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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “meniscus lens configured to introduce a field curvature to the first beam and the second beam” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6 and 8 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.
Claim 6 recites “meniscus lens configured to introduce a field curvature to the first beam and the second beam’. While the Specifications details a “meniscus lens” 428a and lenses 428a-428d, there is no one lens that introduces field curvature to the claimed first and second beams, as claimed. The Specifications only provides two lenses for introducing curvature to respective beams and thus the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined as it cannot be determined (1) if the claim defines a meniscus lens to introduce curvature to a first beam and another meniscus lens to introduce curvature to a second beam, (2) if the claim defines a single meniscus lens introducing curvature to both first and second beams, or (3) if the claim defines a single meniscus lens introducing curvature to either a first beam or a second beam. For the purposes of examination, the third option will be given to the claim.
Claim 8 recites “approximately 1mm” and the disclosure is absent any means for ascertaining a reasonable scope of the claim language. For the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim will extend to 10µm as a distance of 10µm is “approximately 1mm” when compared to a meter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 8-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 12,288,129 to Hendrickson (hereinafter Hendrickson).
Regarding claim 1, Hendrickson discloses a quantum information processing (QIP) system (abstract) including: an ion trap configured to confine at least a first trapped ion chain and a second trapped ion chain (“in the first outer substantially linear region 120, the first outer group of qubits 122 (e.g., in a first outer qubit-trapping zone) are arranged in a substantially linear chain above a first substantially linear surface trap 116 of a first substrate 118, and the second outer group of qubits 132 (e.g., in a second outer qubit-trapping zone) are arranged in a substantially linear chain substantially parallel to the first outer region 120 and below a second substantially linear surface trap 126 of a second substrate 128” used as traps 226, 236, 246, Figs. 1A-1C and 2A-2D; col. 12, ll. 31-67); and a multiple-zone addressing system (Figs. 2A-2D) including: a first optical addresser (systems of fibers 260, Figs. 2C-2D; col. 15, ln. 63-col. 16, ln. 28) configured to control a first beam configured to address a first addressing zone including the first trapped ion chain (“addressing laser output ports 262 at the ends of optical fibers 260 that bring multiple tuned wavelengths of laser light (e.g., from acousto-optic modulators; not shown) for selective qubit addressing, emitting laser beams 264 and four coupled (e.g., entangled) qubits 205a,b,c,d (e.g., one qubit from each of the four chains 212, 222, 234, 242)”; col. 15, ln. 63-col. 16, ln. 28); a second optical addresser (systems of fibers 260, Figs. 2C-2D; col. 15, ln. 63-col. 16, ln. 28) configured to control a second beam configured to address a second addressing zone including the second trapped ion chain (“addressing laser output ports 262 at the ends of optical fibers 260 that bring multiple tuned wavelengths of laser light (e.g., from acousto-optic modulators; not shown) for selective qubit addressing, emitting laser beams 264 and four coupled (e.g., entangled) qubits 205a,b,c,d (e.g., one qubit from each of the four chains 212, 222, 234, 242)”; col. 15, ln. 63-col. 16, ln. 28); and a combining region configured to reduce a fill factor of the first beam and the second beam while maintaining spatial separation of the first beam and the second beam (output ports 262 in the triangular arrangement, Figs. 2A-2D).
Note, the Specifications provides a special definition of “fill factor” – “a collective beam diameter of the beams formed by a particular addresser relative to the spacing of the addressing zones”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation on fill factor extends to a combining region that reduces the fill factor relative to an arbitrary system having a higher fill factor. As the fiber output port arrangement disclosed by Hendrickson has a lower fill factor relative to an arbitrarily larger fill factor system, the claimed invention is anticipated. The fibers and fiber outputs are inherently capable of reducing a fill factor as claimed.
Regarding claim 8 , Hendrickson discloses a center-to-center distance between the first trapped ion chain and the second trapped ion chain is approximately 1 mm (Fig. 2C-2E; “the spacing between any two of the qubits can be in a range of 30 microns to 70 microns”; col. 16, ll. 29-42).
Regarding claim 9, Hendrickson discloses the combining region includes at least a first deflector pair (fibers 260, Figs. 2C-2D) configured to fold the first beam and a second deflector pair configured to fold the second beam (Figs. 2C-2D). Folding and spacing reduction are intrinsic functions of optical fibers.
Regarding claim 10, Hendrickson discloses the first deflector pair and the second deflector pair are configured to reduce a spacing between the first beam and the second beam (Figs. 2C-2D). Folding and spacing reduction are intrinsic functions of optical fibers.
Regarding claim 14, Hendrickson discloses the combining region is configured to orient the first beam and the second beam so that the first beam and the second beam overlap in a plane but are spatially separated (Fig. 2C-2D).
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.
Claims 2, 4, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson as applied to claim 1, and further in view of WO 2022/252801 to Yang, et al. (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 2, Hendrickson discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a microlens array comprising a first microlens configured to focus the first beam on the first trapped ion chain and a second microlens configured to focus the second beam on the second trapped ion chain
Yang discloses a microlens array (metasurface 30 configured as microlenses. Figs. 9, 10, 11, 20) comprising a first microlens configured to focus the first beam on the first trapped ion chain (“the metasurface structure 30 is a diffraction element constructed from microstructure units of dielectric materials, such as a polarization multiplexing metalens” and “each diffraction unit 31 marked Fp is irradiated by np transmission units 21 marked .sub.Ai , and outputs np light spots at the same time, where n is an integer greater than 0. Each light spot corresponds to an ion that performs independent calculation, and marks the ion that performs independent calculation in each ion chain as Wj”) and a second microlens configured to focus the second beam on the second trapped ion chain (Figs. 9, 10, 11, 20).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a microlens array as taught by Yang with the system as disclosed by Hendrickson. The motivation would have been to implement an on-chip processing architecture (Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Hendrickson discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose microlenses.
Yang discloses the combining region is oriented at a relayed entrance of a pupil plane of each of the first and second microlenses (laser system 1-2 outputs to modulator K outputting to transmission component 20 with transmission units 21 combining and relaying beams to metasurface 30, Fig. 10-11).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a microlens array configuration as taught by Yang with the system as disclosed by Hendrickson. The motivation would have been to implement an on-chip processing architecture (Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Hendrickson discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a metalens array comprising a first metalens configured to focus the first beam on the first trapped ion chain and a second metalens configured to focus the second beam on the second trapped ion chain.
Yang discloses a metalens array (metasurface 30 configured as microlenses. Figs. 9, 10, 11, 20) comprising a first metalens configured to focus the first beam on the first trapped ion chain and a second metalens configured to focus the second beam on the second trapped ion chain (“the metasurface structure 30 is a diffraction element constructed from microstructure units of dielectric materials, such as a polarization multiplexing metalens” and “each diffraction unit 31 marked Fp is irradiated by np transmission units 21 marked .sub.Ai , and outputs np light spots at the same time, where n is an integer greater than 0. Each light spot corresponds to an ion that performs independent calculation, and marks the ion that performs independent calculation in each ion chain as Wj”; Figs. 9-11 and 20).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a metalens array configuration as taught by Yang with the system as disclosed by Hendrickson. The motivation would have been to implement an on-chip processing architecture (Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Hendrickson discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the multiple-zone addressing system comprises an objective lens that is positioned downstream of the combining region.
Yang discloses the multiple-zone addressing system comprises an objective lens (metasurface 30, Figs. 9-11 and 20) that is positioned downstream of the combining region (transmitting units 21, Figs. 9-11 and 20).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an objective lens configuration as taught by Yang with the system as disclosed by Hendrickson. The motivation would have been to implement an on-chip processing architecture (Abstract).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US PG Pub. 2023/0342648 to Lahaye et al. (hereinafter Lahaye).
Regarding claim 3, Hendrickson discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the first and second microlenses are low order aspheric lenses.
Lahaye discloses the first and second microlenses are low order aspheric lenses ([0005],[0056],[0068]-[0069]). Coma correction indirectly teaches “low order” Zernike coefficients.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide an aspheric lens as taught by Lahaye with the system as disclosed by Hendrickson. The motivation would have been to allow the beams to be focused along two orthogonal axes, so as to ensure coupling between the two states of the qubit occurs only for the addressed atom ([0090]).
Regarding claim 6, Hendrickson discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the first and second microlenses are low order aspheric lenses.
Lahaye discloses a lens configured to introduce a field curvature to the first beam and the second beam (“an electronically controlled deformable lens LD2 (the latter, of variable focal length, allows a plane of the array of trapped atoms to be selected) and moved in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis by two acousto-optical deflectors DAO3”; Fig. 9, [0083]).
Lahaye does not explicitly disclose that the deformable lens is a meniscus lens though the concave-convex configuration of a variable focal length lens would have been obvious to try among finite solutions.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lens introducing curvature as taught by Lahaye with the system as disclosed by Hendrickson. The motivation would have been to control focal length and spot size of address laser beams ([0083]).
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US PG Pub. 2021/0057872 to Mizrahi et al. (hereinafter Mizrahi).
Regarding claim 5, Hendrickson discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the first beam and the second beam focused on the first and second ion chains, respectively, each have a beam waist of less than 1.5 µm along an axis of the ion chain and a diameter of less than 30 µm along an orthogonal axis.
Mizrahi discloses the first beam and the second beam focused on the first and second ion chains, respectively, each have a beam waist of less than 1.5 µm along an axis of the ion chain and a diameter of less than 30 µm along an orthogonal axis ([0003]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a beam waist as taught by Mizrahi with the system as disclosed by Hendrickson. The motivation would have been to control tightly spaced ions ([0003]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 11, Hendrickson teaches the combining region is configured to reduce a fill factor of the first beam and the second beam such that the fill factor of the first beam and the second beam upstream of the combining region is larger than the fill factor of the first beam and the second beam downstream of the combining region (Figs. 2A-2D). The fibers and fiber outputs necessarily read on the above portions of the claim limitation as the flexibility and curvature of fibers allows for changing and control of the claimed fill factor in the Hendrickson structure.
Hendrickson does not explicitly disclose a difference in the fill factor is at least fourfold. Examiner takes official notice of the fact that relying on optical fibers to reduce the fill factor of a laser system, for example a laser within a commercial laser rack, is old and well known in the art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the fill factor upstream, as claimed, is substantially dependent on the separation between laser inputs into the fibers and the fill factor downstream, as claimed, is shown in Fig. 2C-2D at the output ports. Flexibility and curvature of the fibers in deflecting light into the system is itself motivation to provide the claimed limitation on fill factor as the size of the laser emission system is not required to be accommodated near the ion trap.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson as applied to claim 1, and further in view of WO 2022/252801 to Yang, et al. (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 15, Hendrickson discloses a quantum information processing (QIP) system (abstract) including: an ion trap (“in the first outer substantially linear region 120, the first outer group of qubits 122 (e.g., in a first outer qubit-trapping zone) are arranged in a substantially linear chain above a first substantially linear surface trap 116 of a first substrate 118, and the second outer group of qubits 132 (e.g., in a second outer qubit-trapping zone) are arranged in a substantially linear chain substantially parallel to the first outer region 120 and below a second substantially linear surface trap 126 of a second substrate 128” used as traps 226, 236, 246, Figs. 1A-1C and 2A-2D; col. 12, ll. 31-67) including at least one addressing zone (Figs. 2A-2D) including a trapped ion chain (2A-2D; col. 12, ll. 31-67); and an addressing system (systems of fibers 260, Figs. 2C-2D; col. 15, ln. 63-col. 16, ln. 28) configured to address the at least one addressing zone of the ion trap, the addressing system including: an optical addresser (“addressing laser output ports 262 at the ends of optical fibers 260 that bring multiple tuned wavelengths of laser light (e.g., from acousto-optic modulators; not shown) for selective qubit addressing, emitting laser beams 264 and four coupled (e.g., entangled) qubits 205a,b,c,d (e.g., one qubit from each of the four chains 212, 222, 234, 242)”; col. 15, ln. 63-col. 16, ln. 28) configured to control a beam configured to address the at least one addressing zone including the trapped ion chain chain (“addressing laser output ports 262 at the ends of optical fibers 260 that bring multiple tuned wavelengths of laser light (e.g., from acousto-optic modulators; not shown) for selective qubit addressing, emitting laser beams 264 and four coupled (e.g., entangled) qubits 205a,b,c,d (e.g., one qubit from each of the four chains 212, 222, 234, 242)”; col. 15, ln. 63-col. 16, ln. 28).
Hendrickson discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a microlens array including a microlens configured to focus the beam on the trapped ion chain or a metalens array including a metalens configured to focus the beam on the trapped ion chain.
Yang discloses a microlens array including a microlens configured to focus the beam on the trapped ion chain or a metalens array (metasurface 30 configured as microlenses. Figs. 9, 10, 11, 20) including a metalens configured to focus the beam on the trapped ion chain (“the metasurface structure 30 is a diffraction element constructed from microstructure units of dielectric materials, such as a polarization multiplexing metalens” and “each diffraction unit 31 marked Fp is irradiated by np transmission units 21 marked .sub.Ai , and outputs np light spots at the same time, where n is an integer greater than 0. Each light spot corresponds to an ion that performs independent calculation, and marks the ion that performs independent calculation in each ion chain as Wj”; Figs. 9, 10, 11, 20).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Hendrickson discloses the microlens array is coupled to the ion trap and wherein the microlens is a low order aspheric lens. See teachings regarding claim 15 above. The language of this claim further limits an optional claim limitation of the base claim.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendrickson in view of Yang as applied to claim 15, and further in view of US PG Pub. 2021/0057872 to Mizrahi et al. (hereinafter Mizrahi).
Regarding claim 18, Hendrickson discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the first beam and the second beam focused on the first and second ion chains, respectively, each have a beam waist of less than 1.5 µm along an axis of the ion chain and a diameter of less than 30 µm along an orthogonal axis.
Mizrahi discloses the first beam and the second beam focused on the first and second ion chains, respectively, each have a beam waist of less than 1.5 µm along an axis of the ion chain and a diameter of less than 30 µm along an orthogonal axis ([0003]).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a beam waist as taught by Mizrahi with the system as disclosed by Hendrickson. The motivation would have been to control tightly spaced ions ([0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination with other references, neither teaches nor suggests: the multiple-zone addressing system includes a cylindrical lens positioned upstream of the combining region and configured to shape the first and second beams into anamorphic beams having an aspect ratio of up to 1:20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872