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 .
Election/Restrictions
In light of applicant’s amendments and the results of initial searches, the restriction requirement of 6/18/26 is withdrawn.
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 1 and 40-46 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. Claim 47 recites. “designating qubits loaded in the first zone as data qubits and designating qubits loaded in the second zone as ancilla qubits.” Support for such designating cannot be found in the original disclosure. Accordingly, the limitation is new matter and the claims are rejected for failing the written description requirement.
Claims 47-53 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. Claim 47 recites. “one controller configured to: encode…move…entangle…move…and measure…” Claim 52 recites, “one controller is configured to generate mobile traps.” Support for such a controller cannot be found in the original disclosure. Accordingly, the limitations are new matter and the claims are rejected for failing the written description requirement.
Claims 54-61 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. Claim 54 recites. “assigning, depending on a zone of the plurality of static optical traps, the qubits a type, the assigning comprising: designating qubits loaded in the first zone as data qubits; and designating qubits loaded in the second zone as ancilla qubits; and scheduling operations of the qubits, depending on the assigned type of each qubit.” Claims 55-58 and 60 all describe “generating [ordinal number] control signals. Claim 61 describes a “CNOT gate.” Support for such assigning, designating, scheduling, control signals, or a CNOT gate cannot be found in the original disclosure. Accordingly, the limitations are new matter and the claims are rejected for failing the written description requirement.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 55 is 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. Claim 55 recites “a static light modulator (SLM).” Everywhere else in the disclosure an SLM refers to a “spatial light modulator.” The redefinition makes it unclear whether the SLM of claim 55 is a static spatial light modulator, or simply a light modulator that is static. Further, it is unclear if the claim 55 re-definition is intentional, or a typo. Accordingly, the claim is rejected as indefinite.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 54-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0175411 A1 [King] in view of Cohen, Sam R., and Jeff D. Thompson. "Quantum computing with circular Rydberg atoms." PRX Quantum 2.3 (2021): 030322 [hereinafter Cohen].
Regarding Claim 54:
King teaches a method for performing a quantum information processing operation using a quantum computer (abstract), the method comprising:
generating a plurality of static optical traps, the plurality of static optical traps comprising a first zone and a second zone (paras 6-7, Fig. 3c-d showing different zones );
loading the plurality of static optical traps with qubits, wherein the qubits comprise neutral atom qubits (as shown in Fig. 3c-d, and described in para 75);
and
scheduling operations of the qubits, depending on the type of each qubit (paras 7, 59, 114).
However, King fails to teach assigning, depending on a zone of the plurality of static optical traps, the qubits a type, the assigning comprising:
designating qubits loaded in the first zone as data qubits, and designating qubits loaded in the second zone as ancilla qubits.
Cohen teaches assigning, depending on a zone of the plurality of static optical traps, the qubits a type (Fig. 1 – compute array vs ancilla array), the assigning comprising:
designating qubits loaded in the first zone as data qubits (Fig. 1 - compute array), and designating qubits loaded in the second zone as ancilla qubits (Fig. 1 – ancilla array).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to implement the array designating of Cohen in King. One would have been motivated to do so in order to arrange and manipulate trapped atoms in an organized fashion.
Regarding Claim 55:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 54, wherein generating the plurality of static optical traps comprises generating first control signals to drive a static light modulator (SLM) to generate the plurality of static optical traps. King paras 59,66, 95-97.
Regarding Claim 56:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 54, wherein scheduling operations of the qubits comprises generating second control signals to drive a 2D acousto-optic deflector (AOD) to generate mobile optical traps to transport qubits between regions depending on the assigned type of the qubits. King paras 66, 106, 107.
Regarding Claim 57:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 56, wherein transporting qubits comprises generating third control signals to control the AOD to transport ancilla qubits in mobile optical traps between the first zone and the second zone (King claim 31).
Regarding Claim 58:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 54, wherein scheduling operations of the qubits comprises generating fourth control signals to perform single-qubit operations, depending on the assigned type of qubits (King paras 7, 59, 114).
Regarding Claim 59:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 54, wherein performing single-qubit operations comprises preparing the qubits in a mF=0 clockstate. King Para 7 describe setting the atoms to Rydberg states, which corresponds to the mF=0 clockstate described in the instant specification.
Regarding Claim 60:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 54, wherein scheduling operations of the qubits comprises generating fifth control signals to perform multi-qubit operations between the data qubits and the ancilla qubits. King para 114 – two-qubit gate operations.
Regarding Claim 61:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 60, wherein performing the multi-qubit operations comprises performing, between a data qubit of the data qubits and an ancilla qubit of the ancilla qubits, at least one of a CNOT gate, a CZ gate, or a Rydberg gate. King Para 39.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 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, 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights