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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the grounds that Groups II and II do not have separate utility from Group I, and thus the restriction of Groups I and II and I and III, respectively, are improper.
This is not found persuasive because such spacing structures are capable of forming an open space between two components in a cryogenic or vacuum environment, which could be used in alternative arrangements in which an open space would need to be formed between respective substrates in such environments that do not specifically correspond to the application of the instant application, i.e., Group I. Furthermore, because such anti-reflective layers have ample utility outside of the specific application of the instant application, i.e., with Group I, the elements of Group III clearly have utility outside of Group I. Applicant appears to be attempting to limit the utility of the structures of Groups II and III by what they are used with, rather than what they are. The instant application including these separately utilizable elements together does not preclude their use in other contexts, which are readily apparent in context.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner notes that there was a clerical/typographical error in the grouping of claims in the restriction of 12/29/2025. Several claims were erroneously included in Group I, despite depending on claims from groups II and III. This was clearly in error, because dependent claims require the limitations of the claims they depend on, these claims should have been placed with the claims they depend upon. Accordingly, Group I should have included claims 1-2, 4-11, 32-36, and 43-44. Claims 19-23 and 25-26 should have been grouped with Group II.
Accordingly, claims 3, 12-31, and 37-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/02/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0080], discussing Fig. 1, refers to “the corresponding electrical components 212 (e.g., electrodes) of the confinement apparatus 210”, however, Fig. 1 does not show item(s) 212, and no electrical components were previously indicated as item(s) 212; Examiner suggests merely removing 212 in the portion referring to Fig. 1, or making some reference to Fig. 2;
[0082] refers to “manipulation sources 60”, however, there is no item 60 in Fig. 1, and the manipulation sources were disclosed as item 300 previously in [0077];
[0090] has a typographical error in “A quantum object crystal is a pair or set of quantum objects where at least one of the quantum objects of the quantum object crystal is qubit quantum object used as a qubit of the quantum computer…” (Emphasis added by Examiner), which Examiner believes should read ‘A quantum object crystal is a pair or set of quantum objects where at least one of the quantum objects of the quantum object crystal is a qubit quantum object used as a qubit of the quantum computer…’;
[0092] refers to “manipulation signals 61”, however, no such item 61 is shown in the Figs., or in fact referred to at any other point in the disclosure; Examiner suggests merely deleting the item number, it may have been erroneously included from co-pending application 18/475,479;
[0097] refers to “waveguide layers 226”, in several locations, however, the waveguide layer(s) was previously indicated as item 224;
[00110] recites “The reflect third manipulation signal 283”, which should read ‘The reflected third manipulation signal 283’;
[00128] has a sentence that starts with a lower case letter, i.e., the sentence “each of the surface photonic components 542A, 542B…”;
[00143] recites “In an example embodiment, one or more photonic platform substrates are formed on and/or in the photonic platform substrate prior to the etch stop layer being deposited thereon.”, which Examiner believes should recite ‘In an example embodiment, one or more photonic components are formed on and/or in the photonic platform substrate prior to the etch stop layer being deposited thereon.’;
[00156] recites “In an example embodiment, a reflective coating is applied to the surface photonic component reflective surface(s) 814, 824, 834, 844, 854).”, which Examiner believes should read ‘In an example embodiment, a reflective coating is applied to the surface photonic component reflective surface(s) (e.g., 814, 824, 834, 844, 854).’; However, Examiner additionally notes that these item numbers are not shown in the Figs. and should probably be changed to the corresponding item numbers from the Figs.;
[00159] is inconsistent with the use of item number for the reflective surfaces; The specification appears to switch back and forth between 800-series numbers (that are not found in the Figs.) and 200,- 300-, and 500-series numbers that are; Consistent item labeling should be used, and those items which are not in the Figs. should be indicated as such, and described such that one can clearly understand which items are being referred to in the description.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 32, and 36 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “…wherein the photonic platform comprises a conductive layer confinement apparatus substrate on a surface of the photonic platform substrate facing the quantum object confinement apparatus…”, which Examiner believes has a mere typographical error and should read ‘wherein the photonic platform comprises a conductive layer on a surface of the photonic platform substrate facing the quantum object confinement apparatus’, as the claim later refers to ‘the conductive layer’, and ‘a conductive layer confinement apparatus substrate on a surface of the photonic platform substrate’ would not make sense, and that ‘facing the quantum object confinement apparatus’ would appear to be impossible;
Claim 4 recites “…wherein the photonic platform comprises one or more photonic platform sink components configured to act as a respective optical sink…”, which is somewhat unclear under plain reading, because it would appear to require all of the one or more photonic platform sink components to act as a single respective optical sink; However, the claim is definite in light of the specification, and the wording should merely be clarified, such as ‘…wherein the photonic platform comprises one or more photonic platform sink components, each configured to act as a respective optical sink…’;
Claim 32 recites “…a composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 1…” (Emphasis added by Examiner), however, this could lead to a question as to whether claim 32 requires the limitations of claim 1, and thus should read ‘…the composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 1…’ to ensure clarity;
Claim 36 recites “all the photonic layers”, which is definite, but nevertheless lacks antecedent basis, as only “one or more photonic layers” are required by the claim, and thus ‘layers’ is inconsistent; This should read, e.g., ‘all of the one or more photonic layers’, ‘each of the one or more photonic layers’, ‘‘each and every of the one or more photonic layers’, etc.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-11 and 33-36 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 8 recites “…wherein the hole or transparent window in the photonic platform substrate…is further configured to…”, however, such a hole or transparent window is not required by the composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 7 under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim. Claim 7 requires one or more of a hole or transparent window and a photon absorber. Accordingly, only including a photon absorber would satisfy claim 7, and in such a case, it is unclear how claim 8 would limit the claim further. Additionally, the claim recites “the hole or transparent window in the photonic platform substrate” (Emphasis added by Examiner), however, claim 7 requires that the hole or transparent window be in the confinement apparatus substrate. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the confinement apparatus photon sink comprises the hole or transparent window in the confinement apparatus substrate configured to…, and wherein the hole or transparent window in the confinement apparatus substrate…is further configured to…’, so as to require the hole or transparent window (and in the proper element) prior to limiting the structure.
Claim 9 suffers from similar issues to claim 8, with an additional issue. First, claim 7 requires ‘one or more of a hole or transparent window and a photon absorber’, as discussed above, thus the structure should be required before limiting it. Additionally, claim 9 refers to “the hole”, however, this suffers from a similar issue, in that, in the case of a transparent window, limitations toward the hole would not make sense, as it would not be a required part of the structure. Finally, claim 9 also refers to “the hole in the quantum object confinement apparatus” (Emphasis added by Examiner). However, claim 7 requires that the hole or transparent window be in the confinement apparatus substrate. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the confinement apparatus photon sink comprises the hole in the confinement apparatus configured to…, and wherein the hole or transparent window in the photonic platform substrate…is further configured to…’.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “…the optical component configured to be illuminated by a first optical beam or pulse train…”, which is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., there are no elements capable of providing a first optical beam or pulse train required by the claim, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the assembly in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. For purposes of examination, this claim is interpreted as requiring ‘an optical component is formed on the confinement apparatus substrate, the optical component being capable of reflecting beams toward a defined location, wherein the defined location is defined at least in part by the confinement apparatus’.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “…wherein the photonic platform is configured to at least one of (a) provide the first optical beam or pulse train to the optical component or (b) provide a third optical beam or pulse train to the defined location…”, which is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e., there are no elements capable of providing a first optical beam or pulse train required by the claims, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the assembly in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. For purposes of examination, this claim is interpreted as requiring that the photonic platform be capable of allowing one or more optical beams therethrough to the defined location.
Examiner notes, regarding claims 10-11 that all necessary structure should be claimed prior to reciting functionality that would be achieved thereby, i.e., in claim 10, so as to provided antecedent basis to claim 11 as well. Examiner suggests reciting the manipulation sources supported by the disclosure.
Claim 33 recites “…a controller configured to control at least one of voltage sources configured to provide voltage signal to the electrical components of the quantum object confinement apparatus…”. First, claim 1 requires “one or more electrical components”, so “the electrical components” (Emphasis added by Examiner) lacks antecedent basis, as only one electrical component is required under the BRI. Second, “voltage signal” does not match in number to “electrical components”, and accordingly, it is unclear whether this is intended to limit the controller to only be capable of sending a single voltage signal, regardless of the number of voltages sources. The term “voltage signal” also lacks an article, which would appear to indicate a typographical error, although it is not clear which, i.e., ‘a voltage signal’ or ‘voltage signals’. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…a controller configured to control at least one of voltage sources configured to provide respective voltage signals to the one or more electrical components of the quantum object confinement apparatus…’.
Claim 34 recites “…and the quantum objects are generated by a source outside the composite confinement apparatus assembly…”. It is unclear if this is further limiting the assembly if it is required to be ‘outside’ the assembly, which would appear to indicate that it is not a part of the assembly. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…and the quantum objects are generated by a source external to the quantum object confinement apparatus and the photonic platform, the source being fluidically coupled to the composite confinement apparatus assembly…’.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, and 10-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 12-13 of U.S. Patent No. US 12217132 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they teach the limitations (see underlined elements).
Instant Application
Bohn (US 12217132 B2)
1. A composite confinement apparatus assembly comprising: a quantum object confinement apparatus comprising one or more electrical components, wherein the quantum object confinement apparatus is fabricated on a confinement apparatus substrate; and a photonic platform comprising one or more photonic components hosted by a photonic platform substrate, wherein the photonic platform substrate is mechanically coupled to the confinement apparatus substrate to form the composite confinement apparatus assembly.
1. A system comprising: an atomic object confinement apparatus comprising a plurality of electrodes configured to generate a confinement potential configured to confine one or more atomic objects, the confinement potential defining a plurality of atomic object positions; and one or more signal manipulation elements, each signal manipulation element of the one or more signal manipulation elements (a) associated with a respective atomic object position of the plurality of atomic object positions and (b) being one of: a collection array, the collection array configured to, responsive to an emitted signal emitted by an atomic object located at the respective atomic object position being incident on the collection array, provide an induced collection signal to a respective collection position, or an action array, the action array configured to, responsive to an incoming signal generated by a manipulation source being incident on the action array, provide an induced action signal to the respective atomic object position.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein at least one or more portions of a substrate of the atomic object confinement apparatus are transparent to at least one of light having a wavelength of the incoming signal or light having a wavelength of the emitted signal.
13. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more signal manipulation elements are disposed on a second substrate, the second substrate disposed such that a surface of the second substrate comprising at least one of the one or more signal manipulation elements faces a surface of a first substrate having the plurality of electrodes of the atomic object confinement apparatus disposed thereon.
6. The composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 1, wherein the one or more photonic components of the photonic platform comprise:
one or more flat optics elements;
one or more guided mode photonic elements;
one or more microfabricated lenses;
one or more claddings;
one or more photonic filters;
one or more photonic convertors;
one or more photonic detectors; or
one or more active optical elements.
1. A system comprising: an atomic object confinement apparatus comprising a plurality of electrodes configured to generate a confinement potential configured to confine one or more atomic objects, the confinement potential defining a plurality of atomic object positions; and one or more signal manipulation elements, each signal manipulation element of the one or more signal manipulation elements (a) associated with a respective atomic object position of the plurality of atomic object positions and (b) being one of: a collection array, the collection array configured to, responsive to an emitted signal emitted by an atomic object located at the respective atomic object position being incident on the collection array, provide an induced collection signal to a respective collection position, or an action array, the action array configured to, responsive to an incoming signal generated by a manipulation source being incident on the action array, provide an induced action signal to the respective atomic object position.
10. The composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 1, wherein an optical component is formed on the confinement apparatus substrate, the optical component configured to be illuminated by a first optical beam or pulse train and provide a second optical beam or pulse train toward a defined location, wherein the defined location is defined at least in part by the confinement apparatus. (See 112(b) above)
1. A system comprising: an atomic object confinement apparatus comprising a plurality of electrodes configured to generate a confinement potential configured to confine one or more atomic objects, the confinement potential defining a plurality of atomic object positions; and one or more signal manipulation elements, each signal manipulation element of the one or more signal manipulation elements (a) associated with a respective atomic object position of the plurality of atomic object positions and (b) being one of: a collection array, the collection array configured to, responsive to an emitted signal emitted by an atomic object located at the respective atomic object position being incident on the collection array, provide an induced collection signal to a respective collection position, or an action array, the action array configured to, responsive to an incoming signal generated by a manipulation source being incident on the action array, provide an induced action signal to the respective atomic object position.
