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 .
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 21-22, 28-31, 35, 39-41, 47-50, 57-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wölk, Sabine, and Christof Wunderlich. "Quantum dynamics of trapped ions in a dynamic field gradient using dressed states." New Journal of Physics 19.8 (2017): 083021 [Wölk] in view of Ospelkaus, Christian, et al. "Trapped-ion quantum logic gates based on oscillating magnetic fields." Physical review letters 101.9 (2008): 090502 [Ospelkaus].
Regarding Claim 21:
Wölk teaches a device comprising:
an independent phase rotation gate, each respective phase rotation gate (Appendix: A.1. describes a conditional phase gate using the described architecture) comprising:
a magnet configured to generate a magnetic field of predetermined strength at a qubit position for the respective phase rotation gate (section 3), wherein the magnetic field is configured to set a resonant frequency in a qubit at the qubit position based at least in part on magnetically sensitive electronic states of the qubit (section 4 “using a resonant dynamic magnetic gradient for coupling internal and external degrees of freedom"); and
a controller configured to independently shift the qubit at the respective independent phase rotation gate out of resonance for a predetermined period (Appendix: A.1. “two detuned dynamic gradient fields are applied that induce the Mølmer Sørensen gate.”),
and wherein the qubit is an ion qubit (abstract).
However, Wölk does not specify a plurality of gates.
Ospelkaus teaches quantum information processing using multiple rotation gates (abstract, et al.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to implement the teaching of Ospelkaus and use multiple instances of Wölk to create a number of rotation gates since this would allow one to perform multiple experiments simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 22:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 21, wherein the device further comprises:
An electromagnetic field source configured to generate an electromagnetic field at the resonant frequency for a predetermined period across the plurality of independent rotation gates (Wölk section 5.3; Appendix: A.1.).
Regarding Claim 28:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 21, wherein the independent rotation gate further comprises a plurality of electrodes configured to position the qubit and wherein the controller is configured to apply voltages to the electrodes to shift the qubit. Wölk Section 5.2 “voltages applied to segmented trap electrodes.” Ospelkaus Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 29:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 21, wherein the magnetic field comprises a magnetic field gradient. Wölk Section 4.
Regarding Claim 30:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 21, wherein the magnetic field gradient is linear or non-linear. Wölk Section 4.
Regarding Claim 31:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 21, wherein the magnet comprises an electromagnet. Ospelkaus generates oscillating magnetic fields from currents through an electrode, i.e., an electromagnet. Abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the electromagnets of Ospelkaus to generate the dynamic magnetic fields of Wölk since Ospelkaus shows that they are effective for forming gates.
Regarding Claim 35:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 21, wherein the device further comprises a first qubit at a first rotation gate and a second qubit at a second rotation gate. See above rejection of claim 21; operating multiple gates entails having qubits at multiple gates.
Regarding Claim 39:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 21, wherein the predetermined period is based at least in part on a rabi frequency. Wölk sections 5.1, 5.3.
Regarding Claim 40:
Wölk teaches a method of applying independent phase rotation gates gate (Appendix: A.1. describes a conditional phase gate using the described architecture), the method comprising:
(a) providing a qubits at a qubit position, wherein the qubit have magnetically sensitive electronic states (the ions of Wölk have magnetically sensitive electronic states, see abstract, sections, 3, 4, 5, appendix, et al.);
(b) generating a magnetic field of predetermined strength at a qubit position of the plurality of qubit positions, wherein generating the magnetic field sets a resonant frequency at the qubit position based at least in part on the magnetically sensitive electronic states of the plurality of qubits (sections 3, 4, 5, and as described in Appendix: A.1. “two detuned dynamic gradient fields are applied that induce the Mølmer Sørensen gate.”); and
(c) shifting a qubit of the plurality of qubits at the qubit position out of resonance for a predetermined period, thereby applying a phase rotation to the qubit (Appendix: A.1. “two detuned dynamic gradient fields are applied that induce the Mølmer Sørensen gate.”),
and wherein the qubit is an ion qubit (abstract).
However, Wölk does not specify a plurality of qubits at a plurality of positions/gates.
Ospelkaus teaches quantum information processing using multiple rotation gates (abstract, et al.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to implement the teaching of Ospelkaus and use multiple instances of Wölk to create a number of rotation gates since this would allow one to perform multiple experiments simultaneously.
Regarding Claim 41:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 40, further comprising providing an electromagnetic field source to generate an electromagnetic field at the resonant frequency for a predetermined period across a plurality of independent phase rotation gates. (Wölk section 5.3; Appendix: A.1.).
Regarding Claim 47:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 40, wherein an independent phase rotation gate of the plurality of independent phase rotation gates further comprises a plurality of electrodes to position the qubit, and wherein the qubit is positioned by applying voltages to the plurality of electrodes. Wölk Section 5.2 “voltages applied to segmented trap electrodes.” Ospelkaus Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 48:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 40, wherein the magnetic field comprises a magnetic field gradient. Wölk Section 4.
Regarding Claim 49:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 48, wherein the magnetic field gradient is linear or non-linear. Wölk Section 4.
Regarding Claim 50:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 40, wherein the magnetic field is generated by a magnet comprising an electromagnet. Ospelkaus generates oscillating magnetic fields from currents through an electrode, i.e., an electromagnet. Abstract. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the electromagnets of Ospelkaus to generate the dynamic magnetic fields of Wölk since Ospelkaus shows that they are effective for forming gates.
Regarding Claim 57:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 40, further comprising performing (a)-(c) for a first qubit at a first independent phase rotation gate and for a second qubit at a second independent phase rotation gate. See above rejection of claim 40; operating multiple gates entails gating qubits at multiple gates.
Regarding Claim 58:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 40, wherein the predetermined period is based at least in part on a Rabi frequency. Wölk sections 5.1, 5.3.
Claims 23-25, 36-38, 42-44, 51-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wölk, Sabine, and Christof Wunderlich. "Quantum dynamics of trapped ions in a dynamic field gradient using dressed states." New Journal of Physics 19.8 (2017): 083021 [Wölk] in view of Ospelkaus, Christian, et al. "Trapped-ion quantum logic gates based on oscillating magnetic fields." Physical review letters 101.9 (2008): 090502 [Ospelkaus] as applied above, and further in view of Bretaud, David. Full stack development toward a trapped ion logical qubit. Diss. Imperial College London, 2021 [hereinafter Bretaud]
Regarding Claim 23:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 21, wherein an independent phase rotation gate of the gates further comprises a magnetic switch controlled by the controller and configured to provide an adjusted magnetic field at the qubit position. Ospelkaus and Wölk describes controllable and oscillating currents passing through electrodes to create the magnetic fields. However, neither specifies the fashion in which such control and oscillation is achieved.
Bretaud describes generating magnetic field gradient for qubit control by sending current through wires, and explains that control of such current is implemented by integrated FPGAs. Section 1.1.3. FPGAs control the currents, and are inherently constructed of a collection of transistors. As such, they are the claimed magnetic switches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the integrated FPGAs of Bretaud to control and switch the dynamic magnetic fields of Wölk since Bretaud shows that they are effective for forming gates.
Regarding Claim 24:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 23, wherein the magnetic switch is configured to shift the qubit out of resonance when the magnetic switch is actuated. Wölk section 3- detuned dynamic magnetic fields are out of resonance. Wölk section 4.1 and example A.1 explain the shift of the qubit with respect to such detuning.
Regarding Claim 25:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 23, wherein the magnetic switch comprises an electromagnet. Bretaud describes generating magnetic field gradient for qubit control by sending current through wires, i.e. electromagnets.
Regarding Claim 36:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 21, wherein the magnetic structure comprises a current carrying wire. Ospelkaus and Wölk describes controllable and oscillating currents passing through electrodes to create the magnetic fields. However, neither specifies the fashion in which such control and oscillation is achieved.
Bretaud describes generating magnetic field gradient for qubit control by sending current through wires, and explains that control of such current is implemented by integrated FPGAs. Section 1.1.3. FPGAs control the currents, and are inherently constructed of a collection of transistors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the current carrying wires and integrated FPGAs of Bretaud to control and switch the dynamic magnetic fields of Wölk since Bretaud shows that they are effective for forming gates.
Regarding Claim 37:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 36, wherein the magnet is connected to a switch, wherein the switch is configured to change the path of the current through the wire. Bretaud describes generating magnetic field gradient for qubit control by sending current through wires, and explains that control of such current is implemented by integrated FPGAs. Section 1.1.3. FPGAs control the currents, and are inherently constructed of a collection of transistors. As such, they are the claimed magnetic switches.
Regarding Claim 38:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 37, wherein the switch is a transistor. Bretaud Section 1.1.3. FPGAs.
Regarding Claim 42:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 41, but fails to specify that a phase rotation gate of the plurality of independent phase rotation gates is actuated by a magnetic switch controlled by a controller, wherein actuating the magnetic switch adjusts the magnetic field to an adjusted magnetic field at the qubit position.
Ospelkaus and Wölk describes controllable and oscillating currents passing through electrodes to create the magnetic fields and actuate gates. However, neither specifies the fashion in which such control and oscillation is achieved.
Bretaud describes generating magnetic field gradient for qubit control by sending current through wires, and explains that control of such current is implemented by integrated FPGAs. Section 1.1.3. FPGAs control the currents, and are inherently constructed of a collection of transistors. As such, they are the claimed magnetic switches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the integrated FPGAs of Bretaud to control and switch the dynamic magnetic fields of Wölk since Bretaud shows that they are effective for forming gates.
Regarding Claim 43:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 42, wherein actuating the magnetic switch shifts the qubit out of resonance. Wölk section 3- detuned dynamic magnetic fields are out of resonance. Wölk section 4.1 and example A.1 explain the shift of the qubit with respect to such detuning.
Regarding Claim 44:
The above modified invention teaches the of claim 42, wherein the magnetic switch comprises an electromagnet. Bretaud describes generating magnetic field gradient for qubit control by sending current through wires, i.e. electromagnets.
Regarding Claim 51:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 40, wherein the magnetic field is generated by a magnet comprising a current carrying wire. Ospelkaus and Wölk describes controllable and oscillating currents passing through electrodes to create the magnetic fields. However, neither specifies the fashion in which such control and oscillation is achieved.
Bretaud describes generating magnetic field gradient for qubit control by sending current through wires, and explains that control of such current is implemented by integrated FPGAs. Section 1.1.3. FPGAs control the currents, and are inherently constructed of a collection of transistors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the current carrying wires and integrated FPGAs of Bretaud to control and switch the dynamic magnetic fields of Wölk since Bretaud shows that they are effective for forming gates.
Regarding Claim 52:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 51, wherein the current carrying wire is connected to a switch, and wherein actuating the switch changes the path of the current through the wire. Bretaud describes generating magnetic field gradient for qubit control by sending current through wires, and explains that control of such current is implemented by integrated FPGAs. Section 1.1.3. FPGAs control the currents, and are inherently constructed of a collection of transistors. As such, they are the claimed magnetic switches.
Regarding Claim 53:
The above modified invention teaches the method of claim 52, wherein the switch is a transistor. Bretaud Section 1.1.3. FPGAs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-27, 32-34, 45-46, 54-56 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 8/3/26, with respect to the 112(a) and (b) rejections of record. have been fully considered and overcome the rejections of record. The 112(a) and (b) rejections of record have been withdrawn.
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