DETAILED ACTION
Restriction/Election Requirement
In response to the claims filed 06/22/2023, the Office issued a Restriction/Election Requirement on 10/21/2025. The Office required restriction between the invention of Group I (Claims 1-10) and the invention of Group II (Claims 11-20).
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, Claims 1-10 will be examined herein on the merits. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/21/2026.
Examiner’s Notes
It appears applicant has legal representation but a valid power of attorney has not been filed in the present application. Providing representative information in an Application Data Sheet (ADS) does not constitute a power of attorney. See 37 CFR 1.76(b)(4) and MPEP § 408. For information on appointing a power of attorney, see MPEP § 402.02 et seq. Since no power of attorney (POA) is found in the record, this correspondence is with the customer number. Absent the power of attorney Examiner cannot discuss the merits of the case with the customer. It is respectfully suggested that a POA be filed in this case as soon as possible.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner notes that an information disclosure statement has not yet been filed. The Examiner has searched and considered legible copies of all corresponding foreign patent documents including search reports and office actions by foreign patent offices.
Drawings
I. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from
1. Claim 1: an artificial atom in a cavity
2. Claim 6: wherein the squeezed light refers to a state of light with a reduced quantum uncertainty in its electric field strength for some phases compared to a coherent state.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
II. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: BS1 (FIG. 1b) and BS2 (Fig. 1c).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
1. A typo lacking proper punctuation (underlined) in Claim 1: “…is repeated one or more times, measuring, by the optical circuit,…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
The courts have described the essential question to be addressed in a description requirement issue in a variety of ways. An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, "does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is what is presently claimed.
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
In the instant case, claim 10 recites: “wherein an amount of displacement of the photonic state is proportional to a product of amplitude of the coherent state of light and a reflection coefficient of the beam splitter”. Thus, claim 10 defines the invention by functional language associated with a mathematical relationship between the parameters of the displacement of the photonic state, the amplitude of the coherent state, and a reflection coefficient of the beam splitter. However, the disclosure fails to explain how such a result is achieved, i.e., the disclosure fails to describe and/or quantify any of the three parameters required for characterization of such a mathematical relationship for the displacement across all disclosed embodiments of the invention. The generic claim language is merely restated in ipsis verbis appearance within the instant specification with no further elucidation (see ¶0064 of published application US 2024/0427217 A1). Thus, the disclosure appears to be silent with regard to quantifying any of these parameters (i.e., the amplitude of the coherent state of light and/or a reflection coefficient of the beam splitter) and also fails to show in what manner these parameters satisfy such a mathematical relationship with the displacement of the photonic state. See MPEP § 2163 Section II, e.g., Amgen, 927 F.2d at 1206, 18 USPQ2d at 1021. In essence, because the disclosure provides no evidence of any quantification for each the claimed parameters, it is impossible to extrapolate and/or derive the mathematical relationship as a result. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed condition directed to the displacement as recited. Since one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention, claim 10 is rejected for failing the written description requirement.
The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be amended to recite limitations that are supported by the originally-filed specification.
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
1. Claim 1 recites the limitation: “reflecting, by the optical circuit, the displaced squeezed vacuum state of the light off an artificial atom arranged in an atom-cavity setup, wherein the artificial atom is prepared in an equal superposition state of two low-energy states, resulting in an entangled state of the light and the artificial atom; performing, by the optical circuit, unitary operation on the two low-energy states of the artificial atom to convert them in an equal superposition of the two low-energy states; displacing, by the optical circuit, a photonic state by interfering the photonic state with a coherent state of light from a beam splitter, wherein the photonic state is a state of the reflected light from the atom-cavity setup, wherein the unitary operation on the artificial atom to generate the entangled state of light and the artificial atom and displacing the photonic state by interfering the photonic state with the coherent state of light is repeated one or more times, measuring, by the optical circuit, the artificial atom to produce the photonic state with a plurality of peaks, wherein each peak of the plurality of peaks has a positive amplitude or a negative amplitude and equal magnitude; interfering, by a balanced beam splitter, two identical photonic states; and performing, by a homodyne measurement circuit, a homodyne measurement on one of an output of the interfered two identical photonic states from the balanced beam splitter to obtain a proto/intermediate-GKP state with all positive peaks of equal amplitude on other port of the balanced beam splitter, wherein the proto/intermediate GKP state is a photonic state with a plurality of equispaced peaks with equal amplitudes.”. It is unclear in what manner ‘an optical circuit’ can perform the function of reflecting the displaced squeezed vacuum state of light (i.e., a reflective structure is not recited anywhere in the claim such that a reflecting function may be performed). It is also unclear what is meant by the term ‘equal superposition state of two low-energy states’, and it is also unclear what is meant by ‘two low energy states’ as this appears to be relative terminology, wherein the as-filed specification fails to provide an objective standard for measuring the scope of the term in the form of specifying what these low energy states correspond to, thereby rendering the limitation indefinite. There also does not appear to be any explanation or elucidation regarding such an ‘equal superposition’ of low energy states in the as-filed specification (of 06/22/2023). Rather, the instant disclosure merely restates in ipsis verbis the generic claim language. When subjective terminology is used in a claim, some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) Sections I & IV, citing Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970) and Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1344-45. Furthermore, it is unclear what the two low-energy states are converted into (as a result of performing the unitary operation on the artificial atom), since the claim only recites that “to convert them in an equal superposition of the two low-energy states”, but the claim earlier recites that the atom is already “prepared in an equal superposition state of two low-energy states”, thereby rendering unclear the metes and bounds of the claim. Similarly, it is unclear what is meant by the “photonic state(s)” as recited throughout the claim as this does not appear to be a term of the art nor does the instant disclosure provide any indication of what this/these state(s) specifically corresponds to. Additionally, there appears to be unclear antecedent basis since the claim earlier recites the “photonic state” as a state of the reflected light from the atom cavity, but then later recites “two identical photonic states” with no further elucidation regarding in what manner the identical photonic states are to be distinguished from the photonic state(s) recited earlier in the claim. This limitation is rendered further unclear by the recited condition “the artificial atom to produce the photonic state”, i.e., it is unclear in what manner the artificial atom produces the photonic state. It is also unclear how said unitary operation generates such an entangled state of light, since the claim earlier recites that the “unitary operation on the two low-energy states of the artificial atom to convert them in an equal superposition of the two low-energy states”, thereby rendering the claim unclear. It is also unclear in what manner “a unitary operation” can produce an equal superposition of the two low-energy states and/or an entangled state of light, and the instant disclosure fails to elucidate such an operation. It is also unclear what is meant by the limitation “displacing the photonic state” (i.e., displacing in what dimension? displacing from where? displacing to where?), thereby rendering the claim scope indefinite. It is also unclear what is meant by “the photonic state with a plurality of peaks”: in what manner does the photonic state correspond to a plurality of peaks? what are the measurement units for each respective peak? How is each peak measured? What does each peak signify? There appear to be no units for the amplitudes as claimed, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. It is also unclear what is meant by “a plurality of equispaced peaks with equal amplitudes” as the term “equispaced” is not a proper English word, furthermore if the Applicant means “equally spaced” it still remains unclear what this limitation refers to (i.e., equally spaced with respect along what dimension or reference frame? Equally spaced in distance? time? etc.). It is also what is meant by “positive” and “negative” amplitudes of the recited peaks, since it is unclear what the positive and negative amplitudes correspond to and there appear to be no units by which one can quantify the amplitude of said peaks (i.e., positive with respect to what? negative with respect to what? what metrics/units are utilized to quantify the amplitude such that the positive and negative values may be understood?) It is also unclear what is meant by “interfering the photonic state with a coherent state of light from a beam splitter” and in what way this limitation is distinguished from “interfering, by a balanced beam splitter, two identical photonic states”, i.e., in what manner are these states interfered? How the photonic state to be distinguished from a coherent state? Furthermore, is “a beam splitter” as recited earlier in the claim referring to “the balanced beam splitter” as recited later in the claim, or is this referring to two distinct structures? The present claim language renders these structures insufficiently defined due to unclear antecedent basis. It is also unclear what is meant by the limitation “a homodyne measurement on one of an output of the interfered two identical photonic states”, i.e., what is meant by “one of an output”? There appears to be only one output recited. Similarly, it is unclear what is meant by “to obtain a proto/intermediate-GKP state with all positive peaks of equal amplitude on other port of the balanced beam splitter”, since only one port is recited in the claim. It is also unclear what is meant by the term “proto/intermediate GKP state” as this does not appear to be a term of the art and the claim refers to said state in terms of peaks and amplitudes which are recited arbitrarily (see discussion supra). For the purposes of examination, these limitation will be treated as: “the artificial atom is prepared in a superposition state of two energy states…displacing, by the optical circuit, a photonic state wherein the photonic state is a state of the reflected light from the atom-cavity setup, wherein the operation on the artificial atom is repeated one or more times; measuring, by the optical circuit, the photonic state; interfering, by a balanced beam splitter, two identical photonic states; and performing, by a homodyne measurement circuit, a homodyne measurement on an output of the interfered two identical photonic states from the balanced beam splitter to obtain a GKP state comprising a plurality of peaks of equal amplitude, wherein the GKP state is a photonic state”.
2. Claim 2 recites: “a homodyne measurement on one of the outcomes of the balanced beam splitter resulting in a desired GKP state at other output of the balanced beam splitter”. The limitation “one of the outcomes of the balanced beam splitter” appears to be nonsensical (i.e., what is considered an outcome of the balanced beam splitter?) and this is rendered further unclear by the term “a desired GKP state at other output” since “a desired state” is subjective terminology. The instant disclosure fails to elucidate or provide a reasonably clear definition and/or objective standard for the limitation at hand. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) Sections I & IV, citing In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893, 167 USPQ 280, 289 (CCPA 1970) and Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim scope indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as: “a homodyne measurement on the output state of the balanced beam splitter resulting in a GKP state”.
3. Similarly, claim 3 recites: “two of the three energy levels are closely spaced”. See discussion supra regarding relative terminology. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as inherent.
4. claim 6 recites: “wherein the squeezed light refers to a state of light with a reduced quantum uncertainty in its electric field strength for some phases compared to a coherent state”. It is unclear what is meant by ‘a reduced quantum uncertainty’ since there appears to be no reference frame or context by which one may ascertain such a reduction in uncertainty. Furthermore, the instant disclosure measures the squeezed light in terms of dB which appears to bear no relevance to the recited claim limitation at hand (see ¶0053 of as filed specification in published document US 2024/0427217 A1). It is further unclear how such an uncertainty may be quantified especially in light of this term being defined with respect to its “electric field strength for some phases compared to a coherent state” which appears to be an arbitrary measure (i.e., what phases? which aspect of the coherent state is compared to the squeezed state of light?), thereby rendering the metes and bounds of the claim scope unclear and indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as inherent.
5. Similarly, claim 9 recites: “wherein the beam splitter used for displacing the photonic state has a high transmission coefficient and a low reflection coefficient”. See discussion supra regarding relative terminology. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as: “wherein the beam splitter used for displacing the photonic state has a transmission coefficient and a reflection coefficient”.
6. claim 10 recites: “wherein an amount of displacement of the photonic state is proportional to a product of amplitude of the coherent state of light and a reflection coefficient of the beam splitter”. It is unclear which “photonic state” the claim refers to since claim 1 recites a plurality of photonic states, thereby creating unclear antecedent basis for the present claim language. It is unclear how the displacement of the photonic state is measured and it is also unclear how the amplitude of the coherent state is to be quantified. Furthermore, claim 1 (from which claim 10 depends upon) states that the optical circuit reflects the displaced state of light and the beam splitter appears to bear no relevance to the function of reflecting any light, which renders the present claim language unclear and therefore indefinite. The instant specification fails to elucidate this limitation beyond a mere restatement of the generic claim language, with no further derivation showing support and/or clarity for such a mathematical relationship between the parameters as claimed. See also corresponding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as: “wherein an amount of displacement of the photonic state corresponds to the coherent state of light and a reflection coefficient”.
Claims 2-10 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hastrup et al. (NPL titled “Protocol for Generating Optical Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill States…” (2022)).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Hastrup discloses: method for preparing a Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) state using an artificial atom in a cavity (FIG. 1A-C), the method comprising:
A. producing, by an optical circuit, a displaced squeezed vacuum state of a light using one or more light sources (see FIG. 1A-C; FIG. 1 caption (p. 2): Circuit diagram for the GKP state generation protocol; p. 3 c. 2: inputting a displaced squeezed vacuum state, we obtain a squeezed Schrödinger’s cat state; p. 3 c. 1: To couple light into and out of the cavity, one end of the cavity is constructed);
B. reflecting, by the optical circuit, the displaced squeezed vacuum state of the light off an artificial atom arranged in an atom-cavity setup, wherein the artificial atom is prepared in an equal superposition state of two low-energy states, resulting in an entangled state of the light and the artificial atom (p. 2 c. 2: this atom could also be artificial such as a charged quantum dot [29–31] with the states |0> and |1> denoting spin states and |e> denoting a charged exciton state, or it could be a diamond color center such as the nitrogen- or silicon-vacancy centers; p. 2 c. 2: the reflection of an incoming optical field onto a single-mode cavity containing a three-level system; p.2 c. 1: the relevant approximation is a finite superposition of squeezed states…where D(α) is the displacement operator and S(r) is the squeezing operator; p. 3 c. 1: With the atom prepared in the (|0>, |1>) subspace, an optical field mode reflected on the cavity ideally experiences a controlled phase rotation Rc…for a coherent state input we obtain a Shrödinger’s cat state);
C. performing, by the optical circuit, unitary operation on the two low-energy states of the artificial atom to convert them in an equal superposition of the two low-energy states (see Supp. pg. 9 S7: eqn 54; see eqn’s in p. 2 c. 1; p. 2 c. 1: The three-level system consists of two low-energy states and one high-energy state; Supp S1. pg. 3: “the atom to be in the superposition state (|0> + |1>)
√
2
”;
D. displacing, by the optical circuit, a photonic state by interfering the photonic state with a coherent state of light from a beam splitter, wherein the photonic state is a state of the reflected light from the atom-cavity setup, wherein the unitary operation on the artificial atom to generate the entangled state of light and the artificial atom and displacing the photonic state by interfering the photonic state with the coherent state of light is repeated one or more times, measuring, by the optical circuit, the artificial atom to produce the photonic state with a plurality of peaks, wherein each peak of the plurality of peaks has a positive amplitude or a negative amplitude and equal magnitude (Supp. S7 pg. 9: we show how to generate the required initial squeezed states, using the cavity QED system and coherent state inputs; p. 1 c. 2: use cavity quantum electrodynamics (QED) to generate optical flying approximate GKP states by iteratively reflecting squeezed states off a cavity containing a three-level system; p. 4 c. 2: Two such squeezed cat states are combined on a 50∶50 beam splitter and the p quadrature of one mode is measured with a homodyne detector. Conditioned on the result p = 0, the other mode is projected into an approximate GKP-like state; see FIG. 1c showing plurality of peaks with positive/negative amplitude that are equal in magnitude);
E. interfering, by a balanced beam splitter, two identical photonic states; and performing, by a homodyne measurement circuit, a homodyne measurement on one of an output of the interfered two identical photonic states from the balanced beam splitter (p. 4 c. 2: This protocol is then iterated, combining two such output states on another 50∶50 beam splitter [balance beam splitter] and projecting one mode out with homodyne detection, etc. After M iterations, the resulting output is an approximate GKP state of which Δp decreases with the number of iterations and Δx equals the squeezing of the initial input cat states) to obtain a proto/intermediate-GKP state with all positive peaks of equal amplitude on other port of the balanced beam splitter, wherein the proto/intermediate GKP state is a photonic state with a plurality of equispaced peaks with equal amplitudes (p. 4 c. 2: from Eq. (13) that the amplitude of the initial squeezed cat states depends on the number of iterations M; FIG. 1 caption: “Repeated applications of displacements and controlled rotations evolves an initial squeezed vacuum state into an approximate GKP state. The figure shows simulations of the Wigner function and quadrature distributions of an input state undergoing ideal interactions. (d) Preparing the atom in an unequal superposition |+> in the second to last step allows for the final state to have a two-level amplitude weighting of the squeezed peaks; see peaks equally spaced with equal amplitude in FIG. 1c & 2b).
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, Hastrup discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Hastrup further discloses: interfering, by the balanced beam splitter, the proto/intermediate-GKP state with a squeezed vacuum state of an appropriate squeezing of the light; and performing, by the homodyne measurement circuit, a homodyne measurement on one of the outcomes of the balanced beam splitter resulting in a desired GKP state at other output of the balanced beam splitter (p. 4 c. 2: This protocol is then iterated, combining two such output states on another 50∶50 beam splitter [balance beam splitter] and projecting one mode out with homodyne detection, etc. After M iterations, the resulting output is an approximate GKP state of which Δp decreases with the number of iterations and Δx equals the squeezing of the initial input cat states; p. 3 c. 2: after inputting a displaced squeezed vacuum state, we obtain a squeezed Schrödinger’s cat state. Displacing and reflecting the output state on the cavity again further doubles the number of squeezed peaks in the output state and repeating this N times yields a state of the form of Eq. (1) with 2N peaks…the obtainable amount of squeezing using the protocol with finite-cooperativity systems. In addition to optimizing κc, we also numerically optimize the amount of input squeezing (see Supplemental Material [35] for details on the input squeezing). The optimization is done by optimizing min(Δx, Δp) (in units of decibels) such that we ensure effective squeezing in both quadratures; Supp. S2 pg. 5: “the resulting normalized output GKP state”; see FIG. 2b; p. 4 c. 1: the quadrature distributions reveal the onset of the desired comblike structure).
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Hastrup discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Hastrup further discloses: wherein the artificial atom is a 3-level artificial atom, and wherein the artificial atom contains three energy levels with two of the three energy levels are closely spaced lower energy level states and one of the three energy levels is an excited state (see FIG. 1A; p. 1 c. 2: use cavity quantum electrodynamics (QED) to generate optical flying approximate GKP states by iteratively reflecting squeezed states off a cavity containing a three-level system; p. 2 c. 1: The three-level system consists of two low-energy states and one high-energy state).
Regarding Claim 4, Hastrup discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Hastrup further discloses: wherein the artificial atom is one of a quantum dot, a trapped ion, and a defect centre in a diamond (p. 2 c. 2: this atom could also be artificial such as a charged quantum dot with the states |0> and |1> denoting spin states and |e> denoting a charged exciton state, or it could be a diamond color center such as the nitrogen- or silicon-vacancy centers).
Regarding Claim 5, Hastrup discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Hastrup further discloses: wherein each of the one or more light sources is a light source that produces a squeezed light, and wherein the one or more light sources is a coherent light source (p. 5 c. 1: we address the input squeezed light source…a method to generate squeezed states starting from a coherent state, using the cavity QED system; Supp: pg. 10 S7: we show how to generate the required initial squeezed states, using the cavity QED system and coherent state inputs…By creating a discrete superposition of closely spaced coherent states on a line in phase space, we can approximate Eq. (54) to achieve an approximate squeezed state. Indeed, quadrature squeezed states were observed in [4] using only two coherent states).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, Hastrup discloses the method according to Claim 5, as above. Hastrup further discloses: wherein the squeezed light refers to a state of light with a reduced quantum uncertainty in its electric field strength for some phases compared to a coherent state (p. 2 c. 1: GKP states have a periodic comb structure in both x and p quadratures with high-quality GKP states consisting of highly squeezed peaks in both quadratures…The amount of squeezing is commonly denoted in decibels).
Regarding Claim 7, Hastrup discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Hastrup further discloses: wherein the atom-cavity setup is set up such that the atom-cavity setup allows the displaced squeezed vacuum state of the light to interact only with one of transitions of the artificial atom from an excited state to a lower energy level state (p. 3 c. 1: The cavity resonance frequency and the frequency of the incoming field are equal and tuned to match the |1> and |e> transition; FIG. 1 caption: the excited state of the three-level system can spontaneously decay through modes different from the cavity mode with rate γ).
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood, Hastrup discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Hastrup further discloses: wherein the beam splitter used for displacing the photonic state has a high transmission coefficient and a low reflection coefficient (Supp. S1 p. 3 eqn (28) showing respective coefficients; Supp. S1 p. 3: “in order to minimize the excessive losses due to the cavity and the atomic interaction, we should optimize the cavity coupling rate accordingly”; Supp. S1 p. 4 eqn (32) of the reflection coefficients; Supp. S1 p. 2 eqn (11) transmission coefficient).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Hastrup discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Hastrup further discloses: wherein an amount of displacement of the photonic state is proportional to a product of amplitude of the coherent state of light and a reflection coefficient of the beam splitter (Supp. FIG. S4 showing displacement amplitude as a function of internal cooperativity; Supp. S4 p. 7: When the internal cooperativity is large, the optimal amplitudes converge to that of Eq. (11) of the main text for the cavity-only protocol (a) and for the cat breeding protocol (b), as expected. However, when the internal cooperativity is smaller, we find that the optimal displacement is slightly larger than for the perfect cavity. The slightly larger displacement partly compensates for the loss induced by the cavity. Note that the compensation only works because the noise of cavity reflection channel is not described by pure loss, but by the more complicated channel of Eq. (1); see eqn 10 on pg. 2 of Supp S1 showing relationship between reflection coefficient and internal cooperativity C; p. 3 c. 2: displacement amplitude at the nth step…we can slightly further improve the performance by slightly tuning the displacement amplitudes and the atomic superposition state; Supp. S7: generating required squeezed states using coherent state inputs…with smaller displacement amplitudes chosen in the p direction [displacement proportional to coherent state]).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastrup et al. in view of Hacker et al. (NPL titled “Deterministic creation of entangled atom-light Schrodinger-cat states” (2022)).
Regarding Claim 8, Hastrup discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Although Hastrup teaches a coherent state of light (p. 3 c. 1; p. 5 c. 1: starting from a coherent state, we generate squeezed states), Hastrup does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the coherent state of light is a laser pulse.
Hacker is related to Hastrup with respect to a method for preparing a displaced squeezed vacuum state of a light using one or more light sources via an atom in a cavity that acts as a three level system comprising two ground states and one excited state, wherein the coherent state of light generates superposition state and the coherent light is reflected from the cavity (pgs. 1-2; FIG. 1) and Hacker teaches: wherein the coherent state of light is a laser pulse (p. 1 c. 2: We deterministically create entangled light-matter Schrodinger-cat states by reflecting coherent laser pulses from an optical cavity containing a single trapped atom in a controlled superposition of two spin states).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hastrup ’s method in view of Hacker to satisfy the laser pulse condition, because such a coherent state of light is known and would be selected to generate a superposition state, thereby providing the beneficial result that the atom serves as the control qubit, as taught in p. 2 c. 1 (Protocol section) and p. 5 c. 1 (Quantum gate section), respectively, of Hacker.
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: NPL titled “Progress towards practical qubit computation using approximate Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill codes” (2020) disclosing details directed to preparation of GKP states.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-1800 (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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872