11. The composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 10, wherein the photonic platform is configured to at least one of (a) provide the first optical beam or pulse train to the optical component or (b) provide a third optical beam or pulse train to the defined location, wherein the third optical beam or pulse train is co-axial to the second optical beam or pulse train. (See 112(b) above)
1. A system comprising: an atomic object confinement apparatus comprising a plurality of electrodes configured to generate a confinement potential configured to confine one or more atomic objects, the confinement potential defining a plurality of atomic object positions; and one or more signal manipulation elements, each signal manipulation element of the one or more signal manipulation elements (a) associated with a respective atomic object position of the plurality of atomic object positions and (b) being one of: a collection array, the collection array configured to, responsive to an emitted signal emitted by an atomic object located at the respective atomic object position being incident on the collection array, provide an induced collection signal to a respective collection position, or an action array, the action array configured to, responsive to an incoming signal generated by a manipulation source being incident on the action array, provide an induced action signal to the respective atomic object position.
Examiner additionally notes that claims 32 and 33 of the instant would be obvious over claims 1 and 14 in view of the disclosure of Bohn, and because vacuum chambers are conventional in the art, and Bohn solely lacks teaching in the claims of such chamber.
Claim 1 is also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, and 19-20 of copending Application No. 19/310,458 (reference application), claims 13-14 of copending Application No. 19/169,403 (reference application), claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/968,792 (reference application), and claims 1, 3, 10, and 12 of copending Application No. 18/475,479 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they teach the limitations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Because of this, for brevity, a full claim by claim review of these copending applications is forgone.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 10-11, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parazzoli (USPN US 11150609 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Parazzoli teaches a composite confinement apparatus assembly (See Figs. 1-2; Abstract; Summary of the Invention) comprising:
a quantum object confinement apparatus (See Fig. 2, items M1, M2, M3, 235, 240; Abstract; Col. 5, Lines 24-28; Col. 5, Lines 33-54) comprising one or more electrical components (See Fig. 2, items M2, M3, 240; Col. 5, Lines 33-54), wherein the quantum object confinement apparatus is fabricated on a confinement apparatus substrate (See Fig. 2, item 200, Examiner notes that both the oxide layer and handle layers could also be reasonably considered a ‘substrate’; Col. 5, Lines 33-43); and
a photonic platform (See Fig. 2, item 230, interpreted as a ‘platform’, in that it hosts the photonic components) comprising one or more photonic components (See Fig. 2, items 245, 250, 255, optional reflector) hosted by a photonic platform substrate (See Fig. 2, item 200, Examiner notes that both the oxide layer 210 and handle layer 205 could also be reasonably considered a ‘substrate’), wherein the photonic platform substrate is mechanically coupled to the confinement apparatus substrate to form the composite confinement apparatus assembly (See Fig. 2, item 200, coupled to both of the photonic platform and confinement apparatus, Examiner notes that both the oxide layer 210 and handle layer 205 could also be reasonably considered a ‘substrate’, and as such, one could interpret the confinement apparatus substrate to be one of 200, 205, 210, while the photonic platform substrate is another of 200, 205, 210, each of which are coupled together to form the composite confinement apparatus).
Regarding claim 2, Parazzoli teaches the composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 1.
Parazzoli further teaches wherein the photonic platform comprises a conductive layer (See above discussion) on a surface of the photonic platform substrate facing the quantum object confinement apparatus (See Fig. 2, items M1, M2, M3, 220; Abstract; Col. 5, Lines 33-54), wherein the conductive layer comprises a transparent section of the conductive layer (See Fig. 2, space above gratings 255 for out-coupling light, space above 220) and at least one of (a) the conductive layer is configured to be held at a fixed electric potential or (b) the conductive layer comprises a plurality of patterned electrodes (See Fig. 2, showing conductive layer comprises a plurality of patterned electrodes; See also embodiment of Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 6, Parazzoli further teaches the composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 1.
Parazzoli further teaches wherein the one or more photonic components of the photonic platform comprise:
one or more flat optics elements (See Fig. 2, items 245, 250);
one or more guided mode photonic elements (See Fig. 2, items 245, 250);
one or more microfabricated lenses;
one or more claddings;
one or more photonic filters;
one or more photonic convertors;
one or more photonic detectors (See Fig. 2, item 220); or
one or more active optical elements.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Parazzoli teaches the composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 1.
Parazzoli further teaches wherein an optical component is formed on the confinement apparatus substrate (See Fig. 2, items 245, 250, 255, reflector), the optical component configured to be illuminated by a first optical beam or pulse train and provide a second optical beam or pulse train toward a defined location, wherein the defined location is defined at least in part by the confinement apparatus (See Figs. 2, 10-12, ion 260 trapped above item 220 waveguide and gratings out-couple light into beams directed at the trapping site; Col. 5, Lines 43-50; See above 112(b) discussion regarding interpretation).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Parazzoli teaches the composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 10.
Parazzoli further teaches wherein the photonic platform is configured to at least one of (a) provide the first optical beam or pulse train to the optical component (See Figs. 2, 10-12, ion 260 trapped above item 220, waveguide and gratings out-couple light into beams directed at the trapping site; Col. 5, Lines 43-50; See above 112(b) discussion regarding interpretation) or (b) provide a third optical beam or pulse train to the defined location, wherein the third optical beam or pulse train is co-axial to the second optical beam or pulse train.
Regarding claim 32, Parazzoli further teaches a quantum processor comprising:
a cryogenic and/or vacuum chamber (See Fig. 5, item 505; Col. 7, Lines 7-13); and
[the] composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 1 (See claim mapping of claim 1) disposed within the cryogenic and/or vacuum chamber (See Figs. 1, 2, and 5, item 505; Col. 7, Lines 7-13).
Regarding claim 33, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Parazzoli further teaches a quantum computer comprising:
the quantum processor of claim 32 (See claim mapping of claim 32); and
a controller (See Fig. 5, item 510; Col. 7, Line 7 – Col. 8, Line 28; Col. 10, Line 15-58); Examiner additionally notes that various control operations are disclosed throughout the disclosure that would inherently require some form of control element to perform such operations, and interprets such a generic structure as inherently disclosed) configured to control at least one of voltage sources configured to provide voltage signal to the electrical components of the quantum object confinement apparatus (Col. 10, Line 15-58) or operation of a photonic component of the photonic platform that comprises an active optical element (See Fig. 5, item 510; Col. 7, Line 7 – Col. 8, Line 28; Examiner notes that applying the lasers would control operation of the photodetectors indirectly by causing them to operate via application of the interrogation beams).
Regarding claim 34, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Parazzoli teaches a composite confinement apparatus assembly (See Figs. 1-2; Abstract; Summary of the Invention) comprising:
a quantum object confinement apparatus fabricated on a confinement apparatus substrate (See Fig. 2, items M1, M2, M3, 235, 240, and substrate 200, Examiner notes that both the oxide layer and handle layers could also be reasonably considered a ‘substrate’; Abstract; Col. 5, Lines 24-28; Col. 5, Lines 33-54); and
a photonic platform (See Fig. 2, item 230, interpreted as a ‘platform’, in that it hosts the photonic components) comprising:
one or more photonic components (See Fig. 2, items 245, 250, 255, optional reflector; See also Fig. 10, items 1000, 1005) hosted by a photonic platform substrate (See Fig. 2, item 200, Examiner notes that both the oxide layer 210 and handle layer 205 could also be reasonably considered a ‘substrate’); and
a loading opening configured to pass quantum objects to the quantum object confinement apparatus (See Fig. 10, Loading Hole),
wherein the photonic platform substrate is mechanically coupled to the confinement apparatus substrate to form the composite confinement apparatus assembly (See Fig. 2, item 200, coupled to both of the photonic platform and confinement apparatus, Examiner notes that both the oxide layer 210 and handle layer 205 could also be reasonably considered a ‘substrate’, and as such, one could interpret the confinement apparatus substrate to be one of 200, 205, 210, while the photonic platform substrate is another of 200, 205, 210, each of which are coupled together to form the composite confinement apparatus), and the quantum objects are generated by a source outside the composite confinement apparatus assembly (Col. 5, Lines 20-23; Col. 10, Lines 32-36).
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 4-5, 7-9, and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parazzoli (USPN US 11150609 B1) in view of Hendrickson (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20210142204 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Parazzoli teaches the composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 2.
Parazzoli does not teach wherein the photonic platform comprises one or more photonic platform sink components configured to act as a respective optical sink configured to facilitate removal of one or more undesired photons from a space between the quantum object confinement apparatus and the photonic platform for reducing an undesired illumination of one or more untargeted quantum objects located between the quantum object confinement apparatus and the photonic platform.
Hendrickson teaches one or more photonic platform sink components configured to act as a respective optical sink (See Fig. 6A; [0091]) configured to facilitate removal of one or more undesired photons from a space between the quantum object confinement apparatus and the photonic platform (See Fig. 6A; [0091]; Examiner notes that such a device would inherently be configured to facilitate removal of one or more undesired photons) for reducing an undesired illumination of one or more untargeted quantum objects located between the quantum object confinement apparatus and the photonic platform (The ‘for reducing…’ limitation is interpreted as intended use under the BRI, as it does not structurally modify the sinks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parazzoli to include wherein the photonic platform comprises one or more photonic platform sink components configured to act as a respective optical sink configured to facilitate removal of one or more undesired photons from a space between the quantum object confinement apparatus and the photonic platform for reducing an undesired illumination of one or more untargeted quantum objects located between the quantum object confinement apparatus and the photonic platform, as taught by Hendrickson.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow Parazzoli to use the teachings of Hendrickson to connect an optical sink to exit hole(s), which would allow for the conventional benefits of such a device, namely, to capture stray or undesired light to improve the stability of the system, which one of ordinary skill in the art would know is adversely affected by superfluous light in such a system.
Regarding claim 5, Parazzoli in view of Hendrickson teaches the composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 4.
Hendrickson further teaches wherein the one or more sink components comprise one or more of a hole in the photonic platform configured to pass at least a first portion of the one or more undesired photons through the photonic platform substrate (See Fig. 6A; [0091]), an engineered coating with high optical transmittance configured to transmit at least a second portion of the one or more undesired photons therethrough, and a photon absorber configured to absorb at least a third portion of the one or more undesired photons (See Fig. 6A; [0091]).
Regarding claim 7, Parazzoli teaches the composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 1.
Parazzoli does not teach wherein the quantum object confinement apparatus comprises a confinement apparatus photon sink configured to facilitate removal of one or more undesired photons from a space between the quantum object confinement apparatus and the photonic platform for reducing an undesired illumination of one or more untargeted quantum objects located in the space between the quantum object confinement apparatus and the photonic platform, wherein the confinement apparatus photon sink comprises one or more of a hole or transparent window in the confinement apparatus substrate configured to pass at least a first portion of the one or more undesired photons through the confinement apparatus substrate, and a photon absorber configured to absorb at least a second portion of the one or more undesired photons.
Hendrickson teaches wherein the quantum object confinement apparatus comprises a confinement apparatus photon sink configured to facilitate removal of one or more undesired photons from a space between the quantum object confinement apparatus and the photonic platform (See Fig. 6A; [0091]; Examiner notes that such an optical absorber is inherently configured to facilitate removal of one or more undesired photons) for reducing an undesired illumination of one or more untargeted quantum objects located in the space between the quantum object confinement apparatus and the photonic platform (The ‘for reducing…’ limitation is interpreted as intended use under the BRI, as it does not structurally modify the sinks), wherein the confinement apparatus photon sink comprises one or more of a hole or transparent window in the confinement apparatus substrate configured to pass at least a first portion of the one or more undesired photons through the confinement apparatus substrate (See Fig. 6A; [0091]), and a photon absorber configured to absorb at least a second portion of the one or more undesired photons (See Fig. 6A; [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parazzoli to include wherein the quantum object confinement apparatus comprises a confinement apparatus photon sink configured to facilitate removal of one or more undesired photons from a space between the quantum object confinement apparatus and the photonic platform for reducing an undesired illumination of one or more untargeted quantum objects located in the space between the quantum object confinement apparatus and the photonic platform, wherein the confinement apparatus photon sink comprises one or more of a hole or transparent window in the confinement apparatus substrate configured to pass at least a first portion of the one or more undesired photons through the confinement apparatus substrate, and a photon absorber configured to absorb at least a second portion of the one or more undesired photons, as taught by Hendrickson.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow Parazzoli to use the teachings of Hendrickson to connect an optical sink to exit hole(s), which would allow for the conventional benefits of such a device, namely, to capture stray or undesired light to improve the stability of the system, which one of ordinary skill in the art would know is adversely affected by superfluous light in such a system.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Parazzoli in view of Hendrickson teaches the composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 7.
Hendrickson further teaches wherein the hole or transparent window in the photonic platform substrate configured to pass at least the first portion of the one or more undesired photons through the confinement apparatus substrate is further configured to dissipate at least the first portion of the one or more undesired photons (See Fig. 6A; [0091]; Optical absorbers inherently dissipate the photons thereon, as is their conventional purpose).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Parazzoli in view of Hendrickson teaches the composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 7.
Hendrickson further teaches wherein the hole in the quantum object confinement apparatus comprises a sink photon absorber configured to absorb at least the first portion of the one or more undesired photons in the hole in the confinement apparatus substrate (See Fig. 6A; [0091]; Optical absorbers inherently dissipate the photons thereon, as is their conventional purpose).
Regarding claim 43, Parazzoli teaches a confinement apparatus assembly (See Fig. 2, items M1, M2, M3, 235, 240; Abstract; Col. 5, Lines 24-28; Col. 5, Lines 33-54) comprising:
a confinement apparatus substrate (See Fig. 2, item 200, Examiner notes that both the oxide layer and handle layers could also be reasonably considered a ‘substrate’; Col. 5, Lines 33-54);
a confinement apparatus comprising a plurality of electrical components fabricated on the confinement apparatus substrate (See Fig. 2, items M2, M3, 240; Col. 5, Lines 33-54); and
Parazzoli does not teach one or more optical sinks formed on or in the confinement apparatus substrate.
Hendrickson teaches one or more optical sinks formed on or in the confinement apparatus substrate (See Fig. 6A; [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parazzoli to include one or more optical sinks formed on or in the confinement apparatus substrate, as taught by Hendrickson.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow Parazzoli to use the teachings of Hendrickson to connect an optical sink to exit hole(s), which would allow for the conventional benefits of such a device, namely, to capture stray or undesired light to improve the stability of the system, which one of ordinary skill in the art would know is adversely affected by superfluous light in such a system.
Regarding claim 44, Parazzoli in view of Hendrickson teaches the confinement apparatus assembly of claim 43.
Hendrickson further teaches wherein an optical sink of the one or more optical sinks is at least one of (a) an absorbing optical sink configured to absorb light incident thereon (See Fig. 6A; [0091]) or (b) a hole at least partially through the confinement apparatus substrate configured for light to pass therethrough (See Fig. 6A; [0091]).
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parazzoli (USPN US 11150609 B1).
Regarding claim 35, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Parazzoli teaches the composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 34.
Parazzoli does not explicitly teach wherein the loading opening comprises a through hole through the photonic platform (Emphasis added by Examiner).
However, Parazzoli discloses loading ions from a reservoir, readily being moved in and out of the interrogation and detection regions, and discloses loading holes, without specific limitation, except that they/it be offset from the trapping site positions.
There are only a limited number of ways the ions can be loaded into the trap, physically, in such a device. Accordingly, because Parazzoli discloses one or more loading holes, it is Examiner’s opinion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Parazzoli to explicitly include wherein the loading opening comprises a through hole through the photonic platform (Emphasis added by Examiner), as doing so would have been obvious to try.
Doing so would be obvious to try because there are a limited number of ways in which ions can reasonably be loaded through a through hole in such a device, and those limited number of ways are finite and predictable (i.e., there are limited surfaces through which the through holes can be put through to load the ions), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 36, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Parazzoli, as modified, teaches the composite confinement apparatus assembly of claim 35.
Parazzoli further teaches wherein the photonic platform comprises one or more photonic layers (See Fig. 2, items M1, 245, 250, 255, reflector, 225) and the loading opening passes through all the photonic layers (Examiner notes that this limitation is also rendered obvious by the above reasoning for the determination of obviousness of claim 35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights