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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 05/04/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/11/2026, hereinafter NFOA0211.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in NFOA0211.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in NFOA0211. However, Applicant’s amendments have introduced a new indefiniteness issue. See below for further discussion.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 regarding the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1 and 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, no knowledge gleaned only from Applicant’s disclosure was used, rather teachings of Makotyn, in view of the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan, was used to make a determination of obviousness based on routine optimization of a result effective variable.
In particular, see Remarks dated 05/04/2026 p. 2-3, Applicant argues against the prior art Bachor regarding the claim limitation of claim 1 pertaining to the thickness of the RF rails in the sorting and operation sections, however, Examiner did not rely upon Bachor for the limitations at issue, and thus this argument is not convincing. See, e.g., NFOA0211, p. 16, wherein Examiner notes for completeness that Bachor nominally teaches varying the thickness of the RF rails in areas surrounding the equivalent of an operation region. Examiner did not, however, indicate that Bachor taught any particular claim limitation in claim 1, nor did Examiner rely upon Bachor for this limitation in either claim 1 or 12. This note was merely intended to state for the record a nominal recitation of structure disclosed by a relevant document, the document having been applied by the International Search Authority to a family member of the instant application. However, Examiner has not relied upon this art’s teaching for any claim limitation in claim 1 or for this particular limitation in claim 12. Accordingly, this argument is not convincing.
Applicant further argues (see p. 3): “Page 14 of the Office Action asserts that Makotyn teaches varying the thickness of RF rails within an ion trap by stating "[i]n various embodiments, the height of the RF rails (e.g., dimension of the RF rails in the x-direction) and/or thickness of the RF rails (e.g., dimension of the RF rails in the z-direction) may be varied as suitable for particular applications." Thus, Makotyn indicates that the dimensions of the RF rails of different ion traps may be different based on the different applications for which the different ion traps are to be used. However, the Examiner has interpreted this statement of Makotyn as teaching changing the dimensions of the RF rails within one ion trap, which is directly based on information gleaned only from Applicant's disclosure and not from the teachings of Makotyn. Indeed, the rejection of independent Claims 1 and 12 is dependent on reading the teachings of the present disclosure into Makotyn. Therefore, the Examiner's interpretation of Makotyn is also based on impermissible hindsight bias and the rejection is improper.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant appears to be asserting that Makotyn limits their disclosure to changing the RF rail dimensions only for different ion trap systems, however, Makotyn does not limit their disclosure to only different ion trap systems, and is silent with respect to the context in which the dimensions are changed. Makotyn only states that the dimensions ‘may be varied as suitable for particular applications’, but does not particularly limit the particular applications. Applicant’s assertion that “…Makotyn indicates that the dimensions of the RF rails of different ion traps may be different based on the different applications for which the different ion traps are to be used…” goes far beyond what is actually stated in the disclosure of Makotyn (See [0021]), which does not state that different ion traps may have their dimensions varied as suitable for particular applications, and rather Makotyn only states ‘In various embodiments’. At no point does Makotyn state that the variation in dimensions is required to be between different ion traps in different applications. This assertion is not supported by the text, and thus Applicant’s argument based thereon is not convincing, as it is based on the premise that Makotyn does limit only to different ion traps in different applications. Additionally, Makotyn explicitly discloses having different trapping sections for different purposes within a same trapping system, which an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand to have at least different operational parameters tailored to those particular trapping sections, albeit not any particular tailoring.
Applicant further argues that Examiner has gleaned the concept of varying the dimensions within an ion trapping system having different trapping sections for different purposes. Examiner disagrees, and notes that the rejection of NFOA0211 does not rely on Applicant’s disclosure of varying the dimensions, rather Makotyn’s (see above discussion) and a determination of obviousness. Examiner directs Applicant to p. 15 of NFOA0211, wherein the reasoning for modifying Makotyn is discussed, and which Applicant has not specifically refuted. To summarize the reasoning, Makotyn teaches having different trapping sections for different purposes within a same trapping/translation/operation system, which an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand to have at least different operational parameters tailored to those particular trapping sections; Makotyn teaches varying the dimensions of the RF rails according to the particular application (without any particular limitation); an ordinarily skilled artisan (in this field, having a very high level of knowledge/skill) would readily recognize the thickness of the RF rails to be a result effective variable in accordance with the their ordinary knowledge and the teachings of Makotyn; and such an ordinarily skilled artisan could readily seek an optimum value for the rail thicknesses using routine experimentation for a given application, such as sorting, storage, reading, manipulation, etc. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not convincing, and because Applicant has not specifically challenged the specific determination of obviousness presented in NFOA0211, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of record of claims 1 and 12 are maintained as proper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to amended limitations not present at the time of NFOA0211. See below for a detailed discussion of amended claim limitations.
For completeness, Examiner additionally notes that whether Bachor teaches a surface trap is not deterministic of whether Bachor can be applied as prior art, as this determination would be dependent upon the particular teaching being applied, as inventions with different fields, objectives, or means for solving a problem may still provide specific teaching to an unrelated field/objective or alternative means for solving a problem. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the case of claim 12, Bachor is applied as a teaching reference for a voltage source having controllable filtering capabilities, which is clearly reasonably pertinent to the problem of Makotyn, which requires precise voltage control to similar electrode elements that function in similar ways, albeit in a different geometry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11 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 9 recites “…each operation section of the one or more operation sections comprises…”, however, claim 1 requires only a single operation section. Accordingly, the term ‘the one or more operation sections’ lacks antecedent basis in the claims. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Examiner believes this was likely a clerical error, as a different limitation in this claim required such an amendment (and was amended as such), and it appears this amendment was erroneously made in kind. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as previously presented: ‘…the operation section comprises…’.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makotyn (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20210183637 A1).
Examiner notes that Makotyn is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 03/28/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Makotyn teaches a surface confinement apparatus (Abstract; [0011]; [0019]; See also: Fig. 1) comprising:
one or more sorting sections (See Fig. 5, items 540; [0046]); and
an operation section (See Fig. 5, items 530; [0046]);
wherein each sorting section of the one or more sorting sections comprises a plurality of sorting section radio frequency (RF) rails (See Fig. 5, items 112; Abstract; [0046]), the plurality of sorting section RF rails are configured to, when a sorting RF voltage is applied thereto, define a plurality of sorting confinement regions configured for confining quantum objects (See Fig. 5, items 112; Abstract; [0023]; [0037]; [0039]; [0058]), wherein the plurality of sorting confinement regions are configured as a two-dimensional array of confinement regions ([0018]; [0021]-[0022], Examiner interprets “the ion trap 110 may be a two-dimensional ion trap that comprises multiple numbers (e.g., pairs and/or sets) of RF rails 112 with each number (e.g., pair and/or set) of RF rails 112 having substantially parallel longitudinal axes 111” as teaching a two-dimensional array of confinement regions, as the confinement regions will be regularly distributed in each set/pair of rails, and the disclosure is not limited to any particular region), and each sorting section RF rail of the plurality of sorting section RF rails has a sorting thickness in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the sorting section RF rail (See Fig. 5, items 112; Examiner notes that the rails inherently have a thickness, i.e., the disclosed ‘height’ or in the x-direction of Figs. 3-5; [0020]-[0021]; [0026]),
wherein the operation section comprises a plurality of operation section RF rails (See Fig. 5, items 112; Abstract; [0046]), the plurality of operation section RF rails are configured to, when an operation RF voltage is applied thereto, define a plurality of operation confinement regions configured for confining the quantum objects (See Fig. 5, items 112; Abstract; [0023]; [0037]; [0039]; [0058]), and each operation section RF rail of the plurality of operation section RF rails has an operation thickness in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the operation section RF rail (See Fig. 5, items 112; Examiner notes that the rails inherently have a thickness, i.e., the disclosed ‘height’ or in the x-direction of Figs. 3-5; [0020]-[0021]; [0026]), and
Makotyn does not explicitly teach wherein the operation thickness is larger than the sorting thickness.
However, Makotyn discloses in [0021]: “In various embodiments, the height of the RF rails (e.g., dimension of the RF rails in the x-direction) and/or thickness of the RF rails (e.g., dimension of the RF rails in the z-direction) may be varied as suitable for particular applications.”, indicating that the authors are at least aware of varying the thickness (‘height’ in Makotyn) of such RF rails for particular applications.
In the field of the instant application (i.e., quantum computing and ion traps), an ordinarily skilled artisan would have an advanced degree in physics (or a related discipline such as electrical engineering or engineering physics), would be reasonably apprised of up to date relevant NPL within the field, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have a relatively high level of skill/knowledge.
One of ordinary skill in the art would also readily recognize the height (equivalent of the instant application’s thickness) of the RF rails as a result effective variable, as changing this dimension would necessarily change the trapping potential well characteristics/capabilities. An ordinarily skilled artisan would also know and understand that the trapping/manipulation requirements of a storage zone and an action zone are different and could readily seek to adapt such a result effective variable to achieve optimized trapping potentials for such different zone applications via a mere change in size of a component.
In other words, Makotyn discloses the claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing the operation thickness being larger than the sorting thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Makotyn to include wherein the operation thickness is larger than the sorting thickness, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Doing so would allow one to ensure proper trapping potentials/characteristics for the particular applications, namely, for storage zones and for action zones, via routine optimization of the size of a disclosed component.
Examiner notes for completeness that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the prior art Bachor discloses the thickness of the operation region RF rails being different (i.e., larger) than the thickness of the RF rails in the surrounding regions (See Fig. 1, RF rails in center region vs. to the left and right in the shoulder regions, where the thickness is less).
Regarding claim 2, Makotyn, as modified, teaches the confinement apparatus of claim 1.
Makotyn further teaches wherein the plurality of sorting section RF rails comprises a plurality of parallel pairs of sorting section RF rails, wherein sorting section RF rails of each parallel pair of sorting section RF rails are separated from one another by a sorting separation (See Figs. 3-5, items 112 separated by gap 105; [0004]-[0009]; [0019]-[0028], and in particular [0023]; [0046]; Examiner notes that Makotyn discloses the RF rails being in a pair, and including ‘two or more’ RF rails, which Examiner interprets as disclosing a plurality of pairs), the plurality of operation section RF rails comprises a plurality of parallel pairs of operation section RF rails, wherein operation section RF rails of each parallel pair of operation section RF rails are separated from one another by an operation separation (See Figs. 3-5, items 112 separated by gap 105; [0004]-[0009]; [0019]-[0028], and in particular [0023]; [0046]; Examiner notes that Makotyn discloses the RF rails being in a pair, and including ‘two or more’ RF rails, which Examiner interprets as disclosing a plurality of pairs),
Makotyn does not explicitly teach the sorting separation is larger than the operation separation.
However, Makotyn discloses in [0023] that the gap between RF rails can be “approximately 40 μm to 500 μm”.
As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a relatively high level of skill/knowledge.
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the gap (equivalent of the instant application’s separation) of the RF rails as a result effective variable, as changing this dimension would necessarily change the trapping potential well characteristics/capabilities. An ordinarily skilled artisan would also know and understand that the trapping requirements of a storage zone and an action zone are different and could readily seek to adapt such a result effective variable to achieve optimized trapping potentials for such different zone applications via a mere change in value of a disclosed system parameter.
In other words, Makotyn discloses the claimed invention, except for the sorting separation being larger than the operation separation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Makotyn to include the sorting separation is larger than the operation separation, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Doing so would allow one to ensure proper trapping potentials/characteristics for the particular applications, namely, for storage zones and for action zones, via routine optimization of the size of a disclosed system parameter.
Examiner notes for completeness that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the prior art Bachor discloses the separation of the operation region RF rails being different (i.e., smaller) than the separation of the RF rails in the surrounding regions (See Fig. 1, RF rails in center region vs. to the left and right in the shoulder regions, where the separation is larger).
Regarding claim 3, Makotyn, as modified, teaches the confinement apparatus of claim 1.
Makotyn further teaches wherein the sorting confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects with a distance between the quantum objects and a surface of the confinement apparatus equal to a sorting distance ([0035]-[0036]; [0054]), the operation confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects with the distance between the quantum objects and the surface of the confinement apparatus equal to an operation distance ([0035]-[0036]; [0054]),
Makotyn does not explicitly teach the operation distance is larger than the sorting distance.
However, Makotyn discloses in [0036] that distance above the trap can be controlled via control of electrical and/or magnetic fields, indicating at least the knowledge of how to modify the distance and the capability to do so.
As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a relatively high level of skill/knowledge.
One of ordinary skill in the art would also readily recognize the distance above the trap (equivalent of the instant application’s surface distance) as a result effective variable, as changing this dimension would necessarily change the trapping potential well characteristics/capabilities required, and the operations that can be performed on an ion thereat. An ordinarily skilled artisan would also know and understand that the trapping requirements/functionality of a storage zone and an action zone are different and could readily seek to adapt such a result effective variable to achieve optimized trapping potentials/conditions for such different zone applications via a mere change in value of a disclosed system parameter.
In other words, Makotyn discloses the claimed invention, except for the operation distance being larger than the sorting distance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Makotyn to include the operation distance is larger than the sorting distance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Doing so would allow one to ensure proper trapping potentials/characteristics for the particular applications, namely, for storage zones and for action zones, via routine optimization of the value of a disclosed system parameter.
Regarding claim 4, Makotyn, as modified, teaches the confinement apparatus of claim 1.
Makotyn further teaches further comprising one or more transition zones (See Fig. 5, items 520; [0046]), wherein each transition zone of the one or more transition zones is disposed between the operation section and a respective sorting section of the one or more sorting sections (See Fig. 5, items 520, disposed between items 540 and items 530; [0046]).
Regarding claim 5, Makotyn, as modified, teaches the confinement apparatus of claim 4.
Makotyn further teaches wherein each transition zone comprises a plurality of transition RF rails (See Fig. 5, items 112; [0046])
Makotyn does not explicitly teach each transition RF rail of the plurality of transition RF rails has a thickness that changes over the length of the transition RF rail.
However, Makotyn discloses in [0021]: “In various embodiments, the height of the RF rails (e.g., dimension of the RF rails in the x-direction) and/or thickness of the RF rails (e.g., dimension of the RF rails in the z-direction) may be varied as suitable for particular applications.”, indicating that the authors are at least aware of varying the thickness (‘height’ in Makotyn) of such RF rails for particular applications.
As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a relatively high level of skill/knowledge.
One of ordinary skill in the art would also readily recognize the height (equivalent of the instant application’s thickness) of the RF rails as a result effective variable, as changing this dimension would necessarily change the trapping potential well characteristics/capabilities. An ordinarily skilled artisan would also know and understand that the trapping/manipulation requirements of a storage zone and an action zone are different and could readily seek to adapt such a result effective variable to achieve optimized trapping potentials for such different zone applications via a mere change in size of a component. Furthermore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would know and understand that a sharp discontinuity in the thickness of such rails would lead to issues with maintaining the ion trapped in the potentials as desired, as well as issues with maintaining the quantum information contained thereby (i.e., a sharp discontinuity could lead to loss of quantum information and/or the trapping of the ion), and would readily seek to modify the thickness gradually/smoothly between such storage and action zones to prevent such issues.
In other words, Makotyn discloses the claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing the operation thickness being larger than the sorting thickness, and the thickness varying smoothly between the two thicknesses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Makotyn to include each transition RF rail of the plurality of transition RF rails has a thickness that changes over the length of the transition RF rail, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Doing so would allow one to ensure proper trapping potentials/characteristics for the particular applications, namely, for storage zones, action zones, and intermediary zones therebetween, via routine optimization of the size of a disclosed component, thus ensuring the ions trapped therein maintain proper trapping and maintain their quantum information.
Examiner notes for completeness that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the prior art Bachor discloses the thickness of the operation region RF rails being different (i.e., larger) than the thickness of the RF rails in the surrounding regions, and varying between the two regions (See Fig. 1, RF rails in center region vs. to the left and right in the shoulder regions, where the thickness is less, and the regions connecting the center and left and right shoulder regions, where the thickness varies).
Regarding claim 6, Makotyn, as modified, teaches the confinement apparatus of claim 5.
Makotyn does not explicitly teach wherein each transition RF rail has a thickness that is (a) substantially equal to the sorting thickness at an edge of a respective transition zone of the one or more transition zones that is adjacent to the respective sorting section and (b) substantially equal to the operation thickness at an edge of the respective transition zone adjacent the operation section.
However, Makotyn discloses in [0021]: “In various embodiments, the height of the RF rails (e.g., dimension of the RF rails in the x-direction) and/or thickness of the RF rails (e.g., dimension of the RF rails in the z-direction) may be varied as suitable for particular applications.”, indicating that the authors are at least aware of varying the thickness (‘height’ in Makotyn) of such RF rails for particular applications.
As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a relatively high level of skill/knowledge.
One of ordinary skill in the art would also readily recognize the height (equivalent of the instant application’s thickness) of the RF rails as a result effective variable, as changing this dimension would necessarily change the trapping potential well characteristics/capabilities. An ordinarily skilled artisan would also know and understand that the trapping/manipulation requirements of a storage zone and an action zone are different and could readily seek to adapt such a result effective variable to achieve optimized trapping potentials for such different zone applications via a mere change in size of a component. Furthermore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would know and understand that a sharp discontinuity in the thickness of such rails would lead to issues with maintaining the ion trapped in the potentials as desired, as well as issues with maintaining the quantum information contained thereby (i.e., a sharp discontinuity could lead to loss of quantum information and/or the trapping of the ion), and would readily seek to modify the thickness gradually/smoothly between such storage and action zones to prevent such issues, which would require that the thicknesses match at the respective edges of the intermediary zone proximate the action and storage zones.
In other words, Makotyn discloses the claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing the operation thickness being larger than the sorting thickness, and the thickness varying smoothly between the two thicknesses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Makotyn to include wherein the transition RF rail has a thickness that is (a) substantially equal to the sorting thickness at an edge of the transition zone adjacent the respective sorting section and (b) substantially equal to the operation thickness at an edge of the transition zone adjacent the operation section, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Doing so would allow one to ensure proper trapping potentials/characteristics for the particular applications, namely, for storage zones, action zones, and intermediary zones therebetween, via routine optimization of the size of a disclosed component, thus ensuring the ions trapped therein maintain proper trapping and maintain their quantum information.
Examiner notes for completeness that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the prior art Bachor discloses the thickness of the operation region RF rails being different (i.e., larger) than the thickness of the RF rails in the surrounding regions, and varying between the two regions to match at the edges of the transition region (See Fig. 1, RF rails in center region vs. to the left and right in the shoulder regions, where the thickness is less, and the regions connecting the center region to the left and right shoulder regions, where the thickness varies).
Regarding claim 7, Makotyn, as modified, teaches the confinement apparatus of claim 5.
Makotyn further teaches wherein the plurality of transition RF rails comprises a plurality of parallel pairs of transition RF rails (See Fig. 5, items 112; [0004]-[0009]; [0019]-[0028]; [0046]; Examiner notes that Makotyn discloses the RF rails being in a pair, and including ‘two or more’ RF rails, which Examiner interprets as disclosing a plurality of pairs),
Makotyn does not explicitly teach wherein transition RF rails of each parallel pair of transition RF rails are separated from one another by (a) a sorting separation at an edge of a respective transition zone of the one or more transition zones that is adjacent the respective sorting section and (b) an operation separation at an edge of the respective transition zone adjacent the operation section.
However, Makotyn discloses in [0021]: “In various embodiments, the height of the RF rails (e.g., dimension of the RF rails in the x-direction) and/or thickness of the RF rails (e.g., dimension of the RF rails in the z-direction) may be varied as suitable for particular applications.”, indicating that the authors are at least aware of varying the thickness (‘height’ in Makotyn) of such RF rails for particular applications.
As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a relatively high level of skill/knowledge.
One of ordinary skill in the art would also readily recognize the height (equivalent of the instant application’s thickness) of the RF rails as a result effective variable, as changing this dimension would necessarily change the trapping potential well characteristics/capabilities. An ordinarily skilled artisan would also know and understand that the trapping/manipulation requirements of a storage zone and an action zone are different and could readily seek to adapt such a result effective variable to achieve optimized trapping potentials for such different zone applications via a mere change in size of a component. Furthermore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would know and understand that a sharp discontinuity in the thickness of such rails would lead to issues with maintaining the ion trapped in the potentials as desired, as well as issues with maintaining the quantum information contained thereby (i.e., a sharp discontinuity could lead to loss of quantum information and/or the trapping of the ion), and would readily seek to modify the thickness gradually/smoothly between such storage and action zones to prevent such issues, which would require that the thicknesses match at the respective edges of the intermediary zone proximate the action and storage zones.
In other words, Makotyn discloses the claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing the operation thickness being larger than the sorting thickness, and the thickness varying smoothly between the two thicknesses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Makotyn to include wherein transition RF rails of each parallel pair of transition RF rails are separated from one another by (a) a sorting separation at an edge of a respective transition zone of the one or more transition zones that is adjacent the respective sorting section and (b) an operation separation at an edge of the respective transition zone adjacent the operation section, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Doing so would allow one to ensure proper trapping potentials/characteristics for the particular applications, namely, for storage zones, action zones, and intermediary zones therebetween, via routine optimization of the size of a disclosed component, thus ensuring the ions trapped therein maintain proper trapping and maintain their quantum information.
Examiner notes for completeness that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the prior art Bachor discloses the thickness of the operation region RF rails being different (i.e., larger) than the thickness of the RF rails in the surrounding regions, and varying between the two regions to match at the edges of the transition region (See Fig. 1, RF rails in center region vs. to the left and right in the shoulder regions, where the thickness is less, and the regions connecting the center region to the left and right shoulder regions, where the thickness varies).
Regarding claim 8, Makotyn, as modified, teaches the confinement apparatus of claim 4.
Makotyn further teaches wherein each transition zone is configured to cause a quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of a quantum object confined by the confinement apparatus to change between (a) a sorting distance when the quantum object is at an edge of the transition zone adjacent the respective sorting section and (b) an operation distance when the quantum object is at an edge of the transition zone adjacent the operation section ([0005]; [0007]; [0036]; [0042]-[0043]; [0046]-[0048]), (Examiner interprets this limitation as inherent in Makotyn, else the apparatus could not serve its intended function, as the disclosed transfer of the trapped ion through the intermediary zone would lose the quantum information of the ion).
Makotyn does not explicitly teach wherein the sorting distance and the operation distance are different from one another, or varying the distance in the transition zone between two different values.
However, Makotyn discloses in [0036] that distance above the trap can be controlled via control of electrical and/or magnetic fields, indicating at least the knowledge of how to modify the distance and the capability to do so.
As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a relatively high level of skill/knowledge.
One of ordinary skill in the art would also readily recognize the distance above the trap (equivalent of the instant application’s surface distance) as a result effective variable, as changing this dimension would necessarily change the trapping potential well characteristics/capabilities required, and the operations that can be performed on an ion thereat. An ordinarily skilled artisan would also know and understand that the trapping requirements/functionality of a storage zone and an action zone are different and could readily seek to adapt such a result effective variable to achieve optimized trapping potentials/conditions for such different zone applications via a mere change in value of a disclosed system parameter. Furthermore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would know and understand that a sharp discontinuity in the distance of the quantum object would lead to issues with maintaining the ion trapped in the potentials as desired, as well as issues with maintaining the quantum information contained thereby (i.e., a sharp discontinuity could lead to loss of quantum information and/or the trapping of the ion), and would readily seek to modify the distance gradually/smoothly between such storage and action zones to prevent such issues.
In other words, Makotyn discloses the claimed invention, except for the operation distance being different than the sorting distance and smoothly varying the distance between the two values.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Makotyn to include wherein the sorting distance and the operation distance are different from one another and smoothly varying the distance between the two values, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Doing so would allow one to ensure proper trapping potentials/characteristics for the particular applications, namely, for storage zones and for action zones, via routine optimization of the value of a disclosed system parameter, thus ensuring the ions trapped therein maintain proper trapping and maintain their quantum information.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Makotyn, as modified, teaches the confinement apparatus of claim 1.
Makotyn further teaches wherein each sorting section of the one or more sorting sections further comprises a plurality of sorting control electrodes configured to receive voltage signals (See Fig. 5, items 114, 116, 118, and 140; [0046]-[0047]; [0050]) (See Fig. 5, items 114, 116, 118, and 140; [0046]-[0047]; [0050])
Makotyn does not explicitly teach configured to receive voltage signals filtered by sorting filters configured to be operated in accordance with a first noise tolerance and configured to receive voltage signals filtered by operation filters configured to be operated in accordance with a second noise tolerance, the first noise tolerance being different from the second noise tolerance (Emphases added by Examiner).
However, Examiner notes that the limitation requires that the sorting control electrodes be ‘configured to receive’ such voltage signals, which is interpreted under the BRI to require that the sorting control electrodes be structurally capable of receiving such filtered voltage signals. The filters are not required under the BRI of the claim as written.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the control electrodes of Makotyn to read on the limitations configured to receive voltage signals filtered by sorting filters configured to be operated in accordance with a first noise tolerance and configured to receive voltage signals filtered by operation filters configured to be operated in accordance with a second noise tolerance (Emphases added by Examiner), as an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the control electrodes of Makotyn to be structurally capable of receiving such voltage signals in the disclosed arrangement of Makotyn. See: [0037], [0039],and [0058].
Furthermore, nothing would be required to be structurally changed for the control electrodes of Makotyn to receive voltages having been filtered by filters having different noise tolerances. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the control electrodes of Makotyn to be structurally capable of receiving such voltage signals in the disclosed arrangement of Makotyn. As such, Makotyn, as modified, would be understood to teach each and every limitation of the claim, under the BRI, despite not explicitly disclosing receiving differently filtered voltage signals.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Makotyn, as modified, teaches the confinement apparatus of claim 9.
Makotyn further teaches wherein the sorting control electrodes comprise a plurality of broadcast control electrodes that are configured to receive respective broadcasted voltage signals, wherein a broadcasted voltage signal is a voltage signal that is provided to a plurality of respective broadcast control electrodes ([0006]; [0009]; [0033]-[0034]; [0037]; [0039]; [0058]; [0061], in particular [0006], [0009], [0058]; Examiner notes that ‘configured to receive broadcasted voltage signals’ requires the structural capability for a plurality of control electrodes to receive a common voltage signal (adopting Applicant’s claim-required definition of broadcasted voltage signal’), and that the driver controllers, drivers, sources, etc. are capable of receiving a common voltage signal as controlled by the controller 30 via computing entity 10).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Makotyn, as modified, teaches the confinement apparatus of claim 9.
Makotyn further teaches wherein each sorting control electrode of the plurality of sorting control electrodes has a sorting width (See Fig. 5, items 114, 116, 118, and 140; [0046]-[0047]; [0050]), each operation control electrode of the plurality of operation control electrodes has an operation width (See Fig. 5, items 114, 116, 118, and 140; [0046]-[0047]; [0049]), and the operation width is greater than the sorting width ([0049]-[0050]; Width of wider electrodes of action zone are greater than width of thin electrodes of storage zone).
Claims 12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makotyn (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20210183637 A1) in view of Bachor (DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1602.05006).
Examiner notes that Bachor is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 11/12/2024.
Regarding claim 12, Makotyn teaches a system (Title; Abstract) comprising:
a plurality of voltage sources ([0037]; [0039]; [0058]);
a surface confinement apparatus configured to confine quantum objects (Abstract; [0011]; [0019]; See also: Fig. 1), wherein the confinement apparatus comprises:
one or more sorting sections configured for performing sorting functions on the quantum objects (See Fig. 5, items 540; [0046]; [0050]); and
an operation section configured for having quantum operations performed on one or more of the quantum objects therein (See Fig. 5, items 530; [0046]; [0049]);
wherein each sorting section of the one or more sorting sections comprises a plurality of sorting section radio frequency (RF) rails (See Fig. 5, items 112; Abstract; [0046]; [0050]), the plurality of sorting section RF rails are configured to, when a sorting RF voltage is applied thereto, define a plurality of sorting confinement regions configured for confining the quantum objects (See Fig. 5, items 112; Abstract; [0023]; [0037]; [0039]; [0058]), wherein the plurality of sorting confinement regions are configured as a two-dimensional array of confinement regions ([0018]; [0021]-[0022], Examiner interprets “the ion trap 110 may be a two-dimensional ion trap that comprises multiple numbers (e.g., pairs and/or sets) of RF rails 112 with each number (e.g., pair and/or set) of RF rails 112 having substantially parallel longitudinal axes 111” as teaching a two-dimensional array of confinement regions, as the confinement regions will be regularly distributed in each set/pair of rails, and the disclosure is not limited to any particular region), and each sorting section RF rail of the plurality of sorting section RF rails has a sorting thickness in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the sorting section RF rail (See Fig. 5, items 112; Examiner notes that the rails inherently have a thickness, i.e., the disclosed ‘height’ or in the x-direction of Figs. 3-5; [0020]-[0021]; [0026]),
wherein the operation section comprises a plurality of operation section RF rails (See Fig. 5, items 112; Abstract; [0046]; [0049]), the plurality of operation section RF rails are configured to, when an operation RF voltage is applied thereto, define a plurality of operation confinement regions configured for confining the quantum objects (See Fig. 5, items 112; Abstract; [0023]; [0037]; [0039]; [0058]), and each operation section RF rail of the plurality of operation section RF rails has an operation thickness in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the operation section RF rail (See Fig. 5, items 112; Examiner notes that the rails inherently have a thickness, i.e., the disclosed ‘height’ or in the x-direction of Figs. 3-5; [0020]-[0021]; [0026]), and
Makotyn does not explicitly teach operation filters and sorting filters and wherein the operation thickness is larger than the sorting thickness and wherein the plurality of voltage sources are configured to generate respective voltage signals that are filtered by one of the operation filters or the sorting filters, a voltage signal filtered by an operation filter is applied to the plurality of operation section RF rails, and a voltage signal filtered by a sorting filter is applied to the plurality of sorting section RF rails.
However, Makotyn discloses in [0021]: “In various embodiments, the height of the RF rails (e.g., dimension of the RF rails in the x-direction) and/or thickness of the RF rails (e.g., dimension of the RF rails in the z-direction) may be varied as suitable for particular applications.”, indicating that the authors are at least aware of varying the thickness (‘height’ in Makotyn) of such RF rails for particular applications.
As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a relatively high level of skill/knowledge.
One of ordinary skill in the art would also readily recognize the height (equivalent of the instant application’s thickness) of the RF rails as a result effective variable, as changing this dimension would necessarily change the trapping potential well characteristics/capabilities. An ordinarily skilled artisan would also know and understand that the trapping/manipulation requirements of a storage zone and an action zone are different and could readily seek to adapt such a result effective variable to achieve optimized trapping potentials for such different zone applications via a mere change in size of a component.
In other words, Makotyn discloses the claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing the operation thickness being larger than the sorting thickness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Makotyn to include wherein the operation thickness is larger than the sorting thickness, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Doing so would allow one to ensure proper trapping potentials/characteristics for the particular applications, namely, for storage zones and for action zones, via routine optimization of the size of a disclosed component.
Examiner notes for completeness that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the prior art Bachor discloses the thickness of the operation region RF rails being different (i.e., larger) than the thickness of the RF rails in the surrounding regions (See Fig. 1, RF rails in center region vs. to the left and right in the shoulder regions, where the thickness is less).
Additionally, as would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan, such a system will typically have some sort of filtering apparatus/functionality to precisely control the voltages applied, as control electrodes in such systems require high precision voltage control in order to precisely control the trapping potentials and/or manipulation voltages.
For instance, Bachor teaches the use of an ultra-low noise waveform generator in section 2.1, which would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan as including filtering capabilities to achieve the low noise conditions and precise voltage signal necessary for the disclosed ion trapping/manipulation. Each of the applied signals has its noise set by the filtering conditions of the waveform generator (or according structure in Makotyn). Each signal that is transmitted to its particular destination (i.e., operation section or sorting section), would be filtered, and thus the according filters used by that signal could be reasonably interpreted as respective filters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Makotyn to explicitly include such a filtering apparatus to achieve operation filters and sorting filters and wherein the plurality of voltage sources are configured to generate respective voltage sources that are filtered by a respective filter of the operation filters or the sorting filters, a voltage signal filtered by an operation filter is applied to the plurality of operation RF rails, and a voltage signal filtered by a sorting filter is applied to the plurality of sorting RF rails.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use typical voltage control technology in its typical fashion to achieve the proper voltage control is necessary to achieve such high precision voltage control of the trapping/manipulation potentials.
Examiner notes that in this claim the operation filters and sorting filters are arbitrary and are not required to be different or have different requirements, and thus under the BRI, one filtering apparatus can satisfy both the operation and sorting filters.
See also: Holz, Halama, Aude Craik’2016, Zhang (cited below) regarding filtering.
Regarding claim 14, , Makotyn, as modified, in view of Bachor teaches the system of claim 12.
Makotyn further teaches further comprising one or more manipulation sources (See Fig. 2, item 60; [0005]; [0008]; [0032]; [0039]) and one or more beam path systems (See Fig. 2, items 66, which appear to show beam paths from the manipulation source(s) to the chamber 40), wherein one or more quantum operation locations are defined within the operation section ([0044]; [0049]), and the one or more beam path systems are configured to provide manipulation signals generated by respective manipulation sources of the one or more manipulations sources to respective quantum operation locations (See Fig. 2, items 66, which show beam paths from the manipulation source(s) to the chamber 40; [0044]; [0049]).
Regarding claim 16, Makotyn, as modified, in view of Bachor teaches the system of claim 12.
Makotyn further teaches wherein the plurality of sorting section RF rails comprises a plurality of parallel pairs of sorting section RF rails, wherein sorting section RF rails of each parallel pair of sorting sections RF rails are separated from one another by a sorting separation (See Figs. 3-5, items 112 separated by gap 105; [0004]-[0009]; [0019]-[0028], and in particular [0021]-[0023]; [0046]; Examiner notes that Makotyn discloses the RF rails being in a pair/set, and including ‘two or more’ RF rails, and including 2D arrangements having additional sets, which Examiner interprets as disclosing a plurality of pairs), the plurality of operation section RF rails comprises a plurality of parallel pairs of operation section RF rails, wherein operation section RF rails of each parallel pair of operation section RF rails are separated from one another by an operation separation (See Figs. 3-5, items 112 separated by gap 105; [0004]-[0009]; [0019]-[0028], and in particular [0023]; [0046]; Examiner notes that Makotyn discloses the RF rails being in a pair, and including ‘two or more’ RF rails, which Examiner interprets as disclosing a plurality of pairs),
Makotyn does not explicitly teach the sorting separation is larger than the operation separation.
However, Makotyn discloses in [0023] that the gap between RF rails can be “approximately 40 μm to 500 μm”.
As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a relatively high level of skill/knowledge.
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the gap (equivalent of the instant application’s separation) of the RF rails as a result effective variable, as changing this dimension would necessarily change the trapping potential well characteristics/capabilities. An ordinarily skilled artisan would also know and understand that the trapping requirements of a storage zone and an action zone are different and could readily seek to adapt such a result effective variable to achieve optimized trapping potentials for such different zone applications via a mere change in value of a disclosed system parameter.
In other words, Makotyn discloses the claimed invention, except for the sorting separation being larger than the operation separation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Makotyn to include the sorting separation is larger than the operation separation, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Doing so would allow one to ensure proper trapping potentials/characteristics for the particular applications, namely, for storage zones and for action zones, via routine optimization of the size of a disclosed system parameter.
Examiner notes for completeness that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the prior art Bachor discloses the separation of the operation region RF rails being different (i.e., smaller) than the separation of the RF rails in the surrounding regions (See Fig. 1, RF rails in center region vs. to the left and right in the shoulder regions, where the separation is larger).
Regarding claim 17, Makotyn, as modified, in view of Bachor teaches the system of claim 12.
Makotyn, as modified, in view of Bachor teaches wherein the sorting confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects with a distance between the quantum objects and a surface of the confinement apparatus equal to a sorting distance ([0035]-[0036]; [0054]), the operation confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects with the distance between the quantum objects and the surface of the confinement apparatus equal to an operation distance ([0035]-[0036]; [0054]),
Makotyn does not explicitly teach the operation distance is larger than the sorting distance.
However, Makotyn discloses in [0036] that distance above the trap can be controlled via control of electrical and/or magnetic fields, indicating at least the knowledge of how to modify the distance and the capability to do so.
As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a relatively high level of skill/knowledge.
One of ordinary skill in the art would also readily recognize the distance above the trap (equivalent of the instant application’s surface distance) as a result effective variable, as changing this dimension would necessarily change the trapping potential well characteristics/capabilities required, and the operations that can be performed on an ion thereat. An ordinarily skilled artisan would also know and understand that the trapping requirements/functionality of a storage zone and an action zone are different and could readily seek to adapt such a result effective variable to achieve optimized trapping potentials/conditions for such different zone applications via a mere change in value of a disclosed system parameter.
In other words, Makotyn discloses the claimed invention, except for the operation distance being larger than the sorting distance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Makotyn to include the operation distance is larger than the sorting distance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Doing so would allow one to ensure proper trapping potentials/characteristics for the particular applications, namely, for storage zones and for action zones, via routine optimization of the value of a disclosed system parameter.
Regarding claim 18, Makotyn, as modified, in view of Bachor teaches the system of claim 12.
Makotyn further teaches wherein the confinement apparatus further comprises one or more transition zones (See Fig. 5, items 520; [0046]), wherein each transition zone of the one or more transition zones is disposed between the operation section and a respective sorting section of the one or more sorting sections (See Fig. 5, items 520, disposed between items 540 and items 530; [0046]).
Regarding claim 19, Makotyn, as modified, in view of Bachor teaches the system of claim 18.
Makotyn further teaches wherein each transition zone comprises a plurality of transition RF rails (See Fig. 5, items 112; [0046])
Makotyn does not explicitly teach each transition RF rail of the plurality of transition RF rails has a thickness that changes over the length of the transition RF rail.
However, Makotyn discloses in [0021]: “In various embodiments, the height of the RF rails (e.g., dimension of the RF rails in the x-direction) and/or thickness of the RF rails (e.g., dimension of the RF rails in the z-direction) may be varied as suitable for particular applications.”, indicating that the authors are at least aware of varying the thickness (‘height’ in Makotyn) of such RF rails for particular applications.
As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a relatively high level of skill/knowledge.
One of ordinary skill in the art would also readily recognize the height (equivalent of the instant application’s thickness) of the RF rails as a result effective variable, as changing this dimension would necessarily change the trapping potential well characteristics/capabilities. An ordinarily skilled artisan would also know and understand that the trapping/manipulation requirements of a storage zone and an action zone are different and could readily seek to adapt such a result effective variable to achieve optimized trapping potentials for such different zone applications via a mere change in size of a component. Furthermore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would know and understand that a sharp discontinuity in the thickness of such rails would lead to issues with maintaining the ion trapped in the potentials as desired, as well as issues with maintaining the quantum information contained thereby (i.e., a sharp discontinuity could lead to loss of quantum information and/or the trapping of the ion), and would readily seek to modify the thickness gradually/smoothly between such storage and action zones to prevent such issues.
In other words, Makotyn discloses the claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing the operation thickness being larger than the sorting thickness, and the thickness varying smoothly between the two thicknesses.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Makotyn to include each transition RF rail of the plurality of transition RF rails has a thickness that changes over the length of the transition RF rail, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Doing so would allow one to ensure proper trapping potentials/characteristics for the particular applications, namely, for storage zones, action zones, and intermediary zones therebetween, via routine optimization of the size of a disclosed component, thus ensuring the ions trapped therein maintain proper trapping and maintain their quantum information.
Examiner notes for completeness that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the prior art Bachor discloses the thickness of the operation region RF rails being different (i.e., larger) than the thickness of the RF rails in the surrounding regions, and varying between the two regions (See Fig. 1, RF rails in center region vs. to the left and right in the shoulder regions, where the thickness is less, and the regions connecting the center and left and right shoulder regions, where the thickness varies).
Regarding claim 20, Makotyn, as modified, in view of Bachor teaches the system of claim 18.
Makotyn further teaches wherein each transition zone is configured to cause a quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of a quantum object confined by the confinement apparatus to change between (a) a sorting distance when the quantum object is at an edge of the transition zone adjacent the respective sorting section and (b) an operation distance when the quantum object is at an edge of the transition zone adjacent the operation section ([0005]; [0007]; [0036]; [0042]-[0043]; [0046]-[0048]), (Examiner interprets this limitation as inherent in Makotyn, else the apparatus could not serve its intended function, as the disclosed transfer of the trapped ion through the intermediary zone would lose the quantum information of the ion).
Makotyn does not explicitly teach wherein the sorting distance and the operation distance are different from one another, or varying the distance in the transition zone between two different values.
However, Makotyn discloses in [0036] that distance above the trap can be controlled via control of electrical and/or magnetic fields, indicating at least the knowledge of how to modify the distance and the capability to do so.
As discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a relatively high level of skill/knowledge.
One of ordinary skill in the art would also readily recognize the distance above the trap (equivalent of the instant application’s surface distance) as a result effective variable, as changing this dimension would necessarily change the trapping potential well characteristics/capabilities required, and the operations that can be performed on an ion thereat. An ordinarily skilled artisan would also know and understand that the trapping requirements/functionality of a storage zone and an action zone are different and could readily seek to adapt such a result effective variable to achieve optimized trapping potentials/conditions for such different zone applications via a mere change in value of a disclosed system parameter. Furthermore, an ordinarily skilled artisan would know and understand that a sharp discontinuity in the distance of the quantum object would lead to issues with maintaining the ion trapped in the potentials as desired, as well as issues with maintaining the quantum information contained thereby (i.e., a sharp discontinuity could lead to loss of quantum information and/or the trapping of the ion), and would readily seek to modify the distance gradually/smoothly between such storage and action zones to prevent such issues.
In other words, Makotyn discloses the claimed invention, except for the operation distance being different than the sorting distance and smoothly varying the distance between the two values.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Makotyn to wherein the sorting distance and the operation distance are different from one another and smoothly varying the distance between the two values, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Doing so would allow one to ensure proper trapping potentials/characteristics for the particular applications, namely, for storage zones and for action zones, via routine optimization of the value of a disclosed system parameter, thus ensuring the ions trapped therein maintain proper trapping and maintain their quantum information.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makotyn (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20210183637 A1) in view of Bachor (DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1602.05006) and Ascarrunz (USPN US 11025228 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Makotyn, as modified, in view of Bachor teaches the system of claim 12.
Makotyn in view of Bachor does not explicitly teach wherein the sorting filters and the operation filters have different filter responses.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art, as discussed above, would readily recognize that the trapping/manipulation requirements of a storage zone and an action zone are different and could readily seek to adapt such filtering capabilities to achieve optimized trapping potentials for such different zones.
Nevertheless, Ascarrunz teaches a dynamic filter with at least two filter responses (Abstract; Col. 1, Line 62 – Col. 2, Line 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Makotyn in view of Bachor to include wherein the sorting filters and the operation filters have different filter responses, as taught by Ascarrunz.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to filter the voltages applied to the storage and action zones accordingly, by the method disclosed in Ascarrunz, to alter the filter characteristic depending on the function to be performed.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makotyn (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20210183637 A1) in view of Bachor (DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1602.05006) and Benjamin (USPN US 11025228 B1).
Examiner notes that Benjamin is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 03/28/2025.
Regarding claim 15, Makotyn, as modified, in view of Bachor teaches the system of claim 14.
Makotyn further teaches wherein the one or more quantum operation locations comprise a plurality of quantum operations locations that include gating locations configured for performance of quantum logic operations on one or more quantum objects ([0005]; [0008]; [0023]; [0035]-[0036]; Claim 6)
Makotyn does not explicitly teach measurement locations configured for performance of measurement operations on one or more quantum objects.
However, an ordinarily skilled artisan (as discussed above having a relatively high level of skill/knowledge) would be reasonably apprised of measurement locations and operations, in particular, performing such operations after such disclosed quantum logic operations in order to read out states of the qubits after manipulation, else the outcomes thereof could not be determined.
Nevertheless, Benjamin teaches measurement locations configured for performance of measurement operations on one or more quantum objects (See Fig. 2, items 210, 220, 240; [0006]-[0010]; [0013]-[0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Makotyn to explicitly include measurement locations configured for performance of measurement operations on one or more quantum objects, as taught by Benjamin.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to read out quantum states prior to/after manipulation to read out the quantum states of the manipulation objects.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pertaining to filtering:
Holz (DOI: 10.1002/qute.202000031);
Aude Craik’2016 (DOI: 10.5287/ora-qrrxymroz);
Zhang (DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/ac7db6);
Halama (DOI: 10.15488/11811)
Pertaining to similar trapped ion/QCCD systems:
Holz;
Pino (DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-03318-4, provided by Applicant in IDS dated 05/30/2024);
Monroe (DOI: 10.1126/science.1231298);
Brown (DOI: 10.1038/npjqi.2016.34);
Kielpinski (DOI: 10.1038/nature00784);
Aude Craik’2017 (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.95.022337).
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 CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights