DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statement(s) filed on various dates is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application KR 20220147883 A (filed on 11/08/2022), fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application: (i) the features directed to the generation of a two-dimensional quantum state, as recited in claims 3-4, 6, 14-15 and 17; and (ii) the feature of the vapor cell being “a glass-type cell” as recited in claims 12 and 19.
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 two dimensional quantum state(s) along with their multiplexing features (e.g., dividing multiplexing the state of the single photon into a left side and a right side) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 3-4, 6, 14-15 and 17. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 limitation “a photon generator configured to generate…” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This limitation, and in particular the generating function thereof, does not have sufficient structure.
Claims 1 & 3-6 limitation “a multidimensional quantum state generator configured to generate…” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This limitation, and in particular the generating function thereof, does not have sufficient structure.
Claims 8 & 10 limitation “a processor configured to move and/or generate…” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This limitation, and in particular the generating and/or moving function(s) thereof, does not have sufficient structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
1. Claims 1 & 13 both recite: “…generate a multidimensional quantum state by space division multiplexing a state of the single photon through phase modulation of a spatial light modulator (SLM)”. It is unclear what is meant by the term ‘multidimensional quantum state’ since the degree of freedom of the single photon is not specified, i.e., such a quantum state may refer to an indefinite multiplicity of representations such as spatial dimensions within a particular coordinate system, orbital angular momentum, linear momentum, energy-time, polarization, and/or other degrees of freedom. Furthermore, a claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is". Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(g), citing In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971) and Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be rendered indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). In the present case, the limitation “by space division multiplexing a state of the single photon through phase modulation” is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present to perform the function of space division multiplexing a state of the single photon through phase modulation. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as: “…generate a quantum state through phase modulation of a spatial light modulator (SLM)”.
2. Similarly, claims 3-7 and 14-17 recite limitations directed to generating a two -dimensional and/or four-dimensional quantum state(s) space dividing multiplexing the state of the single photon into top and/or bottom and/or left and/or right quadrants through phase modulation of the SLM. It is unclear what the 2D and/or 4D quantum states correspond to (see discussion supra), and it is further unclear what is meant by the single photon state having a plurality of ‘quadrants’ corresponding to the various ‘sides’ as recited in the claims, i.e., there is no reference frame/context by which one may ascertain such quadrants and the instant specification fails to provide any objective standard for this relative terminology (e.g., do the quadrants and sides correspond to particular polarizations? Phases? Spatial orientations? etc.). See MPEP § 2173.05(b), citing Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned, rendering 3-7 and 14-17 as indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret these limitations as inherent.
3. Claim 11 recites “fix a laser frequency at +1 GHz outside a Doppler broadening region to reduce an irrelevant photon pair generated by photon resonance.” It is unclear what is meant by ‘irrelevant photon pair’ (i.e., irrelevant with respect to what?), as this does not appear to be a term of the art, and the as-filed specification merely recites in ipsis verbis the generic claim language with no further elucidation. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as: “fix a laser frequency at +1 GHz outside a Doppler broadening region”.
4. The following limitations (A-C) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function:
A. Regarding Claim 1 limitation: “a photon generator configured to generate…”, the specification is silent to any definite structure required to meet the functional limitations of a photon generator beyond merely reciting the components of the generic placeholder: “The photon generator includes an atomic vapor cell containing a rubidium (87Rb) atom, and a processor configured to move a coupling laser and a pump laser” (pg. 9 of originally-filed specification).
B. Regarding Claims 1 & 3-6 limitation “a multidimensional quantum state generator configured to generate…”, the specification is silent to any definite structure required to meet the functional limitations of said generator beyond an ipsis verbis appearance of the generic placeholder: “a multidimensional quantum state generator 120” (FIGS. 1-2B; pg. 10 of originally-filed specification).
C. Claim 8 and 10 recite “a processor” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as detailed above. However, the specification is silent to any structure required to meet the functional limitations of the control unit. To be clear, the specification merely recites “a processor” (see e.g., pg. 9 of disclosure). As such, the processor amounts to a general purpose computer, and the specification fails to provide any specific algorithm for achieving the function. However, to claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241 (MPEP 2181.II.B).
Accordingly, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38, 86 USPQ2d at 1242. Since the claimed “processor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as detailed above and the specification is silent as to any structure for the “processor” other than a general purpose computer, claims 8 and 10 are therefore indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the base claims, respectively, and claims 1-20 are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claims 1-7, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kagalwala et al. (NPL titled “Single-photon three-qubit quantum…” (Sep. 2017) as cited in the IDS filed 01/24/2025).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Kagalwala discloses: A multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus (FIG. 4) comprising: a photon generator configured to generate a single photon (p. 3, c. 2: We exploit these gates to generate single-photon qubit states; p. 9 c. 1: qubits can be encoded in the polarization and spatial parity DoFs of a single photon; see FIG. 1 for single photon qubit operations); and a multidimensional quantum state generator (see FIG. 4 showing SLM; see FIGS. 2 & 6 showing resultant multidimensional quantum states via space division multiplexing through SLM in combination with single-mode and multi-mode fibers (as further shown in experimental setup of FIG. 4)) configured to generate a multidimensional quantum state by space division multiplexing a state of the single photon through phase modulation of a spatial light modulator (SLM) (p. 5 c. 1: The two-qubit four-dimensional Hilbert space associated with polarization and x-parity is spanned by the hybrid basis in correspondence with the logical basis…the impact of an SLM imparting a phase-step π along x on the four basis states in Fig. 2a; p. 6 c. 1: a polarization-selective SLM can implement a broad range of three-qubit quantum gates with the appropriate selection of the phases in its four quadrants).
Regarding Claim 2, Kagalwala discloses the multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Kagalwala further discloses: wherein the single photon comprises a heralded single photon (p. 6: the heralded photon).
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Kagalwala discloses the multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Kagalwala further discloses: the electronic device, wherein the multidimensional quantum state generator is configured to generate a two-dimensional quantum state by space dividing multiplexing the state of the single photon into a left side and a right side through phase modulation of the SLM (p. 3 c. 2: qubit can be realized in the polarization of a single photon by associating the logical basis {|0>, |1>} with the physical basis {|V>, |H>}, where |V> and |H> are the vertical and horizontal linear polarization components, respectively; p. 5 c. 1: the impact of an SLM imparting a phase-step π along x. This action is consistent with a CNOT gate with polarization and x-parity corresponding to the control and target qubits; see FIG. 2a showing 2D quantum state into a left side and a right side through phase modulation of the SLM; see also FIG. 6b; p.7 c. 1-2: For the quantum gate in each panel, we present the quantum circuit, the 2D SLM phase required for implementing the gate, and the reconstructed transformation operator in the polarization-parity Hilbert space…CNOTx gate on the x-parity qubit utilizing a π phase-step along x).
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood, Kagalwala discloses the multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Kagalwala further discloses: wherein the multidimensional quantum state generator is configured to generate a two-dimensional quantum state by space dividing multiplexing the state of the single photon into a top side and a bottom side through phase modulation of the SLM (p. 5 c. 1: a CNOT gate with y-parity playing the role of the target qubit is realized when a phase-step π is imparted by the SLM along y rather than x; see FIG. 2b showing 2D quantum state into a top side and a bottom side through phase modulation of the SLM; see also FIG. 6c; p.7 c. 1-2: For the quantum gate in each panel, we present the quantum circuit, the 2D SLM phase required for implementing the gate, and the reconstructed transformation operator in the polarization-parity Hilbert space…CNOTy gate on the y-parity qubit utilizing a π phase-step along y).
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood, Kagalwala discloses the multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Kagalwala further discloses: wherein the multidimensional quantum state generator is configured to generate a four-dimensional quantum state by space dividing multiplexing the state of the single photon into top, bottom, left, and right quadrants through phase modulation of the SLM (p. 9 c. 1: The SLM imparts the phases π, π/2, 0, and −π/2 in the four quadrants; see FIG. 7 showing 4D quantum state with respective quadrants).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, Kagalwala discloses the multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Kagalwala further discloses: wherein the multidimensional quantum state generator is configured to generate a two-dimensional quantum state by space division multiplexing by dividing the state of the single photon into top, bottom, left, and right quadrants through phase modulation of the SLM, allocate a same phase to top-left and bottom-right of the divided quadrants, and allocate a same phase to top-right and bottom-left of the divided quadrants (p. 7 c. 1-2: The phases for the four quadrants implemented by the SLM start from the top right quadrant and move in the counter-clockwise direction. The gates include: cascaded CNOTx and CNOTy gates, or CNOTx (X) CNOTy, sharing the same control qubit and utilizing the SLM phases π/2, −π/2, π/2, and −π/2 resulting from adding the phases for the CNOTx and CNOTy gates and then subtracting an unimportant global phase π/2; see FIG. 6d showing 2D quantum state via SLM wherein a same phase is allocated in respective quadrants as recited).
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood, Kagalwala discloses the multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Kagalwala further discloses: wherein the multidimensional quantum state is dividable into multidimensions up to a range supported by a resolution of the SLM (p. 9 c. 1-2: a higher-dimensionality Hilbert space is accessible in the azimuthal DOF (in a polar coordinate system), by utilizing high-order modes. A comparable approach can be exploited in our scheme, where the 2D transverse plane is segmented into non-overlapping square areas where the spatial parity qubits are encoded independently. This would allow us to increase the number of qubits per photon with the same SLM-based modulation scheme).
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood, Kagalwala discloses: A method of generating a multidimensional quantum state (FIG. 4), the method comprising: generating a single photon (p. 3, c. 2: We exploit these gates to generate single-photon qubit states; p. 9 c. 1: qubits can be encoded in the polarization and spatial parity DoFs of a single photon; see FIG. 1 for single photon qubit operations); and generating a multidimensional quantum state by space division multiplexing a state of the single photon through phase modulation of a spatial light modulator (SLM) (p. 5 c. 1: The two-qubit four-dimensional Hilbert space associated with polarization and x-parity is spanned by the hybrid basis in correspondence with the logical basis…the impact of an SLM imparting a phase-step π along x on the four basis states in Fig. 2a; p. 6 c. 1: a polarization-selective SLM can implement a broad range of three-qubit quantum gates with the appropriate selection of the phases in its four quadrants; see FIG. 4 showing SLM; see FIGS. 2 & 6 showing resultant multidimensional quantum states via space division multiplexing through SLM in combination with single-mode and multi-mode fibers (as further shown in experimental setup of FIG. 4)).
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood, Kagalwala discloses the method according to Claim 13, as above. Kagalwala further discloses: wherein the generating of the multidimensional quantum state comprises generating a two-dimensional quantum state by space dividing multiplexing the state of the single photon into a left side and a right side through phase modulation of the SLM (see rejection of claim 3 supra).
Regarding Claim 15, as best understood, Kagalwala discloses the method according to Claim 13, as above. Kagalwala further discloses: wherein the generating of the multidimensional quantum state comprises generating a two-dimensional quantum state by space dividing multiplexing the state of the single photon into a top side and a bottom side through phase modulation of the SLM (see rejection of claim 4 supra).
Regarding Claim 16, as best understood, Kagalwala discloses the method according to Claim 13, as above. Kagalwala further discloses: wherein the generating of the multidimensional quantum state comprises generating a four-dimensional quantum state by space dividing multiplexing the state of the single photon into top, bottom, left, and right quadrants through phase modulation of the SLM (see rejection of claim 5 supra).
Regarding Claim 17, as best understood, Kagalwala discloses the method according to Claim 13, as above. Kagalwala further discloses: wherein the generating of the multidimensional quantum state comprises generating a two-dimensional quantum state by space division multiplexing by dividing the state of the single photon into top, bottom, left, and right quadrants through phase modulation of the SLM, allocating a same phase to top-left and bottom-right of the divided quadrants, and allocating a same phase to top-right and bottom-left of the divided quadrants (see rejection of claim 6 supra).
Regarding Claim 20, Kagalwala discloses the method according to Claim 13, as above. Kagalwala further discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method (pg. 3 of Supp.; see Supplementary FIG. 3 showing PC with counter module).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8-10, 12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagalwala et al (NPL titled “Single-photon three-qubit quantum…” (Sep. 2017)) in view of Park et al. (NPL titled “Entanglement swapping…” (April 2020)).
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood, Kagalwala discloses the multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus according to Claim 1, as above.
Kagalwala does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the photon generator comprises: an atomic vapor cell containing a rubidium (87Rb) atom; and a processor configured to move a coupling laser and a pump laser in opposite directions to each other relative to the atomic vapor cell, generate a pair of signal and idler photons in the atomic vapor cell, and output a signal photon as the single photon.
Park is related to Kagalwala with respect to a multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus comprising a photon generator and a multidimensional quantum state generator configured to generate a multidimensional quantum state (FIG. 1; p. 2404 c. 2: single photon generation; p. 2405 c. 1: four different values of photon polarization with experimentally obtained fourfold coincidences), and Park teaches: wherein the photon generator comprises: an atomic vapor cell containing a rubidium (87Rb) atom (abstract & FIG. 1 (p. 2404 c. 1): atomic ensemble of 87Rb atoms in atomic vapor cell); and a processor configured to move a coupling laser and a pump laser in opposite directions to each other relative to the atomic vapor cell, generate a pair of signal and idler photons in the atomic vapor cell, and output a signal photon as the single photon (p. 2403 c. 2: signal and idler photon pairs were generated from the warm atomic ensemble via the SFWM process in the cascade-type atomic system; p. 2404 c. 2: After passing through the two FPBSs, independent heralded single photons are sent to single photon detectors…idler photons heralds the existence of the signal photons; see FIG. 1a showing coupling laser and a pump laser traveling in opposite directions with respect to the atomic vapor cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus of Kagalwala in view of Park to satisfy the claimed condition, because such an atomic vapor cell with lasers is utilized for its very simple and small experimental setup (p. 2403 c. 2), and such a photon source is utilized to produce equal excitation probability and orthogonal polarizations, thereby resulting in “including high spectral purity, high stability, high brightness, and effective interaction with atoms allowing for the implementation of entanglement swapping with a high distribution rate” as taught in p. 2404 c. 1, and p. 2406 c. 1 of Park.
Regarding Claim 9, Kagalwala discloses the multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus according to Claim 8, as above. Park further discloses: wherein the coupling laser comprises a 776 nm laser of horizontal polarization, the pump laser comprises a 780 nm laser of vertical polarization, and the coupling laser and the pump laser simultaneously move toward the atomic vapor cell in opposite directions to each other from respective positions spaced apart from the atomic vapor cell by a same distance (p. 2404 c. 1-2: To have equal two-photon excitation of the two interferometer pathways, the experimental conditions of the bidirectional counterpropagating pump and coupling fields in the vapor cell should be the same as each other; FIG. 1a: Schematic of experimental setup for entanglement swapping between two independent polarization-entangled photon pairs from SFWM with bidirectional counterpropagating pump and coupling fields in atomic vapor cell (PBS, polarizing beam splitter; P, polarizer; HWP, half-wave plate; QWP, quarterwave plate; FC, fiber couplers; EF, FBS, fiber beam splitter; FPBS, fiber polarizing beam splitter; FPC, fiber polarization controller); see FIG. 1a showing coupling laser is a horizontally polarized 776 nanometer (nm) laser, the pump laser is a vertically polarized 780 nm laser (see PBS1), and the coupling laser and the pump laser simultaneously travel in opposite directions toward the atomic vapor cell at positions spaced apart from the atomic vapor cell at the same distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus of Kagalwala in view of Park to satisfy the claimed condition, because such an atomic vapor cell with lasers is utilized for its very simple and small experimental setup (p. 2403 c. 2), and such excitation wavelengths accompanied by such polarizations for the lasers are selected to coherently excite the warm vapor as a result of the Doppler-free two-photon resonant configuration with counterpropagating pump and coupling fields, as taught in p. 2403 c. 2 of Park.
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Kagalwala discloses the multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus according to Claim 8, as above. Park further discloses: wherein the processor is configured to generate the photon pair of which the signal and the idler are in a perpendicular polarization relationship that is horizontal polarization and vertical polarization or vertical polarization and horizontal polarization by the coupling laser of horizontal polarization and the pump laser of vertical polarization (p. 2404 c. 1-2: the orthogonally linearly polarized signal and idler photons in the two pathways are adjusted to have equal excitation probability and orthogonal polarizations; see FIG. 1a showing photon pair in which the signal and the idler have a perpendicular polarization relationship by the horizontally polarized coupling laser and the vertically polarized pump laser).
Regarding Claim 12, Kagalwala discloses the multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus according to Claim 8, as above. Park further discloses: wherein the atomic vapor cell comprises a glass-type cell that maintains gas of the rubidium (87Rb) atom warm (FIG. 1 & p. 2403 c. 1: “Figure 1 shows the experimental scheme for entanglement swapping composed of Alice and Bob sites based on a warm atomic ensemble of 87Rb atoms. The warm atomic ensemble at each site is very simple and small”).
Regarding Claim 18, Kagalwala discloses the method according to Claim 13, as above. Park further discloses: wherein the generating of the single photon comprises: providing an atomic vapor cell containing a rubidium (87Rb) atom; and moving a coupling laser and a pump laser in opposite directions to each other relative to the atomic vapor cell, generating a pair of signal and idler photons in the atomic vapor cell, and outputting a signal photon as the single photon (see rejection of claim 8 supra).
Regarding Claim 19, Kagalwala discloses the method according to Claim 18, as above. Park further discloses: wherein the providing of the atomic vapor cell comprises providing a glass-type cell that maintains gas of the rubidium (87Rb) atom warm (see rejection of claim 12 supra).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagalwala et al. (NPL titled “Single-photon three-qubit quantum…” (Sep. 2017)) in view of Park et al. (NPL titled “Entanglement swapping…” (April 2020), and further in view of Wu et al. (NPL titled “High-fidelity entanglement swapping at telecommunication wavelengths” (Nov. 2013)).
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, Kagalwala-Park discloses the multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus according to Claim 8, as above. Kagalwala does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the coupling laser and the pump laser fix a laser frequency at +1 GHz outside a Doppler broadening region to reduce an irrelevant photon pair generated by photon resonance.
Wu is related to Kagalwala with respect to a multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus comprising a photon generator and a multidimensional quantum state generator configured to generate a multidimensional quantum state (p. 3 c. 1-2; FIGS. 3 & 5), and Wu teaches: wherein the coupling laser and the pump laser fix a laser frequency at +1 GHz outside a Doppler broadening region to reduce an irrelevant photon pair generated by photon resonance (p. 2-3: The pump laser is a mode-locked femtosecond Ti:sapphire laser and an average SPD1 and SPD2 are sinusoidally gated InGaAs/InP APDs (SG-APDs) operated at a frequency of 1.28 GHz (≈ +1 GHz)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus of Kagalwala in view of Wu to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a frequency is selected to enabled an increase of four-fold coincidence rates without degrading the fidelity of the entanglement swapping and without decreasing the visibility, as taught in p. 1 c. 2 and p. 4 c. 2 of Wu.
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Conti et al. (US 7,539,308 B2) discloses a multidimensional quantum state generation apparatus comprising a warm Rb atom vapor cell and a processor configured to generate a photon pair of a signal and an idler by traveling a coupling laser and a pump laser in opposite directions, and further satisfying some of the additional conditions as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WYATT STOFFA can be reached on 571-270-1782. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872