DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on December 24th, 2025. Claims 1 and 4-14 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on December 24th, 2025. These drawings are accepted and overcome the prior objection to the drawings.
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 5 & 7 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 5 & 7 relate to compression and reordering algorithms, respectively. Applicant discloses that a method where the one of three rearrangement algorithms may be used, based on the compactness and number of target traps. The flow diagram in applicant’s figure 2C shows the decision tree. As can be seen in the flow diagram, the algorithms of claims 5 & 7 will be chosen in the case that the target array is compact. The independent claim now recites limitations to method steps carried out only in the case of a non-compact array, in particular the use of Voronoi cells to generate a reservoir trap next to each target cell, which inherently requires non-compactness. The original disclosure includes no arrangement method that combines both generating each reservoir trap in a Voronoi cell and compression or reordering algorithms together as claimed in claims 5 & 7.
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(s) 1, 4, and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays” (Barredo et al.) in view of applicants’ admitted prior art (AAPA).
Regarding claim 1, Barredo et al. discloses a method for arranging atoms in a target array of optical traps with predefined positions comprising:
generating a given number of target traps at said predefined positions (‘user-defined target spatial configuration’);
generating reservoir traps, said reservoir traps and said target traps forming a traps array (‘create arbitrary 2D arrays of up to 100 traps’);
defining allowed paths between traps of the traps array (‘computes a list of all possible individual moves,’);
loading atoms in the traps array to generate an initial loaded traps array (fig. 1C, “load 2N traps”);
determining the positions of the atoms in the initial loaded traps array (fig. 1C, “initial image”);
calculating a sequence of moves using a rearrangement algorithm based on said initial loaded traps array and said allowed paths (fig. 1C, “compute moves”); and
applying the sequence of moves to rearrange the atoms in the traps array and form a final loaded traps array (fig. 1C, “move atoms with 2d AOD”).
Barredo et al. does not disclose wherein: generating reservoir traps comprises computing a Voronoi diagram of the target traps to define Voronoi cells; and generating each reservoir trap in a Voronoi cell and wherein defining allowed paths between traps of the traps array comprises a Delaunay triangulation.
AAPA discloses computing a Voronoi diagram to define Voronoi cells (“To do so, we compute the Voronoi diagram 412 (see F. P. Preparata and M. Shamos, Computational Geometry: An Introduction, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985, p. 85) of the set of target traps.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Barredo to generate the reservoir traps by computing a Voronoi diagram as in the AAPA of the target traps to define Voronoi cells and generating each reservoir trap in a Voronoi cell to ensure that there is at least one reservoir trap for each target trap, reducing the likelihood of blocked moves.
The AAPA also discloses Delaunay triangulation (“Delaunay triangulation (see F. P. Preparata and M. Shamos, Computational Geometry: An Introduction, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985, p. 209-210)”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the Delaney triangulation of the AAPA to define the allowed paths between traps of the traps array because Delaney triangulation computes a list of all possible individual moves, as required by Barredo.
Regarding claim 4, Barredo et al. in view of AAPA discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining the positions of the atoms in the initial loaded traps array comprises acquiring an initial fluorescence image of the initial loaded traps array (‘The loading of the array is stopped as soon as at least N traps are filled with single atoms, and a fluorescence image is acquired to record the initial position of the atoms.’).
Regarding claim 8, Barredo et al. in view of AAPA discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
determining the positions of the atoms in the final loaded traps array (fig. 1C, “final image”);
determining a number of defects in the final loaded target traps array (‘analyzing the “final” image, and filling in defects (if any) with remaining atoms.’).
Regarding claim 9, Barredo et al. in view of AAPA discloses a method as claimed in claim 8, wherein determining the positions of the atoms in the final loaded traps array comprises acquiring a final fluorescence image of the final loaded target traps array (fig. 1C, “final image” wherein “final fluorescence image after the sorting is completed.”).
Regarding claim 10, Barredo et al. in view of AAPA discloses a method as claimed in claim 8, further comprising, if the number of defects is non-zero, rearranging again atoms in the loaded traps array using a new sequence of moves calculated with said algorithm (‘one could iterate the procedure presented here by skipping the disposal of unused atoms, analyzing the “final” image, and filling in defects (if any) with remaining atoms.’).
Regarding claim 11, Barredo et al. in view of AAPA discloses a method as claimed in claim 10, wherein said rearrangement of atoms in the loaded traps array is repeated a plurality of times in order to obtain a fully-loaded target traps array (“We demonstrate the preparation of fully loaded two-dimensional arrays”).
Regarding claim 12, Barredo et al. in view of AAPA discloses a quantum processing system comprising:
an optical set-up configured to generate single laser-cooled atoms trapped in an array of optical traps, wherein said array comprises targets traps whose positions are predefined by a user and that form a target traps array, and reservoir traps (fig. 1A, “SLM”);
means for moving said atoms in said optical traps array (fig. 1A, “2d=AOD” and “moving tweezer”);
a control unit configured to arrange said atoms in the optical traps array using said means, wherein the control unit is configured to implement a method according to claim 1 in order to obtain a fully loaded target traps array (fig. 1A, “control system” and method of claim 1 as above).
Regarding claim 13, Barredo et al. in view of AAPA discloses the quantum processing system as claimed in claim 12, wherein the positions of the optical traps are defined with a spatial light modulator (‘quantum processing system as claimed in claim 12, wherein the positions of the optical traps are defined with a spatial light modulator.’).
Regarding claim 14, Barredo et al. in view of AAPA discloses the quantum processing system as claimed in claim 12, wherein the means for moving said atoms in said optical traps array comprise an acousto-optic deflector (“This moving optical tweezers (with 1/e 2 radius of ~1.3 mm) is controlled using a 2D acousto-optic deflector (AOD).”).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Defect-free atomic array formation using the Hungarian matching algorithm” Lee et al. in view of applicants’ admitted prior art (AAPA).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. discloses a method for arranging atoms in a target array of optical traps with predefined positions comprising:
generating a given number of target traps at said predefined positions (‘target lattice’);
generating reservoir traps, said reservoir traps and said target traps forming a traps array (‘reservoir atoms’);
defining allowed paths between traps of the traps array (‘a computing system that calculates possible atom-relocation paths.’);
loading atoms in the traps array to generate an initial loaded traps array (‘prepare an initial array of atoms that were probabilistically loaded’);
determining the positions of the atoms in the initial loaded traps array (‘Then, the imaging system read out the filling and vacancy configuration of the initial atom array, ’);
calculating a sequence of moves using a rearrangement algorithm based on said initial loaded traps array and said allowed paths (‘the computing system calculated an atom-transport path plan to a completely filled smaller-size lattice.’); and
applying the sequence of moves to rearrange the atoms in the traps array and form a final loaded traps array (‘Once the atom guide plan was finalized, all the atoms to be relocated were simultaneously transported,’).
Lee et al. does not disclose wherein: generating reservoir traps comprises computing a Voronoi diagram of the target traps to define Voronoi cells; and generating each reservoir trap in a Voronoi cell and wherein defining allowed paths between traps of the traps array comprises a Delaunay triangulation.
AAPA discloses computing a Voronoi diagram to define Voronoi cells (“To do so, we compute the Voronoi diagram 412 (see F. P. Preparata and M. Shamos, Computational Geometry: An Introduction, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985, p. 85) of the set of target traps.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Lee to generate the reservoir traps by computing a Voronoi diagram as in the AAPA of the target traps to define Voronoi cells and generating each reservoir trap in a Voronoi cell to ensure that there is at least one reservoir trap for each target trap, reducing the likelihood of blocked moves.
The AAPA also discloses Delaunay triangulation (“Delaunay triangulation (see F. P. Preparata and M. Shamos, Computational Geometry: An Introduction, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985, p. 209-210)”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the Delaney triangulation of the AAPA to define the allowed paths between traps of the traps array because Delaney triangulation computes a list of all possible individual moves, as required by Lee.
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. in view of AAPA discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining the positions of the atoms in the initial loaded traps array comprises acquiring an initial fluorescence image of the initial loaded traps array (‘Then, the imaging system read out the filling and vacancy configuration of the initial atom array,’).
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al. in view of AAPA discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein said algorithm comprises:
calculating, using a minimization of a cost function with a linear sum assignment solver, a preliminary sequence of moves to move atoms from reservoir traps of the traps array to target traps, each move being done on at least one of the allowed paths; wherein said cost function comprises a sum of the distances of the moves used to move atoms along allowed paths (‘As total distance minimization is necessary, we focus on the Hungarian matching algorithm, which can use cost functions when finding a maximal matching 𝑀 in 𝐺 [31]. The Hungarian method efficiently finds the maximal matching with a time complexity of 𝑁3 for an 𝑁×𝑁 cost matrix, when the constraint is given to minimize the cost function. Our Monte Carlo simulation using the total travel distance as the cost function shows the same scaling behavior of computational time as in Fig. 2.’);
determining collisions among the preliminary sequence of moves, said collisions comprising the moving of an atom through an optical trap that is loaded with an atom (‘In order to avoid such trespassing, we can employ an alternative cost matrix 𝐷, for example, with a modified distance metric 𝑑𝛼𝑖,𝑗. With the modified distance metric, trespassing is avoided when 𝛼>1’);
splitting moves comprising collisions into at least two sub-moves to form a new sequence of moves that does not comprise collisions (‘If, for example, 𝛼=2, since the matching 𝐴→𝐵,𝐵→𝐶 (“relaying path”) in Fig. 3(d) gives lower cost ( 12+12=2) than 𝐴→𝐶,𝐵→𝐵 (trespass) in Fig. 3(c) ( 22+02=4).’);
Lee et al. does not disclose merging sub-moves that have the same trap as an initial trap and final trap to form the modified sequence of moves. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to merge such moves because the same result can be gotten with fewer moves, which reduces sorting time.
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al. in view of AAPA discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising:
determining the positions of the atoms in the final loaded traps array (‘the actual array configuration was confirmed through a second readout.’);
determining a number of defects in the final loaded target traps array (‘If the configuration was incomplete due to moving or collision loss during the operation,’).
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al. in view of AAPA discloses a method as claimed in claim 8, wherein determining the positions of the atoms in the final loaded traps array comprises acquiring a final fluorescence image of the final loaded target traps array (‘the actual array configuration was confirmed through a second readout.’).
Regarding claim 10, Lee et al. in view of AAPA discloses a method as claimed in claim 8, further comprising, if the number of defects is non-zero, rearranging again atoms in the loaded traps array using a new sequence of moves calculated with said algorithm (‘If the configuration was incomplete due to moving or collision loss during the operation, the whole process was repeated until a defect-free array was achieved.’).
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. in view of AAPA discloses a method as claimed in claim 10, wherein said rearrangement of atoms in the loaded traps array is repeated a plurality of times in order to obtain a fully-loaded target traps array (‘until a defect-free array was achieved’).
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al. in view of AAPA discloses a quantum processing system comprising:
an optical set-up configured to generate single laser-cooled atoms trapped in an array of optical traps, wherein said array comprises targets traps whose positions are predefined by a user and that form a target traps array, and reservoir traps (‘a magneto-optical trap (MOT) for cold rubidium atoms (87Rb), a dipole-trapping laser beam programmable with a 2D spatial light modulator’);
means for moving said atoms in said optical traps array (‘each segmented move was driven by the SLM frame evolution between two stationary frames.’);
a control unit configured to arrange said atoms in the optical traps array using said means, wherein the control unit is configured to implement a method according to claim 1 in order to obtain a fully loaded target traps array (‘the computing system calculated an atom-transport path plan to a completely filled smaller-size lattice.’).
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al. in view of AAPA discloses the quantum processing system as claimed in claim 12, wherein the positions of the optical traps are defined with a spatial light modulator (‘a dipole-trapping laser beam programmable with a 2D spatial light modulator’).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8-9, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Assembled arrays of Rydberg-interacting atoms” (Scholosser et al.) in view of applicants’ admitted prior art (AAPA).
Regarding claim 1, Scholsser et al. discloses a method for arranging atoms in a target array of optical traps with predefined positions comprising:
generating a given number of target traps at said predefined positions (‘Atom-by-atom assembly of the target patterns’);
generating reservoir traps, said reservoir traps and said target traps forming a traps array (‘The source array consists of up to 19 × 19 traps. Within this grid, all occupied traps other than the centered target structure (red box) serve as reservoir (middle).’);
defining allowed paths between traps of the traps array (‘virtual grid lines connecting the sites.’);
loading atoms in the traps array to generate an initial loaded traps array (‘he atoms are loaded into the traps’);
determining the positions of the atoms in the initial loaded traps array (‘detected initial distribution’);
calculating a sequence of moves using a rearrangement algorithm based on said initial loaded traps array and said allowed paths (‘We use a path finding algorithm to calculate a sequence of atom rearrangements from the detected initial distribution of atoms (left).’); and
applying the sequence of moves to rearrange the atoms in the traps array and form a final loaded traps array (‘applying the required set of atom moves,’).
Scholosser et al. does not disclose wherein: generating reservoir traps comprises computing a Voronoi diagram of the target traps to define Voronoi cells; and generating each reservoir trap in a Voronoi cell and wherein defining allowed paths between traps of the traps array comprises a Delaunay triangulation.
AAPA discloses computing a Voronoi diagram to define Voronoi cells (“To do so, we compute the Voronoi diagram 412 (see F. P. Preparata and M. Shamos, Computational Geometry: An Introduction, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985, p. 85) of the set of target traps.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Scholosser et al. to generate the reservoir traps by computing a Voronoi diagram as in the AAPA of the target traps to define Voronoi cells and generating each reservoir trap in a Voronoi cell to ensure that there is at least one reservoir trap for each target trap, as needed to form the pairs of Scholosser et al. ('We employ a greedy algorithm which pairs each vacant target site with the closest available reservoir atom, starting in the center of the target structure.').
The AAPA also discloses Delaunay triangulation (“Delaunay triangulation (see F. P. Preparata and M. Shamos, Computational Geometry: An Introduction, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985, p. 209-210)”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute the Delaunay triangulation of the AAPA for the virtual grid lines of Scholosser et al. because Delaunay triangulation produces more direct paths than possible with simple grids.
Regarding claim 4, Scholsser et al. in view of AAPA discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining the positions of the atoms in the initial loaded traps array comprises acquiring an initial fluorescence image of the initial loaded traps array (‘The fluorescence is separated from the trapping light by a dichroic mirror (DM) and imaged with a magnification of 20, ensuring a clear spatially resolved detection of the atoms.’).
Regarding claim 8, Scholsser et al. in view of AAPA discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: determining the positions of the atoms in the final loaded traps array (‘detecting the resulting atom positions’);
Scholsser et al. does not disclose determining a number of defects in the final loaded target traps array, but determining this from the image is a simple matter, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to determine the number of deflects so that they could be corrected.
Regarding claim 9, Scholsser et al. in view of AAPA discloses a method as claimed in claim 8, wherein determining the positions of the atoms in the final loaded traps array comprises acquiring a final fluorescence image of the final loaded target traps array (‘The fluorescence is separated from the trapping light by a dichroic mirror (DM) and imaged with a magnification of 20, ensuring a clear spatially resolved detection of the atoms.’).
Regarding claim 12, Scholsser et al. in view of AAPA discloses a quantum processing system comprising:
an optical set-up configured to generate single laser-cooled atoms trapped in an array of optical traps, wherein said array comprises targets traps whose positions are predefined by a user and that form a target traps array, and reservoir traps (‘Microlens-generated arrays of single atoms.’);
means for moving said atoms in said optical traps array (‘An independent beam of trapping light directed through a 2D acousto-optic deflector (AOD) creates a moveable optical tweezer.’);
a control unit configured to arrange said atoms in the optical traps array using said means, wherein the control unit is configured to implement a method according to claim 1 in order to obtain a fully loaded target traps array (‘signal generation by FPGA-controlled direct digital frequency synthesis’).
Regarding claim 14, Scholsser et al. in view of AAPA discloses the quantum processing system as claimed in claim 12, wherein the means for moving said atoms in said optical traps array comprise an acousto-optic deflector (‘An independent beam of trapping light directed through a 2D acousto-optic deflector (AOD) creates a moveable optical tweezer.’).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 24th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior arts do not include the steps in original steps 2 & 3, incorporated into claim 1 by amendment.
Claims 2 & 3 were rejected as obvious in light of the fact that the additional elements, though not present in the cited arts, were known in the prior art as admitted by applicant in the specification. Examiner had not previously addressed both elements (Voronoi diagrams and Delaunay triangulation) together because they were claimed separately. However, both could be incorporated into any of the cited prior arts and analysis to show this is now included in the rejections above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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, 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights