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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This is a Non-Final Action.
Remarks
In view of Abstract idea 101 rejection, if claims 2, 4 and 5 with the incorporation of Paragraph 107 casual relationship, specifically “IF 284 pulses are launched or combined with the OF at intervals such that each of the identical IF pulses interact with a same phase of the OF” were to be amended into the independent claims 1, 9 and 17, would likely overcome the abstract idea 101 rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/01/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101
35 U.S.C. §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to independent claims 1, 9 and 17, specifically claim 1 recites “identifies a set of frequencies for an operating frequency (OF)”. This limitation recites a mental process because identifying a plurality of frequency values amounts to evaluating available frequency information and determining or selecting a set of frequency values, which can practically be performed in the human mind, for example, by reviewing known frequency values and mentally identifying those values that satisfy the desired criteria based on observation/evaluation steps. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process and mathematical relationships, which can be done utilizing pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2A, prong two, claim(s) 1, 9, 17 recites the additional elements of “memory storing computer-executable components; processor executing the components; selection components, waveform direction component; …processors; computer-readable storage medium; program instructions embodied therewith and executable by a processor;” are elements merely invoking a generic computer environment (modules, processor, memory) for recited operations.
The recited operations “… of a free running oscillator of qubit control electronics corresponding to a qubit of a quantum system; a waveform direction component that maintains a constant phase relationship between varying resonating frequency (RF) pulses output by the qubit control electronics.” These recitations are associated with free-running oscillator of qubit control electronics corresponding to a qubit merely places the frequency identification process in the technological environment of quantum-control electronics. Althou the waveform direction component is recited as maintaining a constant phase relationship between varying RF pulses, the claim does not require that the identified set of frequencies to applied, selected from, or otherwise used to cause or achieve the recited constant phase relationship. Nor does the claim recite the particular frequency and timing relationships described in the specification as providing the phase-control improvement. Instead, the claim merely recites the desired result of maintaining a constant phase relationship without specifying how the identified frequencies are technologically applied to achieve that result. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the identified mental process and do no integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claims do not recite any specific improvement to computer technology, a particular machine implementing the process in a non-generic manner, a transformation of an article to a different state or thing, or any other meaningful limitation that applies the abstract idea in a manger that imposes a meaningful limit on the claim. Instead, the additional element simply applies the abstract idea using generic data processing operations, which amounts to implementing the mental processes using a computer environment.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1, 9 and 17 at step 2B do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements as recited in step 2A prong 2 recite conventional computer executing and storing data. The recitations of free-running oscillator of qubit control electronics corresponding to a qubit and a waveform direction component that “maintains a constant phase relationship between varying resonating frequency (RF) pulses output by the qubit control electronics” likewise do not provide an inventive concept. The claim recites these elements at a high level of functional generality and does not recite the particular frequency selected, DAC clock, pulse timing, or common cycle relationships described in the specification as producing the asserted phase control improvement. Rather, the claim merely requires the desired result of maintaining a constant phase relationship in the environment of qubit control electronics. No elements individually or in combination adds “significantly more” than the abstract idea hence are no more than well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions that merely apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. When viewed as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself. According, claim 1 is ineligible under 101.
In view of compact prosecution, if particular technical mechanism from Fig 8, specifically, block 804 – set of frequencies being multiples of the DAC clock running frequency; Block 812/814 – RF pulse generation at DAC clock-based intervals; and block 816 – RF pulse generation of OF boundaries aligned to common cycle aspects were incorporated into the independent claims should overcome the abstract idea.
Claims 2-8 are dependent claims and do not recite any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically,
Claim 2. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “herein the set of frequencies are multiples of a running frequency of a digital to analog convertor (DAC) clock of the qubit control electronics.” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity. With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records.
Claim 3. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “wherein the set of frequencies are within a target range of resonant frequencies of a plurality of qubits, including the qubit, of the quantum system.” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity. With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records.
Claim 4. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “wherein the waveform direction component directs generation of the varying RF pulses at intervals based on a running frequency of a digital to analog converter clock, of the qubit control electronics” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity. With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records.
Claim 5. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “wherein the waveform direction component directs generation of the varying RF pulses at boundaries of intervals of the OF, which boundaries are aligned to common cycle aspects of the OF” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity. With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records.
Claim 6. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “wherein the oscillator is built into a digital to analog converter of the qubit control electronics.” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity. With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records.
Claim 7. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “wherein the system lacks time phase control of the oscillator.” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity. With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records.
Claim 8. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “a digital to analog converter (DAC), of the qubit control electronics, that generates the varying RF pulses to control the qubit or a readout resonator associated with the qubit.” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity. With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which is well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records.
Claims 9-17 is similar to claims 1-8 hence rejected similarly.
Claim 18 is similar to combination of claims 1, 2 and 3 hence rejected similarly.
Claim 19 is similar to claim 4, hence rejected similarly.
Claim 5 is similar to claim 5 hence rejected similarly.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-6, 10, 12-14, 16, 17 and 20 of Application No: 18/526,090. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Instant Application
US Application: 18/526,090
1, 9 and 17
1, 9 and 17
2, 10
1, 9 and 17
3, 11
8, 16 and 20
4, 12 and 19
1, 9 and 17
5, 13 and 20
1, 9 and 17
6, 14
4/5/6, 12/13/14
7, 15
1, 9 and 17
8, 16
5/6, 13/14
(2+3), 18
8, 16 and 20
This is an obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 1, 4-9, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 2021/0313973 (IDS)) in view of Apisdorf et al. (US 2022/0260860)
1. Cohen teaches, A system, comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory (Fig 1 & Para 23-24 – teaches a programming subsystem 252 coupled to pulse controller 260 and pulse target 258, wherein the 252 is a processor, memory and other associated circuitry, 260 can execute to carry out the pulse program, Cohen), wherein the computer executable components comprise:
a selection component that identifies a set of frequencies for an operating frequency (OF) (Table 1, Para 113 – teaches update_frequency functionality identifies/selects an NCO operating frequency from a defined set/range of available frequency values, and multiple frequencies over the pulse control instructions. Under BRI this reads on identifying a set of frequencies for the oscillator OF, Cohen);
of a …oscillator of of qubit control electronics corresponding to a qubit of a quantum system (Table 1, Para 113 – teaches the NCO associated with a given quantum element and identifies qe as the quantum element associated with the NCO whose frequency will be changed; Fig 6A teaches CORDIC/frequency generation circuity (602), phase generation circuity (604), timestamp register (606), and matrix generation circuitry (608) within the quantum controller; Fig 12A – teaches quantum controller 210, signal generator/IQ mixer and qubit/readout resonator of quantum processor 218, Cohen); and
a waveform direction component that maintains a constant phase relationship between varying resonating frequency (RF) pulses output by the qubit control electronics (Fig 6A teaches phase generation circuity (604) and timestamp register (606); Paras 25, 84-86, 89 – teaches the functional waveform direction/phase control component through phase generation circuitry 604 and timestamp register 606. When the resonant frequency varies, the new frequency waveform at the phase at which the previous frequency ended, thereby preserving phase continuity/relationship across varying frequency quantum control outputs. The controller then generates the corresponding outbound phase, Cohen).
Cohen does not explicitly teach a free running oscillator;
However, Apisdorf teaches, a free running oscillator (Fig 4AParagraph 53 – teaches that when frequency does not need to change during an interval, the parameter need not continue to be supplied because “the signal generator hardware knows how to free-run that frequency without outside help; Paragraph 56 – teaches then identifies the relevant signal generator hardware as a direct digital synthesizer or identifies the relevant signal generator hardware as a direct digital synthesizer or DDS and states that a DDS can generate a requested frequency indefinitely, Apisdorf).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to configure the NCO associated with the quantum element of Cohen to operate as a free running oscillator, as taught by Apisdorf. Apisdorf teaches, in the context of coherent waveform generation for quantum information processing, that where a frequency need not change during an interval, the signal-generator hardware can free-run the frequency without outside help, and that a DDS can generate a requested frequency indefinitely. Such a modification would reduce the need to repeatedly provide unchanged frequency information to Cohen’s programmable frequency generation circuitry while predictably permitting continuous generation of the selected oscillator frequency.
4. The combination of Cohen and Apisdorf teach, The system of claim 1, wherein the waveform direction component directs generation of the varying RF pulses (Fig 3A-3B, Paragraphs 46 & 55 – teaches each pulser circuit 302… comprising circuitry operable to generate outbound pulses… This involves very precisely controlling characteristics such as phase, frequency, amplitude, and timing of the outbound pulses, further that the pulse operation circuitry 358 generates corresponding output outbound pulses and manipulate their amplitude, phase and/or frequency, Cohen)at intervals based on a running frequency of a digital to analog converter clock, of the qubit control electronics (Fig 4A, Paragraphs 58, 59 & 67 – teaches the DAC may accept 1 billion samples per second and four DDS instances clocked at 250 MHZ such that four (f) samples are fed to DAC per clock, further the divider/replicator 420 receives clock signal 421 and produces local clock signals 425 which are provided to the digital logic component 430, the interface logic 460, and/or the DAC components 470 for synchronized operation; Paragraph 65 teaches that each DAC card output includes RF control signals used with a particular qubit and that DAC card 410 can manipulate or control up to eight (8) qubit in QIP system, Apisdorf).
5. The combination of Cohen and Apisdorf teach, The system of claim 1, wherein the waveform direction component directs generation of the varying RF pulses (Fig 6A:604, Paragraph 89 – teaches changing a CORDIC input to stop generating one frequency and start generating the k+1th frequency and further teaches starting he new frequency either at the phase it would have from the common reference time or from the phase that the old frequency ended in, Cohen) at boundaries of intervals of the OF, which boundaries are aligned to common cycle aspects of the OF (Fig 6 – teaches execution of a DDS waveform using an instructions table and spline/function table, including a frequency value (“200 Mhz”) and a phase value “48” executed according to absolute and relative timestamps; Paragraph 95 – teaches the execution beings at the combined execution time, e.g., executing begins at 15 ticks; Paragraph 97 – teaches that multiple modifications belonging together occur on a same clock cycle; Paragraph 99 – explicitly teaches that resetting the embedded DDSs with fine granularity may be useful when implementing pulse boundaries and that a resync bit causes the DDS to reset its internal phase accumulator when the relevant timestamps match the current time; Paragraph 63 further teaches synchronizing devices on the same clock cycle (and hence have zero phase between their outputs), Apisdorf).
6. The combination of Cohen and Apisdorf teach, The system of claim 1, wherein the oscillator is built into a digital to analog converter of the qubit control electronics (Paragraphs 56-57 – teaches the DDSs may be implemented as standalone integrated circuits (“chips”); Paragraph 65 – teaches the single DAC card 410 can be used to manipulate or control up to eight (8) qubits in a QIP system, Apisdorf).
7. The combination of Cohen and Apisdorf teach, The system of claim 1, wherein the system lacks time phase control of the oscillator (Paragraphs 53, 56 – teaches in view of BRI an oscillator that free runs its frequency without outside help during the relevant interval operates without an external time dependent phase control command being applied to the oscillator. Thus the disclosed operating mode reasonably reads on the system lacking time phase control of the oscillator during the free running operations; Paragraph 89 – teaches when changing frequencies, the new frequency can start at the phase it would have had from the initial reference time or from the phase that the old frequency ended in, Cohen).
8. The combination of Cohen and Apisdorf teach, The system of claim 1, further comprising:
a digital to analog converter (DAC), of the qubit control electronics, that generates the varying RF pulses to control the qubit or a readout resonator associated with the qubit (Paragraphs 41, 46 – teaches qubit(s0 for manipulating a state of qubit(s), wherein the outbound pulses can be sent to readout resonator(s) for reading the state of the qubit(s) and generating the outbound pulse at an output of digital to analog converts using the quantum controller 210, Cohen).
Claims 9, 12-17 are similar to claims 1, 4-8 hence rejected similarly.
Claim 19 is similar to claim 4, hence rejected similarly.
Claim 20 is similar to claim 5 hence rejected similarly.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 2021/0313973 (IDS)) in view of Apisdorf et al. (US 2022/0260860) further in view of Choe et al. (US 8,659,458)
All the limitation of claim 1 are taught above.
The combination of Cohen and Apisdorf teaches, …wherein the set of frequencies …of the qubit control electronics (Paragraph 110 & 113, Table 1 – teaches a NCO which has dynamically selectable frequencies and expressly contemplates multiple frequencies and wherein the quantum element associated with the NCO whose frequencies will be changed, Cohen).
The combination of Cohen and Apisdorf does not explicit teach, wherein the set of frequencies are multiples of a running frequency of a digital to analog convertor (DAC) clock of the qubit control electronics.
However, Choe teaches, wherein the set of frequencies are multiples of a running frequency of a digital to analog convertor (DAC) clock of the qubit control electronics (Col 4: lines 54-65 – teaches a clocked RF generating DAC wherein frequency of multiple return to zero is equal to N times frequency of data. N being a positive interval. This suggests establishing RF regeneration frequencies according to integer multiple of a running DAC clock, Choe).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to apply the known frequency/clock relationship to the programmable free running DDS/NCo in the combination of Cohen and Apisdorf DAC based quantum control architecture, particularly because Choe teaches that the integer multiple relationship facilitates direct RF generation and permits the useful output spectrum to be positioned in a desired frequency range.
Claim 10 is similar to claim 2 hence rejected similarly.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 2021/0313973 (IDS)) in view of Apisdorf et al. (US 2022/0260860) further in view of Rigetti et al. (US 2016/0267032)
All the limitations of claim 1 are taught above.
3. The combination of Cohen and Apisdorf does not explicitly teach, wherein the set of frequencies are within a target range of resonant frequencies of a plurality of qubits, including the qubit, of the quantum system.
However, Rigetti teaches, wherein the set of frequencies are within a target range of resonant frequencies of a plurality of qubits, including the qubit, of the quantum system (Fig 4, Paragraph 98 – teaches qubit operating frequency wherein the signal causes transitions between the computational basis states of the qubit device; Fig 22A, Paragraphs 240-241 – teaches target frequency range containing multiple qubit frequencies; Fig 25, Paragraphs 330-334 – teaches multiple control frequencies corresponding to multiple qubits, Rigetti).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify the selectable operating frequency set of the combination of Cohen and Apisdorf quantum control system to correspond to frequencies within a target range containing the operating (resonating) frequencies of a plurality of qubits, as taught by Rigetti. Rigetti teaches arranging multiple qubits at distinct operating frequencies within defined frequency bands and generating corresponding control frequencies for selectively addressing those qubits. Such a modification would permit Cohen’s programmable frequency generation circuitry to selectively control multiple qubits at their respective operating frequencies using a known frequency allocation methodology.
Claim 11 is similar to claim 3 hence rejected similarly.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (US 2021/0313973 (IDS)) in view of Nicol et al. (US 2018/0225403) and Choe et al. (US 8,659,458) further in view of Rigetti et al. (US 2016/0267032)
Claim 18 is similar to combination of claims 1, 2 and 3 hence rejected similarly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mitchell et al. (US 2023/0066365) – teaches a system and methods for affecting spin qubits using quantum technology and free-running oscillator mode (Abstract, Fig 2D, Paragraph 42).
Nicol et al. (US 2018/0225403) - Fig 6 - teaches cold boot sequence including 615-630; Paragraph 64 – free running oscillators that generate hum clocks can be running although may not yet be synchronized; Paragraph 125 explicitly recites that the embodiments can be presented on quantum computers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMRESH SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-3560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/AMRESH SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159
Prosecution Insights