DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 33-34, 36-44, 46-57 and 59-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for transitions involving atomic states that are Rydberg states, hyperfine states or nuclear spin states, does not reasonably provide enablement for enacting a transition on any possible state of the atom (e.g. a position or momentum state). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The independent claims as stated teach the use of a “pulse” or “beam” to change the state of an atom or to excite the atom to a new state. The current specification describes in sufficient detail this process for some types of atomic state (as listed above) but the claim language is broad enough to cover far more “states” (since one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the “state” of an atom can be specified in terms of any measurable value). To implement an atomic transition from one state to another, for a randomly selected pair of states, would require one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a great of deal experimentation to find the proper preparation steps for the atoms to be loaded into the ion trap and determine the polarization, frequency and intensity of an electromagnetic or other pulse beam to perform the transition (assuming said transition can be implemented in the ion trapping system of the current specification).
Amending the independent claims to narrow the type of quantum state would overcome the rejection.
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 33-34, 36 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graham (Graham et al, “Rydberg Mediated Entanglement in a Two-Dimensional Neutral Atom Qubit Array”, Physical Review Letters 123(23):1-21 2019).
Regarding claim 33, Graham teaches a method for selectively changing a state of an atom (target qubit, p. 3 col. 2 2nd paragraph; qubits are atomic, Abstract) of a plurality of atoms (target and control atoms), the method comprising:
Applying a first pulse (initial p/2 pulse, fig. 5a) to said plurality of atoms, wherein said plurality of atoms comprises said atom and one or more other atoms, wherein said first pulse drives a transition between a first state and a second state (p/2 rotation, changes spin state, p. 3 col. 2 paragraph 2)
Applying a second pulse (2p pulse applied to target, fig. 5a) to said atom but not to said one or more other atoms, wherein said applying drives a 2p rotation of a transition between said second state and a third state (target atom is taken from p/2 rotated state to 2p rotated Rydberg state) and
Applying a third pulse ((p/2)f pulse) to said plurality of atoms, thereby changing said state of said atom (pulse rotates atom by variable angle f, p. 3 col. 2 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 34, Graham teaches that the first pulse is a p/2 pulse.
Regarding claim 36, Graham teaches that the third pulse is a p/2 pulse, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand could be considered a – p/2 pulse depending on an arbitrary choice of axis.
Regarding claim 38, Graham teaches that a-c are configured to impart a change of at least one state of said atom (Rydberg excitation, fig. 5 legend) but not on each other atom of said plurality of atoms.
Regarding claim 39, Graham teaches applying a magnetic field across said plurality of atoms (magnetic bias, p. 2 col. 1 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 40, Graham teaches that said first pulse is an electromagnetic pulse (laser beams, p. 2 col. 1 paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 41, Graham teaches that the laser pulses have circular polarization (s+ polarization, p. 2 col. 1 paragraph 2).
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.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham in view of King (US 10,504,033 B1).
Regarding claim 42, Graham teaches all the limitations of claim 33 as described above. Graham does not teach that the plurality of atoms comprises atoms with two valence electrons.
King teaches a quantum computing system with atoms having two valence electrons (col. 10 line 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Graham to use atoms with two valence electrons (e.g. barium or strontium) rather than cesium atoms, as King teaches that may possible types of atoms can be used in a quantum computing system as a matter of routine selection with no unexpected result (col. 10 lines 11-60).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham.
Regarding claim 43, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the first and third pulses of Graham to have the same intensity, as one of ordinary skill in the art could easily select any desired laser intensity, and choosing the first and third pulses to have the same intensity is a matter of routine optimization (selecting an intensity effective for performing a p/2 rotation on the trapped control atom and setting each pulse to be that intensity) with no unexpected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 37, 44-57 and 59-60 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112a in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 58 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 does not disclose or make obvious a method for selectively changing a state of an atom of a plurality of atoms, including applying a first pulse to said plurality of atoms, applying a second pulse to said atom but not said other atoms wherein said second pulse is not at a transition frequency of said atom, and applying a third pulse to said plurality of atoms, thereby changing a state of said atom, wherein: the first and third pulses have opposite phase, or the first and third pulse are at a shelving transition and said second pulse is a qubit gate, imaging or reset operation, or selecting a second atom and applying a site selective pulse to the second atom prior to the first pulse which provides a differential shift between a ground state and a clock manifold of said atom as compared to said plurality of atoms.
Regarding claims 54-60, the prior art does not disclose or make obvious a method for selectively exciting an atom of a plurality of atoms to an excited state, the method comprising: selecting said atom with a selection operation, and exciting said atom to an excited state, wherein said non-site selective excitation beam selectively interacts with said atom based on said selection operation in (a).
In the prior art, pulse sequences for qubit operations are described by Graham and King (US 10,504,033 B1) as well as Mitra (Mitra et al, “Robust Molmer-Sorensen Gate For Neutral Atoms Using Rapid Adiabatic Rydberg Dressing”, Physical Review A, 030301(R) 2020) and Jau (Jau et al, “Entangling Atomic Spins With a Strong Rydberg-Dressed Interaction”, Nature Physics 12(1):71-74 2016) but they do not teach the three-pulse sequence on plural atoms described by the present claims, or the non-site selective excitation which selectively interacts with an atom based on a prior selection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 September 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection of the current claims under 35 U.S.C. 112a, the intent of the rejection was not that the claims were lacking enablement per se, but that the scope of the claims was greater than the subject matter enabled by the specification. (MPEP 2164.08). Examiner agrees that the disclosure is enabling for what is described within it, but the claimed subject matter is broader than what is enabled by the current disclosure.
Independent claim 33 recites “selectively changing a state of a plurality of atoms” without further defining the type of state that is meant, while claim 54 recites “exciting an atom of a plurality of atoms to an excited state”. Since the state of a quantum system is defined by many variables, affecting any of them can be considered a change of state (or an excitation of the state has higher energy than the previous state). The current specification does not describe in enabling detail how to use pulses to controllably change any possible atomic state into any other possible atomic state, as there are infinite such states. The only transitions described in sufficient detail to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to construct and operate an atom trapping system and laser system for such performing such transitions are the transitions between hyperfine energy states, between nuclear spin states ([0080-0082]) and from a ground energy state to a Rydberg state ([0104]). Momentum and position eigenstates are not described in the specification and it would not be clear from the current specification how to excite such states using the pulses of the current system.
Regarding the rejection of claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102, the applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not convincing. Graham teaches applying a p/2 pulse to one atom and one other atom, applying a second Rydberg pulse to only the target atom, and applying a p/2 pulse to both atoms again as described above. All of these pulses can be considered as changing the state of the targeted atom by rotating the spin axis. Therefore the system of Graham meets the requirements of the claim.
Regarding the rejection of claim 54 under 35 U.S.C. 102, applicant’s arguments are convincing and the rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
