DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the original filing of 2-2-2024 Claims 1-21 are pending and have been considered below:
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-21 represent method, system and medium type claims. Therefore claims 1-21 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Regarding claim 1:
2A Prong 1:
selecting one or more pairs of energy levels of an isotope of an ion for a qubit for a quantum computer, wherein each of the one or more pairs of energy levels comprises a first metastable state and a second metastable state.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-selection can be mentally performed).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claims 2-5:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements are mere instructions
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements are mere instructions
Additional elements:(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 6:
2A Prong 1:
generating a list of a plurality of pairs of energy levels of the isotope of the ion, wherein each pair of energy levels has a qubit frequency.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-a list can be mentally generated).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 7:
2A Prong 1:
calculating a magnetic field strength where the qubit frequency is first order insensitive to the magnetic field, for each pair of energy levels in the list.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-calculations mentally performed).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 8:
2A Prong 1:
discarding, from the list, the pairs of energy levels where the magnetic field strength where the qubit frequency is first order insensitive to the magnetic field has a value outside a magnetic field range.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-items on a list can be mentally discarded).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 9:
2A Prong 1:
calculating the qubit frequency, for each pair of energy levels on the list.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 10:
2A Prong 1:
calculating a transition dipole matrix element; and discarding, from the list, the pairs of energy levels where the transition dipole matrix element is less than a threshold transition dipole matrix element value.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 11:
2A Prong 1:
selecting one or more pairs of energy levels for the qubit from the list based on the qubit frequency.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-selection can be mentally performed).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 12:
2A Prong 1:
calculating a transition matrix element, for each pair of energy levels on the list.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 14-16:
2A Prong 1:
Calculating limitation.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-calculation can be mentally performed).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claim 17-18:
2A Prong 1:
selecting functionality.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-selection can be mentally performed).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Regarding claims 19-21:
2A Prong 1:
No additional abstract ideas
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional elements are mere instructions
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements are mere instructions
Additional elements:(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sage et al. (“Sage” 20230018878 A1).
Claim 1: Sage discloses a computer implemented method comprising selecting one or more pairs of energy levels of an isotope of an ion for a qubit for a quantum computer, wherein each of the one or more pairs of energy levels comprises a first metastable state and a second metastable state (abstract, Paragraph 193 (metastable state) and 196-197; selection and further provides two states).
Claim 2: Sage discloses a computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the qubit is approximately magnetic field insensitive (Sage: abstract, Paragraphs 172, 193 and 196; insensitive).
Claim 3: Sage discloses a computer implemented method of claim 1,wherein the first and second metastable states comprise a D3/2 state or a D5/2 state (Sage: Figure 16 and Paragraph 193).
Claim 4: Sage discloses a computer implemented method of claim 1 wherein the first and second metastable states are hyperfine states (Sage: Paragraph 193; metastable).
Claim 5: Sage discloses a computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the ion is a barium ion(Sage: Paragraphs 39 and 220).
Claim 20: Sage discloses a computer system comprising a module configured as a qubit selection tool configured to perform the method of claim 1 (Sage: Paragraphs 189-191; interface interaction).
Claim 21: Sage discloses a trapped ion system for quantum computing configured to encode a qubit in one of the pairs of energy levels as selected using the method of claim 1 (Sage: Paragraphs 189-191).
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 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.
Claims 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Sage et al. (“Sage” 20230018878 A1) in view of Guimaraes Silverio et al. (“Guimaraes” 20230274176 A1).
Claim 6: Sage discloses a computer implemented method of claim 1 comprising: generating a list of a plurality of pairs of energy levels of the isotope of the ion, wherein each pair of energy levels has a qubit frequency (Sage: Paragraph 193-196; splitting clock states coupled).
Guimaraes is provided because it discloses qubit functionality and further discloses capability to generate a list of pairs (Paragraph 135). The pairing list could be utilized with the states of qubits found in Sage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a known technique for a known device in order to list states of the qubits found in Sage. One would have been motivated to provide a listing because it provides an improved method of feedback for efficient analysis.
Claim 7: Sage and Guimaraes disclose a computer implemented method of claim 6 comprising: calculating a magnetic field strength where the qubit frequency is first order insensitive to the magnetic field, for each pair of energy levels in the list (Sage: abstract (magnetic field sensitivity) Paragraphs 197-200).
Claim 8: Sage and Guimaraes disclose a computer implemented method of claim 7 comprising: discarding, from the list, the pairs of energy levels where the magnetic field strength where the qubit frequency is first order insensitive to the magnetic field has a value outside a magnetic field range (Sage: Paragraphs 204 and 212; check magnetic field).
Claims 9-12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sage et al. (“Sage” 20230018878 A1) and Guimaraes Silverio et al. (“Guimaraes” 20230274176 A1) in further view of Shim et al. (“Shim” 20200027017 A1).
Claim 9: Sage and Guimaraes disclose a computer implemented method of claim 7 comprising: calculating the qubit frequency, for each pair of energy levels on the list (Guimaraes: Paragraph 135; list capability).
Shim is further provided because it discloses qubit functionality and further performs calculation methods of frequencies (Paragraph 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a known technique for a known device in order to compute frequencies found in the modified Sage. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality because it provides an enhanced method of analysis.
Claim 10: Sage, Guimaraes and Shim disclose a computer implemented method of claim 9 comprising: calculating a transition dipole matrix element (Shim: Paragraph 8); and discarding, from the list, the pairs of energy levels where the transition dipole matrix element is less than a threshold transition dipole matrix element value (Sage: Paragraphs 204 and 212; check magnetic field and Guimaraes: Paragraph 135; list capability).
Claim 11: Sage, Guimaraes and Shim disclose a computer implemented method of claim 9 comprises selecting one or more pairs of energy levels for the qubit from the list based on the qubit frequency (Sage: abstract, Paragraph 193 (metastable state) and 196-197; selection and Guimaraes: Paragraph 135; list capability).
Claim 12: Sage, Guimaraes and Shim disclose a computer implemented method of claim 9 comprising: calculating a transition matrix element, for each pair of energy levels on the list (Shim: Paragraph 8; transition dipole matrix can be a transition matrix).
Claim 19: Sage, Guimaraes and Shim disclose a computer implemented method of claim 9 comprising: performing a gate simulation for each pair of energy levels on the list to determine a simulated error for a fixed noise model; selecting one or more energy levels for the qubit from the list, where for each selected pair, the simulated error is less than an error threshold value (Sage: Paragraphs 3, 54 and 196-197; simulator, Guimaraes: Paragraph 135; list capability).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20250148335 A1 0089
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERROD KEATON whose telephone number is 571-270-1697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:00pm.
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 MICHELLE BECHTOLD can be reached at 571-431-0762. 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.
/SHERROD L KEATON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
10-13-2026
