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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0007] of the specification includes a reference to “the system of claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 33-60 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 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).
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 33-36 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;
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 second pulse is not at a transition frequency of said atom (Rydberg pulse detuned from resonance, p. 3 col. 1 paragraph 3); 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 35, Graham teaches that the second pulse comprises a 2p 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).
Claims 54-57 and 59-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by King (US 10,504,033 B1).
Regarding claim 54, King teaches a method of selectively exciting an atom of a plurality of atoms to an excited state (state selective excitation to Rydberg levels, col. 16 lines 43-44), the method comprising:
Selecting said atom with a selection operation (setting laser polarization so that selected atoms are excited to Rydberg levels, col. 17 lines 1-5); and
Exciting said atom to said excited state, wherein said exciting is performed using a non-site selective excitation beam over said plurality of atoms, wherein said non-site selective excitation beams selectively interacts with said atom based on said selection operation in (a).
Regarding claim 55, King teaches that said non-selective excitation beam is applied to at least two atoms of said plurality of atoms (two-qubit operations, col. 16 lines 57-58).
Regarding claim 56, King teaches that said non-site selective excitation beam is applied to each atom of the plurality of atoms (selectively exciting first and second qubit, col. 17 line 4).
Regarding claim 57, King teaches that said excited state is a Rydberg state.
Regarding claim 59, King teaches that said method is at least a part of a universal set of qubit gate operations (gate operations, col. 26 line 67-col. 27 line 2).
Regarding claim 60, King teaches, simultaneous or subsequent to (b), exciting at least another atom of said plurality of atoms using said same excitation beam, wherein said at least another atom does not interact with said atom (repeating qubit operations, col. 27 lines 28-30).
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.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Cohen (US 20200349458 A1).
Regarding claim 58, King teaches all the limitations of claim 54 as described above. King does not teach that said exciting in (b) is time-domain multiplexed.
Cohen teaches a method of time-domain multiplexed excitation of a set of qubits in a trap ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the system of King time-domain multiplexed as taught by Cohen, in order to allow simple addressing of multiple qubits of the array of King using a shared communication path with no unexpected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 37, 44-53 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
In the prior art, pulse sequences for qubit operations are described by Graham and King 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.
Conclusion
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