DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This non-final office action is in response to the application filed 1 March 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 14, and 19 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 November 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The examiner accepts the drawings filed 1 March 2024.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
With respect to claim 13, the term “about 1 Kelvin” in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 1 Kelvin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The examiner cannot determine the bounds of “about 1 Kelvin.” As an example, it is unclear whether values such as 1.5 Kelvin, 2 Kelvin, 3 Kelvin, or even 5 Kelvin would qualify as “about 1 Kelvin.” Additionally, although the claim recites “less than about 1 Kelvin” and it appears that the claim is intended to require a temperature less than 1 Kelvin, because the scope of the term “about 1 Kelvin” is unclear, there are instances where the broadest reasonable interpretation would allow a temperature value above 1 Kelvin. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lampert et al. (US 2019/0392352, published 26 December 2019, hereafter Lampert).
As per independent claim 1, Lampert discloses a method of implementing one or more control signals on a qubit of a quantum computing system, comprising:
implementing, by a quantum computing system (paragraph 0032), a microwave pulse train in a microwave control signal for a qubit of a quantum computing system, the microwave pulse train having a plurality of microwave pulses (paragraph 0068: Here, a microwave pulses are applied to the set of statues of various quantum dot qubits in a quantum circuit component)
determining, by the quantum computing system, a Fourier parameter associated with the plurality of microwave pulses based at least in a part on a Rabi oscillation of the qubit (paragraph 0096: Here, a phase of the qubit is determined using Rabi oscillation by feeding the phase of the qubit through a Fourier transform to determine the Rabi reference frequency)
modifying, by the quantum computing system, one or more control signals for the qubit of the quantum computing system based at least in part on the Fourier parameter (paragraphs 0099-0100: Here, an updated/adapted value of the signal may be applied to the quantum dot qubit device. This is achieved by applying signals to the device (paragraph 0094) via microwave pulses (paragraph 0068) and determining the Rabi oscillation via a Fourier transform (paragraph 0096))
As per dependent claim 6, Lampert discloses the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Lampert disclose wherein the Fourier parameter comprises a phase difference between two Fourier components on the microwave control signal during implementing the microwave pulse train (paragraph 0045: Here, the difference between the energy in the quantum well layer is obtained by comparing the difference in potential between the adjacent gates).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampert and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2022/0171133, published 2 June 2022, hereafter Smith).
As per dependent claim 2, Lampert discloses the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Lampert fails to specifically disclose wherein the microwave pulse train implements a fixed phase shift between consecutive pulses of the plurality of microwave pulses.
However, Smith, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward quantum computing, discloses a fixed phase shift between consecutive pulses of the plurality of pulses (paragraph 0109: Here, a phase shifter is used to apply a fixed phase shift to a pair of signal modes to produce an output state). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Smith with Lampert, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for applying a fixed phase shift to maximally entangle qubit pairs (Smith: paragraph 0109).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampert and further in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0045651, published 18 February 2021, hereafter Li).
As per dependent claim 3, Lampert discloses the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Lampert fails to specifically disclose wherein the Fourier parameter comprises a Fourier amplitude of one or more of the plurality of microwave pulses.
However, Li, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward Fourier transforms, discloses wherein the Fourier parameter comprises a Fourier amplitude of one of more microwave pulses (paragraph 0009: Here, a microwave signal is received and a Fourier transform is applied to the amplitude and phase distributions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Li with Lampert, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for determining differences based upon changes in the Fourier amplitude (Li: paragraph 0009).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampert and Li and further in view of Bhaskar et al. (WO 2021/011765, published 21 January 2021, hereafter Bhaskar).
As per dependent claim 4, Lampert and Li disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 3, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Li further discloses, determining the Fourier amplitude based at least in part on a parameter (paragraph 0009: Here, a microwave signal is received and a Fourier transform is applied to the amplitude and phase distributions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Li with Lampert, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for determining differences based upon changes in the Fourier amplitude (Li: paragraph 0009).
However, Lampert fails to disclose:
tuning, by the quantum computing system, a phase shift of the qubit to introduce the Rabi oscillation
determining, by the quantum computing system, a parameter of the rabi oscillation
However, Bhaskar, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward quantum computing:
discloses tuning, by the quantum computing system, a phase shift of the qubit to introduce the Rabi oscillation (paragraph 0123: Here, a qubit gate is tuned responsive to measuring the qubit frequency by measuring Rabi oscillations)
determining, by the quantum computing system, a parameter of the rabi oscillation (paragraph 0123: Here, a qubit gate is tuned responsive to measuring the qubit frequency by measuring Rabi oscillations. Specifically, the qubit frequency is the parameter)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Bhaskar with Lampert-Li, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for measuring frequency and tuning qubits based upon Rabi oscillations (Bhaskar: paragraph 0123).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampert, Li, Bhaskar and further in view of Li et al. (Nonorthogonal-qubit-state expansion for the asymmetric quantum Rabi model, published 11 January 2021, hereafter Rabi).
As per dependent claim 5, Lampert, Li, and Bhaskar disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 4, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Lampert fails to specifically disclose wherein the parameter of the Rabi oscillation comprises a Rabi angle.
However, Rabi, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward qubit states, disclose wherein the parameter is a Rabi angle (page 013711-2, Section D: Here, the qubit state is regards as a superposition of two spin states defined by the oration and the angle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Rabi with Lampert-Li-Bhaskar, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for defining the qubit state in a Rabi model (Rabi: page 013711-2).
Claims 7, 10, 12-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampert and further in view of McDermott et al. (Accurate Qubit Control with Single Flux Quantum Pulses, 2014, hereafter McDermott).
As per dependent claim 7, Lampert discloses the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Lampert fails to specifically disclose:
applying, by the quantum computing system, an oscillatory flux pulse
matching, by the quantum computing system, a period of the flux pulse to a frequency difference of the two Fourier components to achieve parametric amplification
However, McDermott, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward flux pulses, discloses:
applying, by the quantum computing system, an oscillatory flux pulse (page 014007-2, left column: Here, a pulse is determined by the time integral, which is precisely quantized to a single flux quantum)
matching, by the quantum computing system, a period of the flux pulse to a frequency difference of the two Fourier components to achieve parametric amplification (page 014007-2, left column: Here, the pulse amplitudes are used to mode the pulse as a Dirac delta function)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined McDermott with Lampert, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for coherent control of a qubit using resonant single flux pulse trains (McDermott: page 014007-1, left column).
As per dependent claim 10, Lampert discloses the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Lampert discloses modifying, by the quantum computing system, one or more control signals for the qubit of the quantum computing system based at least in part on the Rabi oscillation of the qubit (paragraph 0096: Here, a phase of the qubit is determined using Rabi oscillation by feeding the phase of the qubit through a Fourier transform to determine the Rabi reference frequency to update/adapt values to be applied to the quantum dot qubit device) and modifying the quantum computer system, by one or more control signals for the qubit of the quantum computing system based at least in part on the Fourier parameter (paragraphs 0099-0100: Here, an updated/adapted value of the signal may be applied to the quantum dot qubit device. This is achieved by applying signals to the device (paragraph 0094) via microwave pulses (paragraph 0068) and determining the Rabi oscillation via a Fourier transform (paragraph 0096)).
Lampert fails to specifically disclose:
implementing, by the quantum computing system, a flux pulse train in a flux control signal for a qubit of a quantum computing system, the flux pulse training having a plurality of flux pulses
However, McDermott, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward flux pulses, discloses:
implementing, by the quantum computing system, a flux pulse train in a flux control signal for a qubit of a quantum computing system, the flux pulse training having a plurality of flux pulses (page 14007-1, left column: Here, a single flux pulse quantum (SFQ) train is used to generate microwave pulses for qubit control by applying a filter)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined McDermott with Lampert, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for coherent control of a qubit using resonant SFQ pulse trains (page 14007-1, left column).
As per dependent claim 12, Lampert discloses the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Lampert fails to specifically disclose wherein the qubit comprises a superconducting qubit. However, McDermott discloses wherein the qubit is a superconducting qubit (page 14007-1, left column).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined McDermott with Lampert, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for coherent control of a qubit using resonant SFQ pulse trains (page 14007-1, left column).
As per dependent claim 13, Lampert discloses the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Lampert fails to specifically disclose wherein the superconducting qubit is at an operation temperature of less than about 1 Kelvin. However, McDermott discloses wherein the qubit is a supercomputing qubit is cryogenic (page 14007-1, right column: Here, the examiner interprets the term cryogenic as including the temperature of “less than about 1 Kelvin”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined McDermott with Lampert, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for managing heat associated with large scale quantum processors (page 14007-1, left column).
With respect to claim 14, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 1 and 12. Claim 14 is rejected under similar rationale.
With respect to claim 17, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 6. Claim 17 is rejected under similar rationale.
With respect to claim 18, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 7. Claim 18 is rejected under similar rationale.
With respect to claim 19, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 1 and 10. Claim 19 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampert and McDermott and further in view of Audoin et al. (US 10578555, patented 3 March 2020, hereafter Audoin).
As per dependent claim 11, Lampert and McDermott disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 10, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. McDermott discloses a microwave pulse signal during the flux pulse train (page 14007-1, left column: Here, a single flux pulse quantum (SFQ) train is used to generate microwave pulses for qubit control by applying a filter)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined McDermott with Lampert, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for coherent control of a qubit using resonant SFQ pulse trains (page 14007-1, left column).
Lampert fails to specifically disclose a monochromatic microwave pulse signal. However, Audoin, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward microwave pulses, discloses a monochromatic microwave pulse (column 5, line 60- column 6, line 5: Here, a continuous monochromatic microwave pulse is generated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Audoin with Lampert-McDermott, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for generation of a monochromatic microwave pulse using a laser (Audoin: column 5, line 60, column 6, line 5).
With respect to claim 20, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claims 11. Claim 20 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampert, McDermott, and further in view of Li.
With respect to claim 15, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 3. Claim 15 is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampert, McDermott, and Li and further in view of Bhaskar.
With respect to claim 16, the claim recites the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 6. Claim 16 is rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bloom et al. (US 2018/0260732): Discloses performing a calibration process in a quantum computing system (Abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights