DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites the limitation “…second optical trap is not sufficient for trapping and atom from said cloud of atoms…” (emphasis added). This appears to be a typographical error. In this action, Examiner will assume the limitation to read as “…second optical trap is not sufficient for trapping an atom from said cloud of atoms…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by King et al. (US PGPub 2020/0175411, hereinafter King).
Regarding claim 1, King discloses a method (methods and systems for performing non-classical computations, see abstract) comprising:
providing a first optical trap and a second optical trap of a plurality of optical traps (plurality of spatially distinct optical trapping sites 211, see Fig. 3B and paragraph [0075]), wherein a trapping potential of the second optical trap is not sufficient to load an atom from a cloud of atoms (each optical trapping site may be configured to trap a single atom, as depicted in Fig. 3B, some of the optical trapping sites may be empty (i.e. not trap an atom), see paragraph [0075]);
trapping an atom from the cloud of atoms in the first optical trap (the plurality of spatially distinct optical trapping sites may be configured to trap a plurality of atoms, such as a first atom 212a, see Fig. 3B and paragraph [0075]);
identifying a presence of the atom in the first optical trap (optical trapping unit may comprise one or more imaging units configured to obtain one or more images of a spatial configuration of the plurality of atoms trapped within the optical trapping sites (see paragraph [0100]); and
transferring the atom from the first optical trap to the second optical trap (optical trapping unit may comprise one or more atom rearrangement units configured to impart an altered spatial arrangement of the plurality of atoms trapped within the optical trapping sites, see paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claim 2, King discloses the second optical trap is configured for use as a computing trap (system 200 cay comprise one or more readout optical units 230 to perform one or more measurements of the one or more superposition states to obtain the non-classical computation, see paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 3, King discloses a plurality of optical traps comprising the first and second optical trap (plurality of optical traps 211a-I, see Fig. 3B and paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 4, King discloses at most about 15% of the plurality of optical traps are configured for use as loading traps, wherein the first optical trap is comprised within the at most about 15% of the plurality of optical traps (a filling factor may be defined as a ratio of the number of optical trapping sites occupied by one or more atoms to the total number of optical trapping sites available in the optical trapping unit or a region of the optical trapping unit, for instance, initial loading of atoms within the optical sites may give rise to a filling factor of less than 50% or less, see paragraph [0105]; the first optical trap 211a being one of a plurality of optical traps, see Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 5, King discloses a plurality of computing optical traps, wherein the second optical trap is comprised within the plurality of optical traps (system 200 cay comprise one or more readout optical units 230 to perform one or more measurements of the one or more superposition states to obtain the non-classical computation, see paragraph [0060]; including the second optical trap 211b, see Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 6, King discloses at least about 55% of the plurality of computing optical traps are loaded with atoms (a filling factor may be defined as a ratio of the number of optical trapping sites occupied by one or more atoms to the total number of optical trapping sites available in the optical trapping unit or a region of the optical trapping unit, for instance, initial loading of atoms within the optical sites may give rise to a filling factor of less than 100% or less, see paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claim 7, King discloses at least about 90% of the plurality of computing optical traps are loaded with atoms (a filling factor may be defined as a ratio of the number of optical trapping sites occupied by one or more atoms to the total number of optical trapping sites available in the optical trapping unit or a region of the optical trapping unit, for instance, initial loading of atoms within the optical sites may give rise to a filling factor of less than 100% or less, see paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claim 8, King discloses repeating steps b-d for another pair of optical traps of the plurality of optical traps (optical trapping unit may comprise one or more atom rearrangement units configured to impart an altered spatial arrangement of the plurality of atoms trapped within the optical trapping sites based on the one or more images obtained by the imaging unit (e.g. trapping an atom, identifying the presence with imaging, and transferring the atom), see paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claim 9, King discloses the second optical trap has a lower trapping energy than the first optical trap (each optical trapping site 211 may be configured to trap a single atom, as depicted in Fig. 3B, some of the optical trapping sites may be empty (i.e. not trap an atom), see paragraph [0075], due to the optical tweezers in the second optical trapping site not being provided with an attractive or repulse force enough to hold an atom, see paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 10, King discloses a trapping energy of the second optical trap is not sufficient for trapping an atom from the cloud of atoms adjacent to or overlapping the second optical trap (each optical trapping site 211 may be configured to trap a single atom, as depicted in Fig. 3B, some of the optical trapping sites may be empty (i.e. not trap an atom), see paragraph [0075], due to the optical tweezers in the second optical trapping site not being provided with an attractive or repulse force enough to hold an atom, see paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 11, King discloses the method does not comprise using collisional blockading in the second optical trap (the plurality of spatially distinct optical trapping sites may be configured to trap a plurality of atoms, such as a first atom 212a, see Fig. 3B and paragraph [0075], by using optical tweezers comprising one or more focused laser beams to provide an attractive or repulsive force to hold or move the one or more atoms, see paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 12, King discloses the atom in the second optical trap is excited with a light beam to generate a shelved atom (atoms may be selectively transferred into a storage or shelving process using the SLM (spatial light modulator), see paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 13, King discloses the shelved atom is not addressable by a light beam used to cool, trap, or image another atom (atoms may be selectively transferred into such a state to reduce cross talk or to improve gate or detection fidelity, see paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 14, King discloses the second optical trap contains only the atom (the second optical trap 211 uses an optical tweezer comprising one or more focused laser beams to provide an attractive or repulsive force to hold the one atom, see paragraph [0079], depicted as a trapped atom 212, see Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 15, King discloses an optical power used to generate the first optical trap and the second optical trap is variable over time (optical trapping site 211 uses an optical tweezer comprising one or more focused laser beams to provide an attractive or repulsive force to hold or move the one atom, see paragraph [0079], based on the power applied to the laser, see paragraph [0108]).
Regarding claim 16, King discloses the optical power is increased in the second optical trap after the transferring the atom to the second optical trap (optical trapping unit may comprise one or more atom rearrangement units configured to transfer the atom, see paragraph [0102], and increasing the optical power to generate an attractive or repulsive force to trap the atom, see paragraphs [0079] and [0108]).
Regarding claim 17, King discloses the cloud of atoms is overlapping the first optical trap (Fig. 3C depicts initial loading of atoms in a plurality of optical traps while unoccupied optical traps remain, see paragraph [0106]; Fig. 3D depicts previous unoccupied traps being filled with trapped ions, see paragraph [0107], showing the cloud of atoms is overlapping the first optical trap).
Regarding claim 18, King discloses the cloud of atoms is overlapping the second optical trap (Fig. 3C depicts initial loading of atoms in a plurality of optical traps while unoccupied optical traps remain, see paragraph [0106]; Fig. 3D depicts previous unoccupied traps being filled with trapped ions, see paragraph [0107], showing the cloud of atoms is overlapping the second optical trap).
Regarding claim 19, King discloses the first optical trap is configured for use as a loading trap (first optical trapping site 211a is loaded with a first atom 212a, see Fig. 3B and paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 20, King discloses the atom is shelved (atoms may be selectively transferred into a storage or shelving process using the SLM (spatial light modulator), see paragraph [0059]). According to the instant application, a dark state is defined as a shelved atom where the atom is non-interacting to light around the atom (see paragraph [0220] of the instant application). In light of such definition, the shelving process of King teaches the atom is transferred into such a state to reduce cross talk (see paragraph [0075]), that is equivalent to the dark state of the instant application.
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 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King.
Regarding claim 21, King discloses a method (methods and systems for performing non-classical computations, see abstract) comprising:
providing a first optical trap and a second optical trap of a plurality of optical traps, wherein the second optical trap comprises at least a first atom (plurality of spatially distinct optical trapping sites 211 (e.g. first trapping site 211a and second trapping site 211f), see Fig. 3B and paragraph [0075]);
exciting the first atom in the second optical trap with a light beam to generate a shelved atom (atoms may be selectively transferred into a storage or shelving process using the SLM (spatial light modulator), see paragraph [0059]).
King does not explicitly disclose transferring a second atom into the first optical trap while the shelved atom is in the second optical trap, wherein, during the transferring, the second optical trap comprises a shallower trapping energy than the first optical trap. However, Fig. 3C of King teaches an optical trapping unit that is partially filled with atoms (e.g. 4 atoms filling 9 available optical trapping sites, see paragraph [0106]). King further teaches the optical trapping unit is completely filled with additional atoms (see Fig. 3D and paragraph [0107]) and each optical trapping sit is configured to trap a single atom (see paragraph [0075]). King further teaches when an atom is shelved, cross talk is reduced (see paragraph [0059]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the trapping energy would be set too high, more than one atom would be trapped within the optical trap, and therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan to set the second optical trap to a lower (e.g. shallower) trapping energy to prevent more than the desired amount of atoms to be trapped for the purpose of reducing cross talk as discussed in paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 22, King discloses the atom is shelved (atoms may be selectively transferred into a storage or shelving process using the SLM (spatial light modulator), see paragraph [0059]). According to the instant application, a dark state is defined as a shelved atom where the atom is non-interacting to light around the atom (see paragraph [0220] of the instant application). In light of such definition, the shelving process of King teaches the atom is transferred into such a state to reduce cross talk (see paragraph [0075]), that is equivalent to the dark state of the instant application.
Regarding claim 23, King discloses adjusting a trap depth of the first optical trap, the second optical trap, or both (each optical trapping site 211 may be configured to trap a single atom, as depicted in Fig. 3B, some of the optical trapping sites may be empty (i.e. not trap an atom), see paragraph [0075], due to the optical tweezers in the second optical trapping site not being provided with an attractive or repulse force enough to hold an atom, see paragraph [0079]; adjusting the optical tweezers allows an optical trapping site to later fill the trap by trapping an atom, see Fig. 3D).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANWAY CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Georgia Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878