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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 6, “means for” controlling the optical superlattice and “means for” controlling the plurality of optical tweezers are recited. However, no structure is specified in the disclosure with which to perform the functions.
Claim 7 recites “cooling means” which are described in the Specification as lasers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, the Specification does not described specific structure for the items claimed under 35 USC 112(f). Therefore, no written description is provided for these structures.
Claims 9-10 inherit the deficiencies of claim 6.
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 1-11 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 1, “the plurality of main site” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. It is assumed to mean “the plurality of main sites”.
Regarding claim 3, “a plurality of atoms are merged in parallel” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the claim indicates that the plurality are all merged together or if a plurality of main and auxiliary sites are merged together.
Regarding claim 6, the Specification does not describe specific structure for the items claimed under 35 USC 112(f). Therefore, it is unclear what constitutes the claimed structures. Claims 9-10 inherit these deficiencies.
Claims 2-11 and 13 are indefinite by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
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.
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) 1-6 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen (Jørgensen, Nils B., Mark G. Bason, and Jacob F. Sherson. "One-and two-qubit quantum gates using superimposed optical-lattice potentials." Physical Review A 89.3 (2014): 032306.) in view of Muldoon (Muldoon, Cecilia, et al. "Control and manipulation of cold atoms in optical tweezers." New Journal of Physics 14.7 (2012): 073051.)
Regarding claim 1, Jorgensen teaches a system for performing quantum operations (§I, “This paper is organized along the following lines. The combination of two optical-lattice potentials to form a superlattice is introduced in Sec. II. The ability to perform single-qubit gates by exploiting the differential ac-Stark shift is discussed in Sec. III. The two-qubit gate using local collisional interactions is the subject of Sec. IV, where numerical optimization is applied to determine minimum gate time and maximal fidelity. [a system for performing quantum operations] Section V summarizes the paper’s conclusions and highlights perspectives for the future.”) comprising:
an optical superlattice (§I, “The combination of two optical-lattice potentials to form a superlattice [an optical superlattice] is introduced in Sec. II.); and
the optical superlattice comprises a plurality of main sites; each main site comprises a storage site and an auxiliary site, each configured to hold an atom (see Figure 1, reproduced below. (a) shows the lattice potential with a bounding box around a main site and shows a plurality of such sites [a plurality of main sites] where each of the sites contains a well which includes a red or green atom [each main site comprises a storage site and an auxiliary site, each configured to hold an atom]);
the optical superlattice is configured to merge the storage site and the auxiliary site of each main site (see Figure 1, reproduced below. “(c) When a lattice potential of longer wavelength is added to a lattice potential of shorter wavelength, two wells, each holding an atom, can be merged. [configured to merge the storage site and the auxiliary site of each main site]”).
PNG
media_image1.png
744
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jorgensen does not teach a plurality of optical tweezers, wherein: the plurality of optical tweezers is configured to move atoms provided in the plurality of main site from one main site to another main site.
Muldoon teaches a plurality of optical tweezers, wherein: the plurality of optical tweezers is configured to move atoms provided in the plurality of main site from one main site to another main site (§4, “So far, we have shown that atoms can be held in a variety of arbitrarily shaped traps. This includes regular arrays of atoms, which one could use as quantum registers in a scalable quantum processor. However, to fill such an array with preferentially one atom per site, or to arbitrarily access a random cell within a register, it is necessary to move atoms independently from one trapping site into another. Here, we show how to accomplish this task and deterministically transport atoms between two well defined positions [the plurality of optical tweezers is configured to move atoms provided in the plurality of main site from one main site to another main site]…. The atoms move to destinations 8 and 9μm away from their respective starting points, with the two destinations chosen independently. This individual transport of randomly selected trapping sites shows that SLM-controlled atom traps have the potential of regrouping arrays of trapped atoms to any arbitrary pattern. Hence, the random access of arbitrary registers, which is essential in any computer (whether classical or quantum), could be achieved with SLM-based optical tweezers. [a plurality of optical tweezers]”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jorgensen to include a plurality of optical tweezers, wherein the plurality of optical tweezers is configured to move atoms provided in the plurality of main site from one main site to another main site in order to allow the regrouping/movement of atoms into an arbitrary pattern amongst the main sites.
Regarding claim 2, Jorgensen as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein the optical superlattice is further configured to
merge the storage site and the auxiliary site of each main site for a predetermined amount of time; and the optical superlattice is configured to separate the storage site and the auxiliary site of each main site after the predetermined amount of time (Figure 1, see above, 1(c), “…Through control of phase and well depth, atoms are sent into the vibrational ground and first excited state, where they interact for an arbitrary amount of time, before reversing the process. The interaction causes a spin state exchange resulting in a two-qubit gate.” And §IV, A, “At time T--SWAP = πℏ/Uint the spin states are swapped and at time T√SWAP = πℏ/2Uint the entangling √SWAP gate is implemented [merge the storage site and the auxiliary site of each main site for a predetermined amount of time], which is universal for quantum computation. The qubits can subsequently be separated by reversing the merging operation [separate the storage site and the auxiliary site of each main site after the predetermined amount of time]”)
Regarding claim 3, Jorgensen as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach wherein a plurality of atoms are merged in parallel.
However, Jorgensen notes that the merging of atoms to perform two-qubit gate operations can be performed in parallel (§1, “In optical lattices, two-qubit gates have been proposed [8] and conducted on many pairs of atoms in parallel [9,10]…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jorgensen to include merging a plurality of atoms in parallel in order to allow for multiple two-qubit operations to be performed simultaneously.
Regarding claim 4, Jorgensen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises atoms having an approximate SU(2) symmetry (§IV, A, “The gate time is set by the interaction between 87Rb atoms…” [atoms having an approximate SU(2) symmetry] – 87Rb is fermionic).
Regarding claim 5, Jorgensen as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein
merging the storage site and the auxiliary site of each main site is realized by modifying the optical superlattice such that the storage site and the auxiliary site of each of the main sites form an interaction site that is configured to hold up to two atoms (see Figure 1 (c) above which shows the creation of an interaction site holding two atoms [merging the storage site and the auxiliary site of each main site is realized by modifying the optical superlattice such that the storage site and the auxiliary site of each of the main sites form an interaction site that is configured to hold up to two atoms])
Regarding claim 6, Jorgensen as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, wherein the system further comprises:
equipment for realizing the optical superlattice (§II, “In the case of two counter-propagating fields an optical lattice with a lattice spacing alat=λ/2 is formed” [equipment for realizing the optical superlattice]);
equipment for realizing the plurality of optical tweezers (Muldoon, §5, “SLM-based optical-tweezers constitute a flexible scheme for the manipulation and transport of dipole-trapped neutral atoms” [equipment for realizing the plurality of optical tweezers]);
means for controlling the optical superlattice (§IV, B, “…by controlling the phase and depth of an optical superlattice…” [means for controlling the optical superlattice]); and
means for controlling the plurality of optical tweezers (Muldoon, §6, “SLM—Texas Instruments DMD Discovery 1100)” [means for controlling the plurality of optical tweezers]).
Regarding claim 8, Jorgensen as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, wherein the equipment for realizing the plurality of optical tweezers comprises
lasers, each configured to output a focused beam such that an atom can be confined with a beam waist of the laser (Muldoon, §6, “The SLM is illuminated using a high power diode laser… For a resolution-limited trap of 1μm waist, this would yield radial and axial trapping frequencies of ωR = 2π×43 kHz and ωA = 2π ×9 kHz, respectively. For the elongated transport trap, the trapping frequency of ωy = 2π ×1 kHz has been experimentally verified, see figure 4” [lasers, each configured to output a focused beam such that an atom can be confined within a beam waist of the laser
Regarding claim 9, Jorgensen as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, wherein the means for controlling the optical superlattice are configured to
change the potential depth and the periodicity of the superlattice (§II, “The primary laser potential depth is one unit of recoil energy Er(λ)…Using Er/h ≈ 2 kHz” [changing the potential depth] §II, “three SLPs are seen in Fig. 1(a)” [the periodicity of the superlattice]).
Regarding claim 10, Jorgensen as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, wherein the means for controlling the plurality of optical tweezers include
at least one spatial light modulator configured to move atoms in the optical superlattice (Muldoon, §6, “The spatial light modulator… The movie frame rate ranges between 4 and 20 KHz, making it fast enough for a dynamic control of the atoms trapped in the tweezers” [at least one spatial light modulator configured to move atoms in the optical superlattice]).
Regarding claim 11, Jorgensen as modified according to claim 1, under normal operation, performs the method of claim 11.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen (Jørgensen, Nils B., Mark G. Bason, and Jacob F. Sherson. "One-and two-qubit quantum gates using superimposed optical-lattice potentials." Physical Review A 89.3 (2014): 032306.) in view of Muldoon (Muldoon, Cecilia, et al. "Control and manipulation of cold atoms in optical tweezers." New Journal of Physics 14.7 (2012): 073051.) further in view of Devoe (US5793091).
Regarding claim 7, Jorgensen as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, wherein the equipment for realizing the optical superlattice comprises:
lasers configured to output counter-propagating laser beams, wherein a commensurate wavelength ratio of the wavelengths of the lasers is 2 (§II, “the laser detuning…the case of two counter-propagating fields [lasers configured to output counter-propagating laser beams] an optical lattice with a lattice spacing alat=λ/2 is formed [a commensurate wavelength ratio of the wavelengths of the lasers is 2]).
Jorgensen discloses utilizing ultracold atoms (§IV, “The ultracold atoms…”) but Jorgensen as modified does not teach cooling means configured to cool atoms to sub-Kelvin temperatures.
Devoe discloses producing ultracold atoms via cooling means configured to cool atoms to sub-Kelvin temperatures (“Trapped ions have been laser-cooled to temperatures below 1 microkelvin, where they are essentially stationary, occupying the quantum mechanical ground state of the trap [cooling means configured to cool atoms to sub-Kelvin temperatures]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jorgensen to utilize cooling means configured to cool atoms to sub-Kelvin temperatures for producing the ultracold atoms in order to provide stable, stationary atoms in the traps.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen (Jørgensen, Nils B., Mark G. Bason, and Jacob F. Sherson. "One-and two-qubit quantum gates using superimposed optical-lattice potentials." Physical Review A 89.3 (2014): 032306.) in view of Muldoon (Muldoon, Cecilia, et al. "Control and manipulation of cold atoms in optical tweezers." New Journal of Physics 14.7 (2012): 073051.) further in view of Bishop (US20190102220A1).
Regarding claim 13, Jorgensen as modified teaches all of the limitations of executing the method for performing the quantum operation according to claim 11, but does not teach a method of providing a service for performing a quantum operation, the method comprising the steps of: receiving a problem to be solved through the quantum operation and executing the method for performing the quantum operation according to claim 11, thereby obtaining a solution to the problem, providing the solution to the problem as a product of the provided service.
Bishop teaches a method of providing a service for performing a quantum operation (Figures 5-6), the method comprising the steps of: receiving a problem to be solved through the quantum operation (Figure 5, 502) and executing the method for performing the quantum operation (Figure 5: 508 to 520), thereby obtaining a solution to the problem (Figure 6, 614), providing the solution to the problem as a product of the provided service (Figure 6, 622).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jorgensen to include a method of providing a service for performing a quantum operation, the method comprising the steps of: receiving a problem to be solved through the quantum operation and executing the method for performing the quantum operation according to claim 11, thereby obtaining a solution to the problem, providing the solution to the problem as a product of the provided service in order to allow the provision of a quantum computer without requiring possession of a quantum computer, i.e. to allow remote user access and thereby a greater number of users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mukai (JP2006198733A) discloses an optical superlattice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCHYLER S SANKS whose telephone number is (571)272-6125. The examiner can normally be reached 06:30 - 15:30 Central Time, M-F.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at (303) 297-4307. 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.
/SCHYLER S SANKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights