to combine the teachings of Cao with that of Blu since “Our methods are direct, non-iterative, and linear, and can construct gate-steering pulses requiring less power than the standard method by more than an order of magnitude in some parameter regimes. The power savings may generally be traded for reduced gate time and greater qubit connectivity. Additionally, our methods provide increased robustness to mode drift. We illustrate these trade-offs on a trapped-ion quantum computer” Blu abstract or in other words, their techniques allow for more efficient processing.
Note that independent claims 9 and 17 recite the same substantial subject matter as independent claim 1, slightly differing in scope (claim 9 is broader) and embodiment (claim 17 recites a system). The differences do not meaningfully change anything and the claims are subject to the same rejection. The additional hardware limitations of claim 17, a system controller and classical computer are taught by Cao fig. 1 and [0034].
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 21, the Cao and Blu references have been addressed above. Cao further teaches “further comprising initializing each ion in the ion chain in the hyperfine ground state of the each ion prior to the first measurement and the second measurement of the each ion” ([0054] “Two calcium ions in the ion trap are prepared into ground states (SS) of the two calcium ions”)
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the Cao and Blu references have been addressed above. Cao further teaches “wherein the first measurement of all ions in the ion chain are simultaneously performed” ([0051] “a general method for reading the stale of the ion is to detect a state of a photon entitled by the ion. In this case, the imaging module needs to record intensity and a location of the photon”)
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the Cao and Blu references have been addressed above. Cao further teaches “wherein the first measurement of all ions in the ion chain are simultaneously performed” ([0051] “a general method for reading the stale of the ion is to detect a state of a photon entitled by the ion. In this case, the imaging module needs to record intensity and a location of the photon”)
Regarding claim 18, the Cao and Blu references have been addressed above. Cao further teaches “wherein the second measurement is performed at a fixed time duration” ([0051] “general method is to focus the laser on the ions for operations by using a specially designed lens, or by using a specially designed optical waveguide. After a quantum operation is completed, a state of the ion needs to be read. Currently, a general method for reading the stale of the ion is to detect a state of a photon entitled by the ion. In this case, the imaging module needs to record intensity and a location of the photon” wherein “bright-state” is interpreted as ions which are fluorescing i.e. measuring state of a photon, measurement of ions stays the same)
Regarding claim 19, the Cao and Blu references have been addressed above. Blu further teaches “wherein the second measurement is performed at plurality of time durations” (Blu pg. 4 right col. “We then calculate the minimal Rabi frequency Ω0 = sΩmax needed to perform a maximally entangling gate, where s ≤ 1 is a scale factor and Ωmax is the maximum Rabi rate available. We further verify the creation of the maximally entangled state by measuring the parity contrast for some of the pulses” Rabi frequency is interpreted as coupling strength,)
Claim(s) 6, 14, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao and Blu further in view of Manson, J. R., Giorgio Benedek, and Salvador Miret-Artés. "Electron–phonon coupling strength at metal surfaces directly determined from the helium atom scattering Debye–Waller factor."
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 22, the Cao and Blu references have been addressed above. More specifically, Manson teaches “wherein the computing of the coupling strength of an ion in the ion chain and a motional mode of the ion chain is further based on Debye-Waller effect of the ion” (Manson abstract “[…] shows that the Debye−Waller exponent is directly proportional to the electron− phonon mass coupling constant λ”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the time that the invention was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Cao and Blu with that of Manson since a combination of known methods would yield predictable results, that is, as shown in Manson the value is proportional to the coupling value and therefore is used to compute the strength as expected.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao and Blu further in view of Roessler et al. US 2022/0102134.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the Cao and Blu references have been addressed above. More specifically, Roessler teaches “wherein the computing of the coupling strength of an ion in the ion chain and a motional mode of the ion chain is further based on cross-mode coupling effect of the motional modes of the ion chain” (Roessler [0004] “Another problem which arises when scaling-up the number of ions is the increased occurrence of decoherence caused by optical crosstalk. That is, manipulating and reading-out electronic states of a specific ion may produce scattered light which can undesirably interact with other ions.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the time that the invention was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Cao and Blu with that of Roessler since a combination of known methods would yield predictable results, that is, as shown in Roessler crosstalk/cross-mode coupling is known in the art when an ion is manipulated unintendedly. These techniques are known and therefore operate in a predictable manner.
Allowable Subject Matter
No art has been cited for claims 2, 8, 10, 16, and 20 as they contain subject matter not taught by prior art.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Martinez, Esteban A., et al. "Compiling quantum algorithms for architectures with multi-qubit gates." New Journal of Physics 18.6 (2016): 063029.
Debnath et al. USPAT 10,622,978
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN W FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-4623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM EST.
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, MIRANDA HUANG can be reached at (571)270-7092. 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.
KEVIN W FIGUEROA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2124
/Kevin W Figueroa/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2124
Prosecution Insights