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 .
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0081] equation (4) is the same as equation (2). This an error. In the priority document filed 12/11/2023, equation (4) is different.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15 line 7, “the the adjusting” should read “the adjusting”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0007051 A1 (Sete) in view of “Quantum Nonlinearities In Strong Coupling Circuit QED” (2010-Fink)
With respect to claim 1, Sete teaches A method for coupling a superconducting qubit, the method comprising (FIG. 21, [0214]-[0237] describes the basic design process; “In the following we describe the process by which the Hamiltonian parameters are chosen under the above constraints/conditions. In some cases, the Hamiltonian parameters of the circuit shown in FIG. 20 can be improved or optimized, for instance, according to the process 2100 shown in FIG. 21 or another process.” [0214]; where the process is specifically for optimizing a coupling parameter, [0232]-[0233]; and applies to a superconducting qubit: “the flux modulation is specified at a modulation frequency applied to a superconducting circuit loop that defines a flux quantum (of the tunable qubit device), [0225] lines 10-13): determining a target coupling strength (target g_targ^(l) set at 2102, [0232] line 4; where step 2102 is "obtain...operating criteria", where "The operating criteria obtained at 2102 can be quantum processor circuit design criteria associated with a two-qubit quantum logic gate, [0219] lines 1-3; In some cases, the quantum processor circuit design criteria include a minimum effective coupling strength", [0219] lines 6-8)... ; initializing [variables](see step 2102, "obtain initial qubit device parameters", which)..., calculating a to-be-measured coupling (see step 2104, "compute operating parameters under flux modulation"; "at 2104 the process 2100 may compute the effective coupling g_eff during modulation, for each candidate quantum logic gate k...", [0226] lines 1-4)..., and in response to detecting that the to-be-measured coupling strength and the target coupling strength satisfy a preset condition, generating,..., a complete layout (see steps 2106-2112 in FIG. 21, where 2106 has “at 2106 the process 2100 may check that the maximum effective coupling during modulation is larger than the target g_targ^(l) set at 2102, [0232] lines 2-4; and step 2112 has the complete layout, “At 2112, a physical layout of a quantum integrated circuit is generated”, [0236] lines 1-2).
Sete teaches the basic method, but does not teach determining ... a first target frequency of the qubit, and a second target frequency of the target read cavity; initializing a read coupling port configuration layout based on a configuration of the qubit, a relative position of the qubit to the target read cavity, the read coupling port configuration layout being used to represent a layout of a positional relationship between the qubit and a read coupling port of the target read cavity; calculating ... [is] based on the read coupling port configuration layout, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency, or that generating, [is] based on the second target frequency and the read coupling port configuration layout.
However, Fink teaches determining ... a first target frequency of the qubit, and a second target frequency of the target read cavity (“Circuit QED allows to study in detail all facets of strong coupling cavity QED in a very controlled fashion and offers a number of new opportunities. The properties of artificial atoms can be engineered during fabrication, some of their parameters can be in-situ tuned and they remain fixed in space which implies a constant coupling strength”, [page 5 paragraph 3 lines 1-4], noting that certain parameters are “engineered” or “designed”, and chapter 4 gives details of three design parameters for the resonator and three design parameters for the qubit, “The three main design parameters of the coplanar waveguide resonator are the resonance frequency v_r determined by the length of the resonator, the quality factor Q determined by the size of the chosen gap or finger capacitors and finally the impedance of the circuit which is determined by the ratio of the center conductor width to the size of the gap between the center conductor and the ground planes (designed to be to be ~50 ohms), see Subsection 2.1.1.”, [page 33 paragraph 2 lines 1-6]; “Again there are three main design parameters, namely the two characteristic energies: Josephson energy E_J and charging energy E_C as well as the qubit photon coupling strength g, see Sections 2.2 and 5.1, [page 34 paragraph 2 lines 5-7]; where section 2.2. shows how E_C and E_J are the energy associated with the transition frequency of the transmon as described in eq. (2.15), [page 15]); initializing a read coupling port configuration layout based on a configuration of the qubit, a relative position of the qubit to the target read cavity, the read coupling port configuration layout being used to represent a layout of a positional relationship between the qubit and a read coupling port of the target read cavity (initializing here refers to setting up the geometry for the simulation, where “In order to be able to faithfully design and predict the qubit parameters prior to their fabrication and measurement a detailed simulation was carried out. While the charging energy EC and the qubit / resonator coupling strength g basically depend on the geometry of the circuit only”, [page 47 paragraph 2 lines 1-4]; for a specific example, see FIG. 5.1, which includes the Josephson junction, the actual positions of the qubit relative to the resonator, and a type of capacitor configuration, [page 49]; see also FIG. 2.2 showing how different geometries (finger capacitor in FIG. 5.1(a) versus gap capacitor in FIG. 5.1(b)) can be parameterized, [page 14]); calculating ... based on the read coupling port configuration layout, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency (performing the simulation, [page 47 paragraph 2] and solving equation (5.5), [page 48], where the fundamental resonator frequency is included as v_r/omega_r in eq. (5.6), [page 48], and where section 2.2. shows how E_C and E_J are based on the transition frequency of the transmon in eq. (2.15), [page 15]); and ... generating, [is] based on the second target frequency and the read coupling port configuration layout (“In order to be able to faithfully design and predict the qubit parameters prior to their fabrication and measurement a detailed simulation was carried out”, [page 47 paragraph 2 lines 1-2], second target frequency is the resonator frequency provided in eq. (5.6), [page 48], and the read coupling port configuration layout is the geometry that results in the capacitance C_g as shown in FIG. 5.1, [page 49]; both are performed prior to fabrication in order to faithfully design, referring back to the tuning/engineering of specific properties of artificial atoms, as mentioned at [page 5 paragraph 3 lines 1-4]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sete with Fink because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Sete discloses a system and method that teaches how to design a qubit circuit by choosing Hamiltonian parameters (see Sete [0214]), and gives specifics such as target coupling strength (see Sete [0232]-[233]), but does not teach how a resonator-qubit are modeled according to the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian. Fink teaches the details of that model (see Fink [page 18]), and why it is used:
Circuit QED is a novel on-chip realization of cavity QED. It offers the possibility to realize an exceptionally strong coupling between artificial atoms – individual superconducting qubits – and single microwave photons in a one dimensional waveguide resonator. This new solid state approach to investigate the matter-light interaction enables to carry out novel quantum optics experiments with an unprecedented degree of control. Moreover, multiple superconducting qubits coupled via intra-cavity photons – a quantum bus – are a promising hardware architecture for the realization of a scalable quantum information processor.
(Fink, [Abstract] paragraph 2)
A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully modeling a qubit-resonator coupler as a first step to fabricate a scalable information processor by using the general method of Sete with the specific equations and simulations of Fink. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Set with Fink to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to claim 3, Sete in view of Fink teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Sete further teaches wherein the method further comprises: adjusting, in response to detecting that the to-be-measured coupling strength and the target coupling strength do not satisfy the preset condition, specifications of the read coupling port in the read coupling port configuration layout, to obtain a new read coupling port configuration layout (see step 2108, in FIG. 21; condition is checking maximum effective coupling against g_targ, [0232], and then changing the coupling strength by delta g, [0233] lines 7-9; with iteration described at [0234]); replacing the read coupling port configuration layout with the new read coupling port configuration layout; and continuing to calculate, based on the new read coupling port configuration layout, the first target frequency and the second target frequency, the to-be- measured coupling strength between the qubit and the read coupling port, until the to-be-measured coupling strength and the target coupling strength are detected to satisfy the preset condition (changing the coupling strength by delta g, [0233] lines 7-9; and in FIG. 21, repeating steps 2104 and 2106, until operating parameters meet criteria, In some cases, operations 2104, 2106, 2108 (and possibly other operations) are executed as an iterative process, wherein each iteration includes obtaining a current set of qubit device design parameters for the qubit devices (at 2108); determining, based on the current set of qubit device design parameters, current operating parameters for the qubit devices under the flux modulation operating condition (at 2104); and evaluating (at 2106) whether the current operating parameter meets the quantum processor circuit design criterion associated with the two-qubit quantum logic gate, [0234] lines 1-11; note that calculating is in reference to the Hamiltonian, [0214], which has all the required parameters as described with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 6, Sete in view of Fink teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Sete further teaches and determining, in response to detecting that the calculated coupling strength and the target coupling strength satisfy the preset condition, that the complete layout is correct (see Fig. 21 steps 2106, 2110, and 2112, and associated paragraphs [0232], [0235], and [0236]).
Sete does not teach performing electromagnetic simulation on the complete layout to obtain a qubit self-capacitance of the qubit, and a coupling mutual capacitance between the qubit and the target read cavity; calculating a calculated coupling strength based on the qubit self-capacitance, the coupling mutual capacitance, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency.
