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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Essig et al. ["Multiplexed Photon Number Measurement", PHYSICAL REVIEW X, vol. 11, no. 3, 6 February 2021 (2021-02-06), XP055961586, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX. 11.031045; “Essig”; already of record].
Regarding claim 1, Essig discloses an optical addressing system comprising: a source of electromagnetic radiation; (Essig: see microwave resonator emitting photons in abstract: "[ ... ] we report an experiment where a single superconducting qubit is able to extract - not a single - but more than 3 bits of information about the photon number of a microwave resonator using continuous measurement.") at least one multi-frequency modulator (Essig: see multiple frequencies in Figure 1(c) modulating the multiplexing qubit and page 2, col. 1, first paragraph: "We evidence an optimal qubit drive amplitude for information extraction, which matches the expected dynamics of a qubit under a multi-frequency drive.") configured to modulate electromagnetic radiation generated by the source of electromagnetic radiation to simultaneously produce at least two beams of electromagnetic radiation having different frequencies, (Essig: see multiple frequencies in Figure 1(c) applied to multiplexing qubit) each of which is configured to, when applied to multi-level quantum objects, (Essig: see the multiplexing qubit being multi-level quantum object, in Figure 1(c), and also see two-level probe qubit (yes-no) in abstract: "When a two-level system - a qubit - is used as a probe of a larger system, it naturally leads to answering a single yes-no question about the system state", Figure 1(b), yes-no qubit), at least partially drive one or more transitions between energy levels of the multi-level quantum objects; and (Essig: see respective driving in page 1, col. 2, last paragraph: "When driving the qubit at 9 test frequencies by multiplexing, the qubit simultaneously emits 9 microwave signals that each reveals information about the photon number ranging from 0 to 8.", and in Figure 4) a router configured to selectively direct the at least two beams of electromagnetic radiation to the multi-level quantum objects. (e.g., Essig: see transmission line in Figure 1(b), and selectively directing in page 1, col. 2, last paragraph: "We demonstrate the practicality of this approach in an experiment where more than 3 bits of information about the photon number in a microwave resonator are simultaneously extracted by a single superconducting qubit into 9 propagating modes of a transmission line").
Regarding claim 2, Essig teaches wherein the at least one multi-frequency modulator is further configured to produce beams of electromagnetic radiation having a spectral distribution of frequencies for each of the at least two beams recited in claim 1, such that one beam has a first spectral distribution, another beam has a second spectral distribution, and the first and second spectral distributions are non-overlapping (e.g., page 1 , col. 2, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Essig teaches wherein the at least one multi-frequency modulator is further configured to produce beams of electromagnetic radiation having a spectral distribution of frequencies for each of the at least two beams recited in claim 1, such that one beam has a first spectral distribution, another beam has a second spectral distribution, and the first and second spectral distributions are non-overlapping (see probe frequency in page 4, col. 1, lines 4-26),
Regarding claim 6, Essig teaches wherein the frequency resonance condition is that the sum of the frequency of the beam of electromagnetic radiation produced by the at least one single-frequency modulator and the frequency of the single beam of the at least two beams produced by the at least one multi-frequency modulator drives the transition, and the energy levels are a ground state energy level and an excited state energy level of the multi-level quantum objects (e.g., page 9 col. 2, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, Essig teaches the one or more transitions is a k-photon transition, with k equal to or greater than 2 (page 5, col. 1, last paragraph, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 14, Essig teaches the router is further configured to combine the beams in free space (e.g., Figure 1(b)),
Regarding claim 15, Essig teaches the beams of electromagnetic radiation are combined at the multi-level quantum objects (see multiple frequencies in Figure 1(d) applied to multiplexing qubit).
Therefore, claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 14, 15 are met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Essig et al. ["Multiplexed Photon Number Measurement", PHYSICAL REVIEW X, vol. 11, no. 3, 6 February 2021 (2021-02-06), XP055961586, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX. 11.031045; “Essig”; already of record].
Claim 7 is not inventive: Essig does not further disclose the additional features of said claims, namely using the difference between the frequencies and hyperfine energy levels. Nevertheless, using the frequency difference and hyperfine energy levels are known in the field, in particular their advantages are known to the person skilled in the art (among them the possibility to improve the system in terms of qubit lifetimes). Since these advantages can be readily foreseen by the person skilled in the art, he/she would regard it as a normal design option before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the difference between the frequencies and hyperfine energy levels, in consideration to their known benefits.
The additional features of claims 18-20, in particular a holographic addressing system (claim 18), a spatial light modulator (claim 19) and a phase plate (claim 20) are not further disclosed in Essig. However, said distinguishing features are well-known and the provision of such forms of implementation for the system in Essig are straightforward design options. As such claims 18-20 are not inventive.
Claim(s) 4-5, 9-13, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Essig as applied to claims 1, 3, and/or 8 above, and further in view of Lin et al {"Advances in on-chip photonic devices based on lithium niobate on insulator", PHOTONICS RESEARCH, vol. 8, no. 12, 30 November 2020 (2020-11-30), page 1910, XP055961392, DOI: 10.1364/PRJ.395305; “Lin”; already of record].
Claim 4 is not inventive because Essig, which is considered the prior art closest to the subject-matter of claim 4, discloses that the beams of electromagnetic radiation produced by the multi-frequency and single-frequency modulators are optical beams, the source of electromagnetic radiation is an optical radiation source, and the router further includes an nonlinear optical medium that combines the optical beams (see "rainbow" transmission line in Figure 1 (b), and photons page 5, col. 1, last paragraph, lines 7-10).
The subject matter of claim 4 differs from Essig, in that the router includes a nonlinear optical medium.
The technical effect of this difference is that the system provides for an
improved frequency scale.
The objective technical problem to be solved may therefore be regarded as how
to modify the system in Essig so as to improve the scalability.
The person skilled in the art, faced with the objective technical problem, would
start from Essig. Essig teaches an optical medium that combines the optical beams (see "rainbow" transmission line in Figure 1(b), and photons page 5, col. 1, last paragraph, lines 7-10). The skilled person would then notice the limitations of the system reported in Essig, in particular in comparison to other schemes (Essig: see comparison in page 21, col. 1, paragraph 3 - page 22, col. 1, first paragraph), namely in terms of scalability (Essig: page 22, col. 1, paragraph 2: "Besides, we deport the complexity of optimal control or feedback into the challenge to reach large measurement efficiencies on a large frequency band (many x's)."). The skilled person would look therefore elsewhere to solve the technical problem.
The skilled person would then find Lin at least since Lin is in the same technical field and pointing to procedures for improved scalability (Lin: page 1921, col. 1, first paragraph: "LN provides an excellent platform for a nonlinear optical study and applications benefiting from its giant nonlinear optical coefficients and broad transparent window. The light field can be limited in a small volume due to the small mode volume of the LN waveguide/microresonator on the LNOI, which enhances the light intensity. A high-Q LN microresonator can further enhance light intensity due to the light confinement in time, which is beneficial for nonlinear optical process [... ]. These nonlinear optical processes are crucial for accessing the new frequency of classical optics and on-chip quantum light sources for quantum information processing [ ... ]").
In particular, Lin teaches improving the scalability, by disclosing a nonlinear optical medium (Lin: page 1922, col. 2, last paragraph: "Aside from being realized based on third-order nonlinear optical effects, frequency combs can also be realized based on second-order nonlinear optical effects, such as cascaded wavelength conversion effects and electro-optic modulations.").
The ordinary skilled person before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be therefore prompted to modify the device of Essig, and arrive at the subject matter of claim 4, using the teachings of Lin, without exercising inventive effort.
Claim 4 is therefore rejected under Essig in view of Lin [herein may be referred to as simply: Essig-Lin].
Regarding claim 5, Essig-Lin teaches the system of claim 4 (see above), wherein the nonlinear optical medium is periodically- poled lithium niobate (PPLN) (e.g., see Lin title, page 1916, col. 2, first paragraph; page 1922, col. 2, last paragraph: PPLN).
Regarding claim 9, Essig-Lin teaches the router is further configured to selectively direct the beams of electromagnetic radiation produced by Nm modulators into Nm-choose-k unique combinations, such that each multi-level quantum object Nq receives k beams having frequencies that fulfill a frequency resonance condition for the transition between the energy levels of the multi-level quantum objects, each of the k beams being produced by a different modulator, and Nm;
PNG
media_image1.png
23
81
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; (e.g., Lin page 1925, col. 2, paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 13, Essig-Lin teaches Nq multi-level quantum objects are arranged on a D dimensional grid, the router is further configured to selectively direct Nq(k-1)/D selectable beams of electromagnetic radiation produced by the at least one multi-frequency modulator to the Nq multi-level quantum objects, and the system further includes [Nql/Dx(k-1)]single- frequency modulators that each produces a beam of electromagnetic radiation having a distinct frequency that fulfills a frequency resonance condition in combination with a single beam of the at least two beams produced by the at least one multi-frequency modulator (e.g., Lin page 1925, col. 2, paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 16, Essig-Lin teaches Nq wherein the router includes at least one waveguide arranged to combine the at least two beams of electromagnetic radiation (e.g., Lin page 1925, col. 2, paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 17, Essig-Lin teaches the router includes at least one photonic integrated circuit (PIC) arranged to combine the at least two beams of electromagnetic radiation (e.g., Lin page 1925, col. 2, paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 10, Essig-Lin teaches the frequency resonance condition is that the sum of the frequencies of the k beams drives the transition, and the energy levels are a ground state energy level and an excited state energy level of the multi-level quantum objects (Essig page 5, col. 1, last paragraph, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 12, Essig-Lin teaches the router is further configured to selectively direct the beams of electromagnetic radiation produced by the Nm modulators into (Nm/k)k unique combinations, and the multi-level quantum objects are arranged on a k-dimensional grid (Essig page 1, col. 2, lines 13-15, page 1, col. 2, last paragraph, Figure 8).
Regarding claim 14, Essig-Lin teaches the router is further configured to combine the beams in free space (Figure 1(b)).
Regarding claim 11, Essig-Lin does not further disclose the additional features of claim 11, namely using the difference between the frequencies and hyperfine energy levels.
Nevertheless, using the frequency difference and hyperfine energy levels are known in the field, in particular their advantages were known to the person skilled in the art (among them the possibility to improve the system in terms of qubit lifetimes) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Since these advantages can be readily foreseen by the person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, he/she would regard it as a normal design option to use the difference between the frequencies and hyperfine energy levels, in consideration to their known benefits.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Christen et al. (US 20220197102) teaches a system and method for multiplexed optical addressing of atomic memories.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-2397. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>.
/MICHAEL P MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874