DETAILED ACTION
Restriction/Election Requirement
In response to the claims filed 08/05/2024, the Office issued a Restriction/Election Requirement on 04/14/2026. The Office required restriction between the invention of Group I (Claims 1-13) and the invention of Group II (Claims 31-32, 35-38 and 44).
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 06/12/2026 is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse.
Accordingly, Claims 1-13 will be examined herein on the merits. Claims 31-32, 35-38 and 44 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Furthermore, claims 31-32, 35-38 and 44 are now canceled by Applicant (see claims filed 06/12/2026).
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statement(s) filed on various dates is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/141,449 (filed on 01/25/2021), fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application, namely the limitations directed to the network of beam splitters as recited in claim 1 and the details further limiting said beam splitters, as recited in Claims 2-13.
Drawings
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 n/2 and n/4 beamsplitters must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 9. 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.
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 1-13 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: “wherein one output of each of intermediate beam splitter in the network is coupled to a different one of the homodyne measurement circuits and the other output of each intermediate beam splitter in the network is coupled to another beam splitter in the network, wherein each of the two outputs of the final beam splitter is coupled to a different one of the homodyne measurement circuits”. There is unclear antecedent basis for “a different one of the homodyne measurement circuits” because it appears to be recited as a new element twice in the same limitation but also as identical terms. Thus, it is unclear if they are distinct from one another, referring to the same elements, etc. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: “wherein one output of each of intermediate beam splitter in the network is coupled to a homodyne measurement circuits and the other output of each intermediate beam splitter in the network is coupled to another beam splitter in the network, wherein each of the outputs of the final beam splitter is coupled to the homodyne measurement circuits”.
2. Claim 9 recites: “wherein the intermediate beam splitters include a first group of n/2 beam splitters with inputs coupled to the input paths and a second group of n/4 beam splitters with inputs coupled to different beam splitters of the first group”. This limitation is unclear because the condition stated in claim 1 is n ≥ 3, which means that n/2 and n/4 can be non-integer values and it is unclear how there can be non-integer number of beamsplitters in the system. The specification filed 07/21/2023 appears to be silent with regard to any clarification of this limitation. See also corresponding Drawings objection. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: “wherein the intermediate beam splitters include a first group of beam splitters with inputs coupled to the input paths and a second group of beam splitters with inputs coupled to different beam splitters of the first group”.
3. Claim 11 recites: “wherein the intermediate beam splitter is a 50/50 beam splitter and the final beam splitter is a 1/3 beam splitter.” It is unclear what is meant by “1/3 beam splitter” and the as-filed specification recites in ipsis verbis the generic claim language (in ¶0009, 0186) but fails to elucidate this structure. Thus, it cannot be ascertained what the term refers to. The recited term does not appears to be a well-known term of the art either. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as: ““wherein the intermediate beam splitter is a 50/50 beam splitter and the final beam splitter is a beam splitter.”
Claims 2-13 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)(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 1-2, 4-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bourassa et al. (US 2022/0101168 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Bourassa discloses: A circuit comprising:
A. a number (n) of input paths to receive a plurality of Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill (GKP) qubits, wherein n is at least 3 (¶0067: a 2D array of sources that emit |Φ> with probability 1−pswap and momentum-squeezed states with probability pswap at regular intervals…each source produces an input mode; ¶0071: the central mode in each macronode can be chosen from wires whose inputs are prepared in GKP states; ¶0089: each node [input] is a GKP plus state from a single-mode source and each link/edge is represented by 50:50 beamsplitters ; ¶0098: n number of modes; see FIGS. 6 & 12 showing each node as an input, where n ≥ 3);
B. a plurality of homodyne measurement circuits, each homodyne measurement circuit outputting a respective measurement value (¶0068: Each mode is subsequently sent to a homodyne detector; ¶0090: each link represents a 50:50 beamsplitter);
C. a network of beam splitters, the network including at least one intermediate beam splitter and one final beam splitter (see FIGS. 6 & 12 showing intermediate and final beam splitters), each beam splitter in the network having two inputs and two outputs (¶0068, 0070: a beamsplitter network associated with a single macronode… four 50:50 beamsplitters can be applied within each macronode; see FIG. 10B showing two inputs and outputs for each beamsplitter),
D. wherein one output of each of intermediate beam splitter in the network is coupled to a different one of the homodyne measurement circuits and the other output of each intermediate beam splitter in the network is coupled to another beam splitter in the network, wherein each of the two outputs of the final beam splitter is coupled to a different one of the homodyne measurement circuits (¶0068-70: four 50:50 beamsplitters can be applied within each macronode, as shown in FIG. 12 at inset (D)…FIG. 15 at inset (A) shows a circuit representation of a beamsplitter network associated with a single macronode, 0, in the case where the central mode is the top wire. Also shown is the connectivity, by beamsplitters, to neighboring macronodes. The circuit conventions are provided in the legend of FIG. 15. The final four beamsplitters correspond to those in FIG. 12 at inset (D); see FIG. 15 (corresponding to FIG. 12) showing an output of each of intermediate beam splitter (arrow) is coupled to a different one of the homodyne measurement circuits (node) and the other output of each intermediate beam splitter (arrow) in the network is coupled to another beam splitter in the network (inside 0), wherein each of the two outputs of the final beam splitter is coupled to a different one of the homodyne measurement circuits (node); see also FIG. 6C); and
E. an output signal path to output the respective homodyne measurement values output by the homodyne measurement circuits (¶0082: the output, where it manifests as classical processing of the homodyne measurement outcomes; ¶0137: a standard map from homodyne measurement outcomes to bit values is a binning function derived from the translational symmetry of the original GKP state).
Regarding Claim 2, Bourassa discloses the circuit according to Claim 1, as above. Bourassa further discloses: wherein the homodyne measurement values represent outcomes of one or more entangling projective measurements on the plurality of GKP qubits (¶0065-66: 50:50 beamsplitters are applied between pairs of modes as indicated by the arrows, and these generate entangled pair…two-mode entangled state can be produced by first generating a pair of modes being GKP and sending the pair of modes through a 50:50 beamsplitter).
Regarding Claim 4, Bourassa discloses the circuit according to Claim 1, as above. Bourassa further discloses: one or more phase shift circuits, each phase shift circuit coupled to a different one of the input paths (see FIG. 12 showing steps of generating the final states in A-D, wherein insets B-C show plurality of phase shift circuits, each coupled to a different one of the input paths; ¶0063: The phase shifter is defined as R(θ): =eiθ{circumflex over (n)}, with R(π/2) corresponding to a Fourier transform in phase space, which implements a GKP Hadamard gate; ¶0065: each node receiving an input from a source in every ΔT-wide time bin…inset C of FIG. 12 shows diagonal slashes indicate the application of a π/2 phase delay).
Regarding Claim 5, Bourassa discloses the circuit according to Claim 4, as above. Bourassa further discloses: wherein the one or more phase shift circuits include at least one variable phase shift circuit configured to receive a control signal and apply a particular phase shift responsive to the control signal (¶0049: phase shifter turned on, a Mach-Zehnder interferometer with perfect reflectivity (top right in FIG. 3B) is enabled; ¶0063: the phase shifter is defined as R(θ): =eiθ{circumflex over (n)}).
Regarding Claim 7, Bourassa discloses the circuit according to Claim 1, as above. Bourassa further discloses: wherein each of the GKP qubits is in a respective one of a plurality of quantum systems (¶0079: every macronode has exactly one GKP state), each quantum system including two or more entangled qubits (¶0060: Qubits can be encoded into modes by GKP encoding; ¶0103: a generated state can include GKP qubits on a known subset of the modes; ¶0065-66: a type of two-mode entangled state can be produced by first generating a pair of modes being GKP sending the pair of modes through a 50:50 beamsplitter and each beamsplitter generates entangled pairs…one always obtains an entangled state that functions as a unit of a hybrid CV-GKP qubit cluster; ¶0068: four 50:50 beamsplitters can be applied within each macronode [quantum system]; ¶0070, 0085: Each macronode consists of four modes, labelled 1-4), wherein operation of the circuit results in the plurality of quantum systems becoming mutually entangled (¶0095: a generalized beam splitter network that can entangle together macronodes of size 2.sup.N).
Regarding Claim 8, Bourassa discloses the circuit according to Claim 1, as above. Bourassa further discloses: wherein the number n of input paths is 2m for integer m ≥ 2 (¶0067, 0071; ¶0089: “B” and “C” nodes are modified to include four separate sources of squeezed light/GKP plus states, sent through four additional beamsplitters; see FIG. 12 showing 2m input paths where m = 2; see FIG. 6B-C showing m = 2).
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood, Bourassa discloses the circuit according to Claim 8, as above. Bourassa further discloses: wherein the intermediate beam splitters include a first group of n/2 beam splitters with inputs coupled to the input paths and a second group of n/4 beam splitters with inputs coupled to different beam splitters of the first group (¶0089: in FIGS. 6A-C each node [input] is a GKP plus state from a single-mode source and each link/edge is represented by 50:50 beamsplitters; ¶0058: a three-dimensional macronodal lattice structure in one temporal dimension and two spatial dimensions, where the generation circuit may consist of sources, beamsplitters, and homodyne detectors; see FIGS. 6B-C, 12 showing intermediate beam splitters are a first group coupled to the input paths and a second group of beam splitters coupled to different beam splitters of the first group).
Regarding Claim 10, Bourassa discloses the circuit according to Claim 8, as above. Bourassa further discloses: wherein each beam splitter in the network of beam splitters is a 50/50 beam splitter (¶0065: 50:50 beamsplitters are applied between pairs of modes as indicated by the arrows, and these generate entangled pairs).
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 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourassa et al. (US 2022/0101168 A1) in view of Ofek et al. (US 2019/0049495 A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 6, Bourassa discloses the circuit according to Claims 2 and 4, respectively, as above. Bourassa does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the entangling projective measurements are n-GHZ measurements (claim 3); wherein respective phase shifts applied by the one or more phase shift circuits are selected such that the homodyne measurement values represent n-GHZ measurements in different bases (claim 6).
Ofek is related to Bourassa with respect to a circuit comprising a quantum information system including entangled qubit states and a subsequent measurement of the qubits (¶0144, 0170, 0184), and Ofek teaches: wherein the entangling projective measurements are n-GHZ measurements (claim 3) (¶0097; ¶0096: In a circuit, control links 120 may be implemented with microwave signals (e.g., signals at frequencies between about 3 GHz and about 40 GHz) that couple to the quantum systems 115; ¶0171: waveform analyzer 830 comprises analog-to-digital converters…incoming analog signals may be sampled at data rates as high as 1 GHz; ¶0184: the quantum state of the logical qubit may be encoded physically in a plurality of physical qubits, such as by entangling three physical qubits in a state with the same probability amplitudes as the logical qubit, which represents the entangled quantum state of three physical qubits; ¶0298, 0301: performing N+1 sequential measurements of a two-level qubit); wherein respective phase shifts applied by the one or more phase shift circuits are selected such that the homodyne measurement values represent n-GHZ measurements in different bases (claim 6) (¶0383-84, 0395: This shift is equivalent to a qubit Z-rotation of π conditioned on the photon number in Alice being odd because e.sup.iπa.sup.†.sup.a=P.sub.A. Therefore the whole sequence R.sub.π/2.sup.geC.sub.π.sup.AR.sub.π/2.sup.ge flips the qubit if and only if the photon number parity in Alice is even…one cavity acquires a conditional π phase (modulo 2π) while the other acquires 0 phase (modulo 2π); see Table C1 of ¶0370 showing GHz measurements corresponding to phase shift circuits).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit of Bourassa in view of Ofek to satisfy the claimed condition, because such n-GHz measurements implemented at microwave frequencies allow the quantum systems to be coupled wirelessly or via waveguides, etc., as taught in paragraphs ¶0096 of Ofek.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourassa et al. (US 2022/0101168 A1) in view of Noh et al. (US 11,909,451 B2).
Regarding Claim 11, Bourassa discloses the circuit according to Claim 1, as above. Bourassa does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the number n of input paths is 3.
Noh is related to Bourassa with respect to a circuit comprising a quantum information system including GKP states, beamsplitters and a subsequent homodyne measurement (col.’s 14-15, 20-21), and Noh teaches: wherein the number n of input paths is 3 (col. 14: three-bit GKP repetition code where three qubits are needed; col. 33: n N-mode GKP-squeezed repetition code 1400c for the case where N=3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit of Bourassa in view of Noh to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a number of input paths is known and would be selected to suppress qubit flip errors and reduce additive quadrature noise errors, as taught in col.’s 14 and 33 of Noh.
Regarding Claim 12, Bourassa discloses the circuit according to Claim 11, as above. Bourassa further discloses: wherein the network of beam splitters includes one intermediate beam splitter and one final beam splitter, wherein two of the three input paths are coupled to the inputs of the intermediate beam splitter (¶0089: in FIGS. 6A-C each node [input] is a GKP plus state from a single-mode source and each link/edge is represented by 50:50 beamsplitters; ¶0058: a three-dimensional macronodal lattice structure in one temporal dimension and two spatial dimensions, where the generation circuit may consist of sources, beamsplitters, and homodyne detectors; see FIG. 6C annotated below showing two of three input paths I1 to I2 are coupled to inputs of the intermediate beam splitters “BI”) and the third of the three input paths is coupled to one of the inputs of the final beam splitter (see FIG. 6C annotated below showing third input path “I3” coupled to final beam splitter “BF” (after the BF, path is to the detector)).
PNG
media_image1.png
563
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Bourassa discloses the circuit according to Claim 12, as above. Bourassa further discloses: wherein the intermediate beam splitter is a 50/50 beam splitter and the final beam splitter is a 1/3 beam splitter (¶0065: 50:50 beamsplitters are applied between pairs of modes as indicated by the arrows, and these generate entangled pairs; see FIGS. 6B-C & 12 showing intermediate and final beam splitters).
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Pant et al. (US 20210304053 A1) discloses a circuit comprising a quantum information system including qubit states, network of beamsplitters and a subsequent measurement, and further satisfying some of the additional conditions as claimed.
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
Prosecution Insights