However, Fink teaches performing electromagnetic simulation on the complete layout to obtain a qubit self-capacitance of the qubit (Both EC and the qubit-photon coupling g depend on the network of capacitances formed by the qubit and the resonator. We use the electrostatic solver provided in the software package Ansoft Maxwell to simulate a 3 dimensional model of our intended qubit design, [page 47 paragraph 3]; The electrostatic solver then tries to find the capacitance matrix
that contains all mutual capacitances C_i,j between the four electrodes i , j ϵ {1,2, 3,4} using finite element techniques, [page 48 paragraph 1 lines 7-9]; see equation (5.1), [page 48]; C_S is the shunt capacitance, and C_J is the junction capacitance, where junction capacitance reads on the “qubit self-capacitance”), and a coupling mutual capacitance between the qubit and the target read cavity (see eq. (5.2), C_g is the gate capacitance/coupling capacitance, [page 48], see FIG. 5.1, [page 49] for the circuit diagram; relevant explanation given with respect to eq. (2.10), [page 14]; calculating a calculated coupling strength based on the qubit self-capacitance, the coupling mutual capacitance, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency (eq. (5.5), [page 48], g is the coupling strength, coupling mutual capacitance is in the BETA term as noted in eq. (5.3), the frequency of the resonator is in the V term, as noted in eq. (5.6), and the qubit frequency is in the E_C term where section 2.2. shows how E_C and E_J are the energy associated with the transition frequency of the transmon as described in eq. (2.15), [page 15]; to understand the equation and the Fig. 2.5, one must know the law that Energy/plank’s constant is frequency).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sete with Fink because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Sete discloses a system and method that teaches how to design a qubit circuit by choosing Hamiltonian parameters (see Sete [0214]), and gives specifics such as target coupling strength (see Sete [0232]-[233]), but does not teach how a resonator-qubit are modeled according to the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian. Fink teaches the details of that model (see Fink [page 18]), and why it is used:
Circuit QED is a novel on-chip realization of cavity QED. It offers the possibility to realize an exceptionally strong coupling between artificial atoms – individual superconducting qubits – and single microwave photons in a one dimensional waveguide resonator. This new solid state approach to investigate the matter-light interaction enables to carry out novel quantum optics experiments with an unprecedented degree of control. Moreover, multiple superconducting qubits coupled via intra-cavity photons – a quantum bus – are a promising hardware architecture for the realization of a scalable quantum information processor.
(Fink, [Abstract] paragraph 2)
A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully modeling a qubit-resonator coupler as a first step to fabricate a scalable information processor by using the general method of Sete with the specific equations and simulations of Fink. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Set with Fink to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to claim 7, Sete in view of Fink teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, as noted above. Sete does not teach wherein the calculating a calculated coupling strength based on the qubit self- capacitance, the coupling mutual capacitance, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency comprises: taking the qubit self-capacitance, the coupling mutual capacitance, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency into a read cavity impedance coupling equation to obtain the calculated coupling strength, wherein the read cavity impedance coupling equation is used to represent a corresponding relationship between all five of the coupling mutual capacitance, the qubit self-capacitance, a standard impedance, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency, and the calculated coupling strength.
However, Fink teaches wherein the calculating a calculated coupling strength based on the qubit self- capacitance, the coupling mutual capacitance, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency comprises: taking the qubit self-capacitance, the coupling mutual capacitance, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency into a read cavity impedance coupling equation to obtain the calculated coupling strength, wherein the read cavity impedance coupling equation is used to represent a corresponding relationship between all five of the coupling mutual capacitance, the qubit self-capacitance, a standard impedance, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency, and the calculated coupling strength (the equations include all of the variables as noted above except impedance, where Z_0 or impedance is designed to be 50 ohms: “finally the impedance of the circuit which is determined by the ratio of the center conductor width to the size of the gap between the center conductor and the ground planes (designed to be ~50 ohms), [page 33 paragraph 2 lines 3-5]; eq. (5.5) includes eq. (5.6), which includes the impedance term Z_0: C_r = εrπ/2ωrZ0, see [page 48 paragraph 3]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sete with Fink because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Sete discloses a system and method that teaches how to design a qubit circuit by choosing Hamiltonian parameters (see Sete [0214]), and gives specifics such as target coupling strength (see Sete [0232]-[233]), but does not teach how a resonator-qubit are modeled according to the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian. Fink teaches the details of that model (see Fink [page 18]), and why it is used:
Circuit QED is a novel on-chip realization of cavity QED. It offers the possibility to realize an exceptionally strong coupling between artificial atoms – individual superconducting qubits – and single microwave photons in a one dimensional waveguide resonator. This new solid state approach to investigate the matter-light interaction enables to carry out novel quantum optics experiments with an unprecedented degree of control. Moreover, multiple superconducting qubits coupled via intra-cavity photons – a quantum bus – are a promising hardware architecture for the realization of a scalable quantum information processor.
(Fink, [Abstract] paragraph 2)
A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully modeling a qubit-resonator coupler as a first step to fabricate a scalable information processor by using the general method of Sete with the specific equations and simulations of Fink. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Set with Fink to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to claim 8, Sete in view of Fink teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Sete further teaches wherein the determining a target coupling strength between a target read cavity and a qubit, a first target frequency of the qubit, and a second target frequency of the target read cavity comprises: acquiring a preset first target frequency of the qubit and the target coupling strength; and calculating the second target frequency based on the first target frequency and the target coupling strength (three main design parameters of the coplanar waveguide resonator are the resonance frequency determined by the length of the resonator v_r, [page 33 paragraph 2 lines 1-2]; eq. (5.5) with (5.6) defines the relationship between coupling strength and resonant frequency, [page 48]; if coupling strength needs to be changed this is done geometrically: “In order to be able to faithfully design and predict the qubit parameters prior to their fabrication and measurement a detailed simulation was carried out. While the charging energy EC and the qubit / resonator coupling strength g basically depend on the geometry of the circuit only”, [page 47 paragraph 2 lines 1-4]; at a fixed g, one controls the resonant frequency, and the actual frequency of the resonator is control by its length, as disclosed in section 2.1.1, [page 9 paragraph 2 lines 1-2]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sete with Fink because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Sete discloses a system and method that teaches how to design a qubit circuit by choosing Hamiltonian parameters (see Sete [0214]), and gives specifics such as target coupling strength (see Sete [0232]-[233]), but does not teach how a resonator-qubit are modeled according to the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian. Fink teaches the details of that model (see Fink [page 18]), and why it is used:
Circuit QED is a novel on-chip realization of cavity QED. It offers the possibility to realize an exceptionally strong coupling between artificial atoms – individual superconducting qubits – and single microwave photons in a one dimensional waveguide resonator. This new solid state approach to investigate the matter-light interaction enables to carry out novel quantum optics experiments with an unprecedented degree of control. Moreover, multiple superconducting qubits coupled via intra-cavity photons – a quantum bus – are a promising hardware architecture for the realization of a scalable quantum information processor.
(Fink, [Abstract] paragraph 2)
A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully modeling a qubit-resonator coupler as a first step to fabricate a scalable information processor by using the general method of Sete with the specific equations and simulations of Fink. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Set with Fink to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to claim 10, Sete in view of Fink teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Sete does not teach wherein the calculating a to-be-measured coupling strength between the qubit and the read coupling port, based on the read coupling port configuration layout, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency comprises: performing electromagnetic simulation on the read coupling port configuration layout to obtain a qubit self-capacitance of the qubit, and a port mutual capacitance between the qubit and the read coupling port; and taking the qubit self-capacitance, the port mutual capacitance, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency into a port impedance coupling equation to obtain the to-be-measured coupling strength, wherein the port impedance coupling equation is used to represent a corresponding relationship between all five of the port mutual capacitance, the qubit self- capacitance, a standard impedance, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency, and the to- be-measured coupling strength.
However, Fink teaches wherein the calculating a to-be-measured coupling strength between the qubit and the read coupling port, based on the read coupling port configuration layout, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency comprises (performing the simulation, [page 47 paragraph 2] and solving equation (5.5), [page 48], where the fundamental resonator frequency is included as v_r/omega_r in eq. (5.6), [page 48], and where section 2.2. shows how E_C and E_J are based on the transition frequency of the transmon in eq. (2.15), [page 15]): performing electromagnetic simulation on the read coupling port configuration layout to obtain a qubit self-capacitance of the qubit, and a port mutual capacitance between the qubit and the read coupling port (We use the electrostatic solver provided in the software package Ansoft Maxwell to simulate a 3 dimensional model of our intended qubit design, [page 47 paragraph 3 lines 2-3]; see FIG. 5.1 for the simulation between the port and the qubit, [page 49]); and taking the qubit self-capacitance, the port mutual capacitance, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency into a port impedance coupling equation to obtain the to-be-measured coupling strength, wherein the port impedance coupling equation is used to represent a corresponding relationship between all five of the port mutual capacitance, the qubit self- capacitance, a standard impedance, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency, and the to- be-measured coupling strength (see eq. (5.5) for coupling strength equation, [page 48], the qubit self-capacitance, the port mutual capacitance are included in the term BETA as shown in Eq. (5.3), the qubit frequency is incorporated in the E_J/E_C term, as described in eq. (2.15), [page 15]; frequency of the readout resonator is in the V term as shown in eq. (5.6); and eq. (5.5) includes eq. (5.6), which includes the impedance term Z_0: C_r = εrπ/2ωrZ0, see [page 48 paragraph 3]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sete with Fink because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Sete discloses a system and method that teaches how to design a qubit circuit by choosing Hamiltonian parameters (see Sete [0214]), and gives specifics such as target coupling strength (see Sete [0232]-[233]), but does not teach how a resonator-qubit are modeled according to the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian. Fink teaches the details of that model (see Fink [page 18]), and why it is used:
Circuit QED is a novel on-chip realization of cavity QED. It offers the possibility to realize an exceptionally strong coupling between artificial atoms – individual superconducting qubits – and single microwave photons in a one dimensional waveguide resonator. This new solid state approach to investigate the matter-light interaction enables to carry out novel quantum optics experiments with an unprecedented degree of control. Moreover, multiple superconducting qubits coupled via intra-cavity photons – a quantum bus – are a promising hardware architecture for the realization of a scalable quantum information processor.
(Fink, [Abstract] paragraph 2)
A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully modeling a qubit-resonator coupler as a first step to fabricate a scalable information processor by using the general method of Sete with the specific equations and simulations of Fink. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Set with Fink to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to claim 11, Sete in view of Fink teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Sete further teaches wherein generating, based on the second target frequency and the read coupling port configuration layout, a complete layout comprising the qubit and the target read cavity comprises: completing, in response to detecting that the to-be- measured coupling strength and the target coupling strength satisfy the preset condition, the read coupling port in the read coupling port configuration layout, and generating the complete layout comprising the qubit and the target read cavity (in FIG. 21 see the “yes” route after step 2106 leading to step 2112, generate physical layout of quantum integrated circuit; see steps 2106-2112 in FIG. 21, where 2106 has “at 2106 the process 2100 may check that the maximum effective coupling during modulation is larger than the target g_targ^(l) set at 2102, [0232] lines 2-4; and step 2112 has the complete layout, “At 2112, a physical layout of a quantum integrated circuit is generated”, [0236] lines 1-2; examples of a full quantum integrated circuit are given in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4).
With respect to claim 12, Sete teaches An apparatus for coupling a superconducting qubit, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations, the operations comprising (In some cases, one or more operations of the process 2100 can be performed by a computer system, for instance, by a digital computer system executing instructions (e.g., instructions stored on a digital memory or other computer readable medium) on a microprocessor, or by another type of computer system, [0215] lines 9-14]).
Regarding the rest of claim 12, incorporating the rejection of claim 1, claim 12 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 14, incorporating the rejection of claim 12 and claim 3, claim 14 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 17, incorporating the rejection of claim 12 and claim 6, claim 17 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 18, incorporating the rejection of claim 17 and claim 7, claim 18 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 19, incorporating the rejection of claim 12 and claim 8, claim 19 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 20, Sete teaches A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions, wherein the computer instructions are used to cause a computer to perform operations comprising (In some cases, one or more operations of the process 2100 can be performed by a computer system, for instance, by a digital computer system executing instructions (e.g., instructions stored on a digital memory or other computer readable medium) on a microprocessor, or by another type of computer system, [0215] lines 9-14]).
Regarding the rest of claim 12, incorporating the rejection of claim 1, claim 12 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0007051 A1 (Sete) in view of “Quantum Nonlinearities In Strong Coupling Circuit QED” (2010-Fink) in further view of “Simulations and experiments on coplanar waveguide resonators intersected by capacitively shunted Josephson junctions” (2019-van de Veen)
With respect to claim 2, Sete in view of Fink teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Sete further teaches wherein the method further comprises: adjusting, in response to detecting that the to-be- measured coupling strength and the target coupling strength do not satisfy the preset condition , ..., to obtain a new read coupling port configuration layout (see step 2108, “obtain updated qubit device parameters” in FIG. 21, which defines the layout as described in step 2112, where the preset condition is checking maximum effective coupling against g_targ, [0232], and then changing the coupling, [0233] lines 7-9; with iteration described at [0234]); replacing the read coupling port configuration layout with the new read coupling port configuration layout; and continuing to calculate, based on the new read coupling port configuration layout, the first target frequency and the second target frequency, the to-be- measured coupling strength between the qubit and the read coupling port, until the to-be-measured coupling strength and the target coupling strength are detected to satisfy the preset condition (in FIG. 21, repeating steps 2104 and 2106, until operating parameters meet criteria, In some cases, operations 2104, 2106, 2108 (and possibly other operations) are executed as an iterative process, wherein each iteration includes obtaining a current set of qubit device design parameters for the qubit devices (at 2108); determining, based on the current set of qubit device design parameters, current operating parameters for the qubit devices under the flux modulation operating condition (at 2104); and evaluating (at 2106) whether the current operating parameter meets the quantum processor circuit design criterion associated with the two-qubit quantum logic gate, [0234] lines 1-11).
However, vandeVeen teaches adjusting, in response to detecting that the to-be-measured coupling strength and the target coupling strength do not satisfy the preset condition, a spacing between the read coupling port and the qubit in the read coupling port configuration layout (finding the “critically coupled” gap: “We make our capacitances by simply leaving a gap in the centre conductor. To translate this gap to the capacitance we need, we again use sonnet with a similar trick”, [page 34 paragraph 6]; to see all of the points tested see FIG. 4.11(b), [page 35]; the “trick” of using sonnet to parameterize and test the capacitor spacing is first introduced at, [page 32 paragraph 2 lines 1-2]; also mentions why: “we fully parameterized our design, allowing us to vary positions and dimensions until everything satisfied the constraints, [page 31 paragraph 4 lines 1-3]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sete in view of Fink with vandeVeen because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Sete in view of Fink discloses a system and method that teaches all of the claimed features except for specifically adjusting the gap. Sete teaches the basic design methodology:
If the condition is not met, at 2108 the process 2100 may change the static coupling g^(l) ->g(l) + delta g^(l) and repeat 2104, 2106.
(Sete [0233] lines 7-9).
Fink teaches the specific design parameter:
...the quality factor Q determined by the size of the chosen gap or finger capacitors...
(Fink [page 33 paragraph 2 lines 2-3]), and also provides an explanation of the relationship:
PNG
media_image1.png
294
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fink [pages 9-10]), but doesn’t specifically show the iterative process. VanDeVeen teaches specifically how the teachings of Sete are implemented in python using sonnet to test different gap widths:
PNG
media_image2.png
434
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(in this case 12 micrometers), (see vandeVeen section 4.2.4, [page 34 paragraph 4]-[page 35 paragraph 1]). A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully designing a quantum computing circuit in the system of Sete in view of Fink by modifying Sete in view of Fink with the python code of vandaVeen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sete in view of Fink with vandaVeen to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to claim 13, incorporating the rejection of claim 12 and claim 2, claim 13 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0007051 A1 (Sete) in view of “Quantum Nonlinearities In Strong Coupling Circuit QED” (2010-Fink) in further view of “Fast and scalable readout for fault-tolerant quantum computing with superconducting Qubits” (2018-Vollmer)
With respect to claim 4, Sete in view of Fink teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, as noted above. Sete further teaches: and the adjusting, in response to detecting that the to-be- measured coupling strength and the target coupling strength do not satisfy the preset condition, specifications of the read coupling port in the read coupling port configuration layout, to obtain a new read coupling port configuration layout comprises (see step 2108, in FIG. 21; condition is checking maximum effective coupling against g_targ, [0232], and then changing the coupling strength by delta g, [0233] lines 7-9; with iteration described at [0234]).
Sete does not teach wherein the read coupling port comprises: a first coupling port of a crossed-finger shape, the first coupling port comprising a first finger portion parallel to a length direction of a capacitance arm of the qubit and the capacitance arm being used for coupling to the read coupling port ... decreasing, in response to the to-be-measured coupling strength being greater than the target coupling strength by a preset strength value, a length of the first finger portion by a first preset value, to obtain the new read coupling port configuration layout; and increasing, in response to the target coupling strength being greater than the to-be-measured coupling strength by the preset strength value, the length of the first finger portion by the first preset value, to obtain the new read coupling port configuration layout.
However, Fink teaches wherein the read coupling port comprises: a first coupling port of a crossed-finger shape, the first coupling port comprising a first finger portion parallel to a length direction of a capacitance arm of the qubit and the capacitance arm being used for coupling to the read coupling port (see FIG. 2.2, [page 9]).
Sete and Fink do not teach ... decreasing, in response to the to-be-measured coupling strength being greater than the target coupling strength by a preset strength value, a length of the first finger portion by a first preset value, to obtain the new read coupling port configuration layout; and increasing, in response to the target coupling strength being greater than the to-be-measured coupling strength by the preset strength value, the length of the first finger portion by the first preset value, to obtain the new read coupling port configuration layout.
However, Vollmer teaches ... decreasing, in response to the to-be-measured coupling strength being greater than the target coupling strength by a preset strength value, a length of the first finger portion by a first preset value, to obtain the new read coupling port configuration layout; and increasing, in response to the target coupling strength being greater than the to-be-measured coupling strength by the preset strength value, the length of the first finger portion by the first preset value, to obtain the new read coupling port configuration layout (After calculating k the capacitance values of the couplings g and with Eqs. (4.4) and (4.5), the finger length can be determined and the to-ground capacitances estimated, [page 28 paragraph 2 lines 2-4]; note Sete teaches changing the coupling strength by a preset value delta g at [0233] line 8; and eq. (4.5) of Vollmer shows how coupling strength relates to capacitance, [page 20]; and FIG. C.2 of Appendix C shows how to calculate the finger length from desired capacitance because of the linear relationship, where a positive linear relationship as shown has increasing the length to increase capacitance and decreasing the length to decrease capacitance:
PNG
media_image3.png
718
696
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[Appendix C page F]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sete in view of Fink with Vollmer because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Sete in view of Fink discloses a system and method that teaches all of the claimed features except for specifically adjusting the finger length. Sete teaches the basic design methodology:
If the condition is not met, at 2108 the process 2100 may change the static coupling g^(l) ->g(l) + delta g^(l) and repeat 2104, 2106.
(Sete [0233] lines 7-9).
Fink teaches the specific design parameter:
...the quality factor Q determined by the size of the chosen gap or finger capacitors...
(Fink [page 33 paragraph 2 lines 2-3]), and also provides an explanation of the relationship:
PNG
media_image1.png
294
736
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Fink [pages 9-10]), but doesn’t specifically show the iterative process. Vollmer teaches specifically how the teachings of Sete are implemented by changing finger length to meet target coupling strength constraints (see Volmer [page 28 paragraph 2 lines 1-4]. A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully designing a quantum computing circuit in the system of Sete in view of Fink by modifying Sete in view of Fink with the finger length changing of Vollmer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sete in view of Fink with Vollmer to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to claim 15, incorporating the rejection of claim 12 and claim 4, claim 15 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0007051 A1 (Sete) in view of “Quantum Nonlinearities In Strong Coupling Circuit QED” (2010-Fink) in further view of “Design of Interdigitated Capacitors and Their Application to Gallium Arsenide Monolithic Filters” (1983-Esfandiari)
With respect to claim 5, Sete in view of Fink teaches all of the limitations of claim 3, as noted above. Sete further teaches: and the adjusting, in response to detecting that the to-be- measured coupling strength and the target coupling strength do not satisfy the preset condition, specifications of the read coupling port in the read coupling port configuration layout, to obtain a new read coupling port configuration layout comprises (see step 2108, in FIG. 21; condition is checking maximum effective coupling against g_targ, [0232], and then changing the coupling strength by delta g, [0233] lines 7-9; with iteration described at [0234]).
Sete and Fink not teach wherein the read coupling port comprises: a second coupling port of a crossed-finger shape, the second coupling port comprising a second finger portion parallel to a width direction of a capacitance arm of the qubit and the capacitance arm being used for coupling to the read coupling port, ...decreasing, in response to the to-be-measured coupling strength being greater than the target coupling strength by a preset strength value, a width of the second finger portion by a second preset value, to obtain the new read coupling port configuration layout; and increasing, in response to the target coupling strength being greater than the to-be-measured coupling strength by the preset strength value, the width of the second finger portion by the second preset value, to obtain the new read coupling port configuration layout.
However, Esfandiari teaches wherein the read coupling port comprises: a second coupling port of a crossed-finger shape, the second coupling port comprising a second finger portion parallel to a width direction of a capacitance arm of the qubit and the capacitance arm being used for coupling to the read coupling port, (see FIG. 1, where the reference character W gives the finger width of the port, [page 58]) ...decreasing, in response to the to-be-measured coupling strength being greater than the target coupling strength by a preset strength value, a width of the second finger portion by a second preset value, to obtain the new read coupling port configuration layout; and increasing, in response to the target coupling strength being greater than the to-be-measured coupling strength by the preset strength value, the width of the second finger portion by the second preset value, to obtain the new read coupling port configuration layout. (Sete teaches changing the coupling strength by a preset value delta g at [0233] line 8; coupling strength g is related to capacitance as described by eq. (2.30) of Fink, which means capacitance has to change if g changes, and capacitance can be controlled by the positive relationship showed in FIG. 8 of Esfandiari, [page 61];
PNG
media_image4.png
708
408
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where “The third and final optimization or parameter adjustment comes after the physical layout of the device. Layout parasitic arise, for example, due to extension of sections of microstrip lines for the purpose of physically connecting components”, [page 63 col 1 paragraph 14-19]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sete in view of Fink with Esfandiari because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Sete in view of Fink discloses a system and method that teaches all of the claimed features except for specifically adjusting the finger width. Esfandiari teaches:
These plots are helpful for designing interdigital capacitors with optimum aspect ratios which will be discussed in the next section.
(Esfandiari [page 61 col 1 paragraph 2 lines 1-3]). A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully designing a quantum computing circuit in the system of Sete in view of Fink by modifying Sete in view of Fink with the finger width optimization of Esfandiari. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sete in view of Fink with Esfandiari to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to claim 16, incorporating the rejection of claim 14 and claim 5, claim 16 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0007051 A1 (Sete) in view of “Quantum Nonlinearities In Strong Coupling Circuit QED” (2010-Fink) in further view of “Resonator-zero-qubit architecture for superconducting qubits” (2012-Galiautdinov)
With respect to claim 9, Sete in view of Fink teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Sete and Fink do not teach wherein a plurality of second target frequencies are provided, and the initializing a read coupling port configuration layout 49 based on a configuration of the qubit and a relative position of the qubit to the target read cavity comprises: determining a plurality of read coupling ports based on a plurality of second target frequencies; initializing the read coupling port configuration layouts corresponding to the plurality of read coupling ports, based on the configuration of the qubit and relative positions of the qubit to respective target read cavities at the plurality of second target frequencies; and the calculating a to-be-measured coupling strength between the qubit and the read coupling port, based on the read coupling port configuration layout, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency comprises: obtaining an intermediate frequency based on the plurality of second target frequencies; and calculating a to-be-measured coupling strength between the qubit and a read coupling port, based on the read coupling port configuration layout corresponding to the plurality of read coupling ports, the first target frequency, and the intermediate frequency.
However, Galiautdinov teaches wherein a plurality of second target frequencies are provided (ω_b and ω_m in eq. (6), [page 3]), and the initializing a read coupling port configuration layout based on a configuration of the qubit and a relative position of the qubit to the target read cavity comprises (setting up the equations for the RezQu architecture, [Abstract]; with layout shown in FIG. 1, [page 1]; for initializing IDLING error see [page 4 col 1 paragraph 3 lines 11-13]; for initializing MOVE error see, [page 5 col 1 paragraph 1 lines 1-4]; see also the Hamiltonian in eq. (3), which is solved to get terms in error equations, [page 3]): determining a plurality of read coupling ports based on a plurality of second target frequencies (each qubit has two resonators: subscript ‘b’ stands for “resonator bus” and ‘m’ stands for memory resonator, see [Abstract] line 2]); initializing the read coupling port configuration layouts corresponding to the plurality of read coupling ports (setting up the Hamiltonian in eq. (3), [page 3]), based on the configuration of the qubit and relative positions of the qubit to respective target read cavities at the plurality of second target frequencies (the Hamiltonian is defined by the coupling capacitors, where these are designed by the parameter g in each term of the Hamiltonian shown in eq. (3); where w_m is the memory resonator frequency, w_b is the bus resonator frequency, g_m is the coupling strength between the memory resonator and the qubit, and g_b is the coupling strength between the resonator bus and the qubit, and g_d is the new coupling between the bus and the memory as shown in eq. (5); equation (2) shows the error term and equation (6) shows the OMEGA_ZZ, which is how the error term can be reduced using all of the parameters in the Hamiltonian, [page 3]), the calculating a to-be-measured coupling strength between the qubit and the read coupling port, based on the read coupling port configuration layout, the first target frequency, and the second target frequency comprises: obtaining an intermediate frequency based on the plurality of second target frequencies; and calculating a to-be-measured coupling strength between the qubit and a read coupling port, based on the read coupling port configuration layout corresponding to the plurality of read coupling ports, the first target frequency, and the intermediate frequency (solving the Hamiltonian, see the Hamiltonian in eq. (3), [page 3], to get eq. (6), where “Equation (6) shows that an optimal choice of the qubit "parked" frequency is w_q = (w_m + w_b)/2 midway between the memory and the bus frequencies”, [page 3 col 2 paragraph 1 lines 4-6]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine Sete in view of Fink with Galiautdinov because a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one skilled in the art to combine prior art teaching to arrive at the claimed invention. Sete discloses the method of Fig. 21. FIG. 21 is a design methodology for choosing the Hamiltonian parameters for the circuit shown in FIG. 20, see [0214]; FIG. 20 is a single circuit with six fixed frequency qubits and one tunable frequency qubit, see [0212]. However, Sete makes clear:
As an example, the process 2100 is described with reference to the circuit 2000 shown in FIG. 20, but the process 2100 can be used in connection with another type of circuit.
(Sete [0216] lines 8-11).
Galiautdinov teaches another type of circuit (see Galiautdinov FIG. 1 [page 1). Galiautdinov teaches this circuit has a significant reduction in idling error:
To demonstrate the advantage of the RezQu architecture, Eq. (8) may be compared with the corresponding result for the conventional bus-based architecture (without additional memories).
(Galiautdinov [page 4 col 1 paragraph 3 lines 1-4]), where:
...we have a reduction in the idling error in the RezQu architecture by at least 10^4 even before considering that OMEGA_zz can be zeroed in this order.
(Galiautdinov [page 4 col 1 paragraph 3 lines 11-13]).
A person having skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully reducing the idling error in the system and method of Sete in view of Fink by modifying Sete in view of Fink with the circuit and associated Hamiltonian of Galiautdinov. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sete in view of Fink with Galiautdinov to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9,501,748 B2 (Naaman) - Quantum systems are provided, including a qubit and a transmission line resonator having an associated resonant wavelength. A coupling capacitor is configured to capacitively couple the qubit to the transmission line resonator. A transformer is configured to inductively couple the qubit to the transmission line resonator. A selected one of an associated capacitance of the coupling capacitor and an associated mutual inductance of the transformer is a function of a location of the qubit along the transmission line resonator, [Abstract].
US 20240303520 A1 (Wang) - Cavity resonators are promising resources for quantum technology, while native nonlinear interactions for cavities are typically too weak to provide the level of quantum control required to deliver complex targeted operations. Here we investigate a scheme to engineer a target Hamiltonian for photonic cavities using ancilla qubits. By off-resonantly driving dispersively coupled ancilla qubits, we develop an optimized approach to engineering an arbitrary photon-number dependent (PND) Hamiltonian for the cavities while minimizing the operation errors. The engineered Hamiltonian admits various applications including canceling unwanted cavity self-Kerr interactions, creating higher-order nonlinearities for quantum simulations, and designing quantum gates resilient to noise. Our scheme can be implemented with coupled microwave cavities and transmon qubits in superconducting circuit systems, [Abstract].
“Coplanar waveguide resonators for circuit quantum electrodynamics” (2008-Goppl) - In this paper we demonstrate that we are able to design, fabricate, and characterize CPW resonators with well-defined resonance frequency and coupled quality factors. The resonance frequency is controlled by the resonator length and its loaded quality factor is controlled by its capacitive coupling to input and output transmission lines. Strongly coupled over coupled resonators with accordingly low quality factors are ideal for performing fast measurements of the state of a qubit integrated into the resonator. On the other hand, undercoupled resonators with large quality factors can be used to store photons in the cavity on a long time scale, with potential use as a quantum memory, [page 104 col 2 paragraph 2].
“Two-resonator circuit quantum electrodynamics: A superconducting quantum switch” (2008-Mariantoni) – Hamiltonian of a generic three-node network: The system to be studied is sketched in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b), where the microwave resonators are represented by symbolic mirrors. A more realistic setup is discussed in Sec. V and is drawn in Fig. 6(a). A and B represent the two cavities and Q represents a superconducting qubit, making altogether a three-node network, [page 3 col 1 paragraph 3 lines 1-6].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (408) 918-7548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 11am to 5pm (PT). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Chiang, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7483. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights