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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 22, 25, and 29 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 22, lines 1-2 recite: “wherein the plurality of qubits further encode a plurality of data qudits and an ancilla qudit.” Claim 22 depends on claim 8. In the context of claim 8, lines 1-2: “the quantum computer comprising a plurality of qubits encoding a plurality of qubits”, it is unclear exactly what is being claimed in the above limitation of claim 22. Examiner believes the intended meaning is that the plurality of qudits of claim 8 include a plurality of data qudits and an ancilla qudit. However, if the plurality of data qudits and the ancilla qudit are part of the plurality of qudits of claim 8, it doesn’t make sense that “the plurality of qubits further encode a plurality of data qudits and an ancilla qudit.” This implies that the data qudits and ancilla qudits are new and separate from the plurality of qudits in claim 8. Examiner recommends amending claim 22 to recite something like: “the method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of qudits, encoded by the plurality of qubits, further comprises a plurality of data qudits and an ancilla qudit, wherein the method further comprises:…” if this is the intended meaning.
Claim 29 contains similar clarity issues. Claim 29 lines 1-2 recite: “wherein the plurality of qubits further encode at least one target qudit and at least one control qudit.” Examiner recommends amending claim 29 to recite something like: “the method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of qudits, encoded by the plurality of qubits, further comprises at least one target qudit and at least one control qudit, the method further comprising…” So that it is clear that the target qudit and the control qudit are part of the original plurality of qudits of claim 8 if this is the intended meaning.
Claims 23-28 and 30-33 depend on claim 22 or 29, and are similarly rejected under 112B at least by their dependency.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the ancilla qubit" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner assumes this is a typo, and should be corrected to “the ancilla qudit.” However, if this is not the case appropriate antecedent basis of the term must be established.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The elements of independent claims 8 and 34 were neither found through a search of the prior art nor considered obvious by the Examiner. In particular, as discussed in Applicant’s arguments (filed 11/06/2025), the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations and in the context of their claims as a whole: “coherently transferring atoms in the selected quantum states to first and second shelving states; and correcting the leakage error by optical pumping of the noninteracting state, the optical pumping preserving coherence of the selected quantum states in an absence of the leakage error, wherein the optical pumping transfers qudits of the plurality of qudits from any ground state other than the first shelving state into the second shelving state.”
Upon further search and consideration, claims 8 and 34 are allowed. Further, at least by their dependency upon claim 8 and 34, claims 9-12 and 35-36 are allowed.
Claims 22-33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK K BARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0431. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5, F 8-4 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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/JACK KENSINGTON BARNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2111
/MARK D FEATHERSTONE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights