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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 15, “iteratively equating an equation” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the claim is reciting that the equation is equated to something else or if vz(t) is iteratively evaluated according to the equation.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 15, “wherein, in each iteration, values of either a protocol time τ or values of a finite energy resource of the control protocol vz(t), are modified until both sides of the equation are at least substantially equal” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how modifying τ affects the equation because τ is never recited in the equation.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 15, “s modulus” and “β phase” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “s” is being claimed as the modulus or if a term called “s modulus” is being recited. The same applies to β. A clear recitation is required, e.g. “s is a modulus, β is a phase”.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 15, “the Schrödinger picture” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 15, the presence of both “exp()” and “e” as functions indicates a possible difference between the two functions. Any ambiguity needs to be removed by utilizing either “exp()” or “e”.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 15, “i” renders the claim indefinite because it is not stated as to whether it represents the imaginary unit (√-1) or a variable.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 15, the second recitations of “a finite energy resource” and “a protocol time” each render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if antecedence is claimed to their previous recitations.
Regarding claims 2, 7-8, 13 and 16, the dot operator on Uc(t) is not defined and furthermore it is unclear if Uc(t) is derived from the given relation to compute |ψ(t)⟩.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, there is no indication of how the value of τ is obtained, rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 5, “the Schrödinger picture” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 6, “the usual time ordering operator” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear if the time ordering operator of claim 6 is the same as that of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, “the total Hamiltonian” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 6, H(t) is defined twice, in (a) and (b), and it is unclear if H(t) has all the recited attributes or if different definitions apply for (a) and (b).
Regarding claims 9, 14, and 17-19, γ and μ are not defined, rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 9 and 14, “the vector of Pauli matrices” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 10-11 and 17-19, “the g-factor”, “the mass”, and “the charge” each lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 10-11, μ and γ are not defined, rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 10-11 and 17-19, “S” is not defined rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 15 and 17-20“ground (eigen)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the claim is reciting that the ground state is the eigenstate or if the terms are alternatives.
Regarding claim 15 and 17-20 “ground (eigen)” lacks antecedent basis in the claims.
Regarding claim 20, each σ is not defined thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, the x-y-z labeled Γ are not defined, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-11, 13-14, and 16-20 are indefinite by virtue of dependency on claims 1, 12, and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 1 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
determine a control protocol Hamiltonian for a quantum process - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. This can further be considered a mathematical formula, equation, or relationship, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
providing a time dependent Hermitian drift Hamiltonian H0(t), an initial state |ψi⟩, a final state |ψf⟩, and either a finite energy resource of the control protocol vz(t), or a protocol time τ and a function form of vz(t) with respect to time t - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. This can further be considered a mathematical formula, equation, or relationship, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
iteratively equating an equation expressed as
∫
0
τ
v
z
t
d
t
=
a
r
c
c
o
s
ψ
i
ψ
f
'
, wherein, in each iteration, values of either a protocol time τ or values of a finite energy resource of the control protocol vz(t), are modified until both sides of the equation are at least substantially equal; obtaining thereby either a protocol time τ or a finite energy resource of the control protocol vz(t) - This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. This can further be considered a mathematical formula, equation, or relationship, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
constructing a control protocol Hamiltonian in an interaction picture with respect to H0(t),
H
c
'
(
t
)
according to
H
c
'
t
=
i
v
z
(
t
)
1
-
s
2
e
-
i
β
ψ
f
'
ψ
i
|
-
e
-
i
β
ψ
i
⟩
⟨
ψ
f
'
|
, where s and β are defined through
ψ
i
ψ
f
'
(
τ
)
=
ψ
i
U
0
†
(
τ
)
ψ
f
=
s
e
i
β
, and parameters in the interaction picture represent, each: s modulus; β phase; |
ψ
f
'
⟩
the final state |
ψ
f
⟩
, in the interaction picture, with
ψ
f
'
=
U
0
†
(
τ
)
|
ψ
f
⟩
, where U0(τ) = Τexp(
-
i
∫
0
τ
H
0
t
1
d
t
1
)
and Τ defines a time ordering operator; and
†
means conjugate transpose; and determining the control protocol Hamiltonian in the Schrödinger picture as
H
c
t
=
U
0
(
τ
)
H
c
'
(
t
)
U
0
†
(
τ
)
- This is an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. This can further be considered a mathematical formula, equation, or relationship, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
a computer implemented method - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
a computer implemented method - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2-11
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claims 2-11 are drawn to a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claims 2-11 recite the following abstract ideas:
Each of claims 2-11 further recite mathematical relationships and/or expound/specify the abstract idea(s) of claim 1. Each of claims 2-11 constitute an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III and can further be considered a mathematical formula, equation, or relationship, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 2-11 do not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claims 2-11 do not recite any additional elements.
Claim 12
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 12 is drawn to a system
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 12 recites the following abstract ideas:
See the analysis with respect to claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 12 recites the following additional elements:
See the analysis with respect to claim 1.
a processor - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
a memory that stores program code configured to cause the processor to determine… - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount ot significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claim 12 recites the following additional elements:
See the analysis with respect to claim 1.
a processor - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
a memory that stores program code configured to cause the processor to determine… - merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 13-14
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claims 13-14 are drawn to a system.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claims 13-14 recite the following abstract ideas:
Each of claims 13-14 further recite mathematical relationships and/or expound/specify the abstract idea(s) of claim 12. Each of claims 12-14 constitute an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion, i.e. a concept performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III and can further be considered a mathematical formula, equation, or relationship, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claims 15-20
Claims 15-20 are considered eligible under 35 USC 101 because the abstract ideas are integrated into a practical application, the practical application being the driving of a particle to a quantum state via a control field generator which generates one or more time dependent control fields, where the control field is determined by the implementation of the abstract ideas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 12, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-11, 13-14, and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Garcia (Garcia-Gonzalo, Lluc. Time-optimal control of quantum systems: a solution to the quantum Zermelo problem. MS thesis. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 2020.) represents the closest prior art of record. Equation 19, reproduced below, provides a control Hamiltonian which closely resembles the claimed control Hamiltonian:
PNG
media_image1.png
90
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Garcia discloses the evolution of Hc(t) in the same manner as claimed in claims 1, 12, and 15, see Equation 20 reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
52
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Garcia also discloses the provision of H0(t), initial state |ψi⟩, final state |ψf⟩, and the notion that
ψ
f
'
=
U
0
†
(
τ
)
|
ψ
f
⟩
.
Garcia is deficient in the disclosure of the iterative nature for computing τ and/or vz(t) and the relation by which they are computed. This is not considered trivial or to be immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art and therefore a teaching, suggestion, or motivation from the prior art would be required for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art does not offer any convincing teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Garcia to arrive at the claimed invention.
Biercuk (WO2020019015A1) discusses multi-qubit control via a similar method as the claimed invention, but is deficient in the iterative calculation of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCHYLER S SANKS whose telephone number is (571)272-6125. The examiner can normally be reached 06:30 - 15:30 Central Time, M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SCHYLER S SANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights