DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0058] recites “may be performed one the one or more…”, which appears to be a typographical error that should read ‘may be performed on the one or more…’;
[0064] recites “digital-analog converts”, which appears to be a typographical error that should read ‘digital-analog converters”;
[0087] indicates that the sorting thickness is greater than the operational thickness, however, all previous description and the figure being described appears to show the opposite, that the sorting thickness is less than the operational thickness.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “one or more transition zone”, which should read ‘one or more transition zones’ to agree with subsequent recitations of “the one or more transition zones”;
Claim 12 recites “an operation section configured for having quantum operations performed one or more of the quantum objects therein”, which Examiner believes should read ‘an operation section configured for having quantum operations performed on one or more of the quantum objects therein’;
Claim 12 recites “the plurality of operation RF rails” and “the plurality of sorting RF rails”, which should read ‘the plurality of operation sections RF rails’ and ‘the plurality of sorting section RF rails’, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-3 and 5-20 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 2 recites “…a plurality of parallel pairs of sorting section RF rails that are separated by a sorting separation…” and “…a plurality of parallel pairs of operation section RF rails that are separated by an operation separation…”. It is unclear what exactly is separated by the respective separations, as one could reasonably interpret each of the parallel pairs being separated from another parallel pair, or as the separation between the two RF rails in each parallel pair of RF rails. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘…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 by a sorting separation…’ and ‘…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 by an operation separation…’.
Claim 3 recites “…wherein the sorting confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects with a quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of a sorting distance…” and “…the operation confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects with a quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of an operation distance…”. It is unclear what is intended by ‘configured to confine the quantum objects with a surface distance of a/an sorting/operation distance’. In addition, ‘a quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance’ is used for two separate surface distances. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘…wherein the sorting confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects at a first quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance, wherein the first quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance is a sorting distance in the sorting confinement regions…’ and ‘…the operation confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects at a second quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance, wherein the second quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance is an operation distance in the operation confinement regions…’.
Claim 5 recites “the transition zone”, however, claim 4 recites “one or more transition zones”, and as such it is unclear which transition zone is intended to be referred to. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘each transition zone’.
Claim 6 recites “the transition RF rail”, however, claim 5 recites “a plurality of transition RF rails”, and as such it is unclear which transition RF rail is intended to be referred to. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘each transition RF rail’.
Claim 6 recites “the transition zone” in two places, however, claim 4 recites “one or more transition zones”, and as such it is unclear which transition zone is intended to be referred to. The claim doesn’t indicate that the transition zone referred to must be the transition zone housing a corresponding transition RF rail. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘…at a first edge of the transition zone corresponding to the transition RF rail, wherein the edge is adjacent the respective sorting section’ and ‘at a second edge of the transition zone corresponding to the transition RF rail, wherein the second edge is adjacent the operation section’, such that the claim reads ‘…the confinement apparatus of claim 5, wherein each transition RF rail has a thickness that is (a) substantially equal to the sorting thickness at a first edge of the transition zone corresponding to the transition RF rail, wherein the first edge is adjacent the respective sorting section and (b) substantially equal to the operation thickness at a second edge of the transition zone corresponding to the transition RF rail, wherein the second edge is adjacent the operation section’.
Claim 7 suffers from a similar issue regarding what is separated as claim 2 discussed above, and is indefinite for similar reasons. Claim 7 also recites “the transition zone”, which is indefinite for similar reasons to claim 6. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘wherein the plurality of transition RF rails comprises a plurality of parallel pairs of transition RF rails, wherein transition RF rails of each parallel pair of transition RF rails are separated by (a) a sorting separation at a first edge of the transition zone corresponding to the parallel pair of RF rails, wherein the first edge is adjacent the respective sorting section and (b) an operation separation at a second edge of the transition zone corresponding to the parallel pair of RF rails, wherein the second edge is adjacent the operation section’.
Claim 8 recites “the transition zone” which is indefinite for similar reasons to claim 5 discussed above. Additionally, as presently claimed, the subsequent recitations of ‘the transition zone’ are also indefinite, but would be ameliorated with the interpretation adopted below. Furthermore, the wording of ‘configured to cause…to change’ is unclear, as it is not clear what capability would be required by the system. Finally, the claim requires ‘configured to change…between…a sorting distance…and an operation distance…wherein the change…is adiabatic’, however, the sorting distance and operation distance are not required to differ, and as such it is unclear how any change can occur in the case in which the distances are identical, which is not precluded by the claim. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘wherein each transition zone is configured to change a quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of a quantum object confined by the confinement apparatus 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, wherein the sorting distance and the operation distance are different, and wherein the change in the quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of the quantum object is adiabatic’.
Claim 9 recites “the sorting section”, however, claim 1 recites “one or more sorting sections”, and it is unclear which sorting section is intended to be referred to. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘each of the one or more sorting sections’.
Claim 9 recites “a plurality of sorting control electrodes configured to be operated in accordance with a first noise tolerance” and “a plurality of operation control electrodes configured to be operated in accordance with a second noise tolerance”. It is unclear what is required by ‘configured to be operated in accordance with a first/second noise tolerance’, as this language does not positively recite what is required of the electrodes themselves. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘a plurality of sorting control electrodes, each sorting control electrode having a first noise tolerance’ and ‘a plurality of operation control electrodes, each operation control electrode having a second noise tolerance’.
Claim 10 recites “…a plurality of broadcast control electrodes that are configured to receive respective broadcasted voltage signals…”. It is unclear what is required by this limitation as the limitation refers to ‘broadcasted voltage signals’ without claiming any means for broadcasting voltage signals, and it is unclear what would be required of the electrodes to be ‘configured to receive’ such signals. Furthermore, it is not clear what ‘respective broadcasted voltage signals’ is intended to require in this context, as no structure is claimed for broadcasting voltage signals, and thus ‘respective’ is unclear, as this limitation could be understood as each of the electrodes being configured to receive broadcasted voltage signals from a plurality of sources, or the limitation could be understood as each electrode being configured to receive a single broadcasted voltage signal each. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…a plurality of broadcast control electrodes.’.
Claim 11 recites “wherein a sorting control electrode of the plurality of sorting control electrodes has a sorting width” and “an operation control electrode of the plurality of operation control electrodes has an operation width”. It is unclear how the device could operate as intended if only a single one of the sorting control electrodes and a single operation control electrode respectively have ‘a sorting width’ and ‘an operation width’. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘wherein each sorting control electrode of the plurality of sorting control electrodes has a sorting width’ and ‘each operation control electrode of the plurality of operation control electrodes has an operation width’.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the plurality of voltage sources are configured to generate respective voltage sources”. It is unclear what is required by this limitation as it is unclear what is intended by ‘voltage sources generating voltage sources’. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the plurality of voltage sources are configured to generate respective voltage signals’.
Claim 12 recites “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”. It is unclear what is intended by ‘a respective filter of the operation filters or the sorting filters’, as it is unclear what is required by ‘respective’ in this context. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the following clauses are separate limitations, or are specifying the previous limitation. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the plurality of voltage sources are configured to generate respective voltage signals, wherein each of the generated voltage signals are filtered by one of the operation filters or the sorting filters, wherein each voltage signal filtered by an operation filter is applied to the plurality of operation RF rails, and each voltage signal filtered by a sorting filter is applied to the plurality of sorting RF rails’.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the operation section defines one or more quantum operation locations”, however, it is unclear how the operation section ‘defines’ one or more quantum operation locations, as the section itself does not appear to have such capabilities. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the operation section has one or more quantum operation locations’. Examiner notes that this limitation could also be reasonably interpreted as ‘wherein the plurality of operation section RF rails define one or more quantum operation locations’. However, for simplicity, the former interpretation is adopted.
Claim 15 recites “the quantum operation locations”, however, claim 14 requires ‘one or more quantum operation locations’, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, only requires a single quantum operation location. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘the one or more quantum operation locations’.
Claim 16 recites “are separated” in two places, which are indefinite for similar reasons to claim 2 discussed above. Accordingly, for purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘…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 by a sorting separation…’ and ‘…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 by an operation separation…’.
Claim 17 recites “the sorting confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects with a quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of a sorting distance” and “the operation confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects with a quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of an operation distance”, which are indefinite for similar reasons to claim 3 discussed above. Accordingly, for purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘…the sorting confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects at a first quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance, wherein the first quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance is a sorting distance in the sorting confinement regions…’ and ‘…the operation confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects at a second quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance, wherein the second quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance is an operation distance in the operation confinement regions…’.
Claims 19 and 20 recite “the transition zone”, however, claim 18 requires “one or more transition zones”, and thus it is unclear which transition zone is intended to be referred to. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claims, rendering them indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘each transition zone’.
Claim 20 recites similar language to claim 8, and is indefinite for similar reasons. Accordingly, for purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘wherein each transition zone is configured to change a quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of a quantum object confined by the confinement apparatus 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, wherein the sorting distance and the operation distance are different, and wherein the change in the quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of the quantum object is adiabatic’.
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 confinement apparatus (Abstract) 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]), 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, 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 the plurality of sorting section RF rails comprises a plurality of parallel pairs of sorting section RF rails that are separated 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 that are separated 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, 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 the sorting confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects with a quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of a sorting distance ([0035]-[0036]; [0054]), the operation confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects with a quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of 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 zone (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 520 and items 530; [0046]).
Regarding claim 5, 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 4.
Makotyn further teaches wherein the 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, 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 5.
Makotyn does not explicitly teach 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.
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, 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 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 that are separated by (a) a sorting separation at an edge of the transition zone adjacent the respective sorting section and (b) an operation separation at an edge of the 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 that are separated by (a) a sorting separation at an edge of the transition zone adjacent the respective sorting section and (b) an operation separation 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 8, 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 4.
Makotyn further teaches wherein the 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]), wherein the change in the quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of the quantum object is adiabatic (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 [the sorting distance and the operation distance are different] (see 112(b) section above), 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 [the sorting distance and the operation distance are different] 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 the sorting section further comprises a plurality of sorting control electrodes (See Fig. 5, items 114, 116, 118, and 140; [0046]-[0047]; [0050]) configured to be operated in accordance with a first noise tolerance (Examiner notes that the electrodes inherently have some noise tolerance) and the operation section comprises a plurality of operation control electrodes (See Fig. 5, items 114, 116, 118, and 140; [0046]-[0047]; [0049]) configured to be operated in accordance with a second noise tolerance (Examiner notes that the electrodes inherently have some noise tolerance),
Makotyn does not explicitly teach the first noise tolerance being different from the second noise tolerance.
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 noise tolerance of the control electrodes as a result effective variable, as changing this tolerance 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 the value of a typical system parameter.
In other words, Makotyn discloses the claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing the noise tolerance of the operation control electrodes being different than the noise tolerance of the sorting control electrodes.
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 first noise tolerance being different from the second noise tolerance, 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 action zones, via routine optimization of the value of a typical system parameter.
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 ([0006]; [0009]; [0033]-[0034]; [0037]; [0039]; [0058]; [0061]).
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 teaches wherein a 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]), an 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, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Makotyn teaches a system (Title; Abstract) comprising:
a plurality of voltage sources ([0037]; [0039]; [0058]);
a confinement apparatus configured to confine quantum objects (Abstract), 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 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]), 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 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.
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.
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.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, 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 the operation section defines one or more quantum operation locations ([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 appear to show beam paths from the manipulation source(s) to the chamber 40; [0044]; [0049]]).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, 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 that are separated 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 that are separated 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, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Makotyn, as modified, in view of Bachor teaches the system of claim 12.
Makotyn further teaches wherein the sorting confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects with a quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of a sorting distance ([0035]-[0036]; [0054]), the operation confinement regions are configured to confine the quantum objects with a quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of 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, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, 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 520 and items 530; [0046]).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Makotyn, as modified, in view of Bachor teaches the system of claim 18.
Makotyn further teaches wherein the transition zone comprises a plurality of transition RF rails (See Fig. 5, items 112; [0046]) and
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, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Makotyn, as modified, in view of Bachor teaches the system of claim 18.
Makotyn further teaches wherein the 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]), wherein the change in the quantum object-confinement apparatus surface distance of the quantum object is adiabatic (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 [the sorting distance and the operation distance are different] (see 112(b) section above), 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 [the sorting distance and the operation distance are different] 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, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, 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, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Makotyn, as modified, in view of Bachor teaches the system of claim 14.
Makotyn further teaches wherein the quantum operation locations include gating locations configured for performance of quantum logic operations on one or more quantum objects ([0005]; [0008]; 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.
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
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
/ROBERT H KIM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881