DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to Application No. 18657652 filed on 05/07/2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination and are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1 recites the following abstract ideas:
adjusting one or more tuning parameters of a plurality of tuning parameters (Mental process directed to adjusting tuning parameters. This can be done by observing the parameters and making a judgment on the adjustment),
measuring the MPR signal (Mental process directed to measuring MPR signal. This can be done by observing the MPR signal and making a measurement)
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
performing optimization of an MPR signal by iteratively (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g))
the plurality of tuning parameters comprising a quantum dot (QD) detuning, an enclosed flux, a voltage of a topological wire, a QD-Majorana zero mode (MZM) coupling, and a QD-QD coupling (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h)), and
using a readout resonator (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h)),
until reaching a success metric (This limitation is directed to mere instruction to apply an exception. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
performing optimization of an MPR signal by iteratively (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g))
the plurality of tuning parameters comprising a quantum dot (QD) detuning, an enclosed flux, a voltage of a topological wire, a QD-Majorana zero mode (MZM) coupling, and a QD-QD coupling (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h)), and
using a readout resonator (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h)),
until reaching a success metric (This limitation is directed to mere instruction to apply an exception. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
4. Dependent claim 2 is directed to a method and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 2 recites the following abstract ideas:
further comprising, prior to performing optimization of the MPR signal, tuning coupling between quantum dots and MZMs (Mental process directed tuning coupling between quantum dots and MZMs. This can be done by observing the quantum dots and MZMs and making a judgment on the tuning).
Claim 2 do not recite any additional elements.
5. Dependent claim 3 is directed to a method and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 3 recites the following abstract ideas:
wherein tuning coupling between quantum dots and MZMs comprises measuring a coupling between quantum dots and the MZMs (Mental process directed to measuring a coupling between quantum dots and the MZMs. This can be done by observing the quantum dots and MZMs and making a judgment on the measurement) by
Claim 3 recites the following additional elements:
dispersive gate sensing (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 3 recites the following additional elements:
dispersive gate sensing (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
6. Dependent claim 4 is directed to a method and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 4 recites the following abstract ideas:
performing quantum dot coarse tuning (Mental process directed to performing quantum dot coarse tuning which can be done by observing the quantum dot and making a judgement on the tuning),
tuning topological segments of a superconducting part of the topological qubit device into a topological phase (Mental process directed to tuning topological segments of a superconducting part which can be done by observing the topological segments and making a judgement on the tuning), and
performing quantum dot fine tuning (Mental process directed to performing quantum dot fine tuning which can be done by observing the quantum dot and making a judgement on the tuning).
Claim 4 do not recite any additional elements.
7. Dependent claim 5 is directed to a method and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 5 recites the following abstract ideas:
wherein performing quantum dot fine tuning comprises pairwise tuning adjacent quantum dot pairs of a set of two or more quantum dots (Mental process directed to pairwise tuning adjacent quantum dot pairs which can be done by observing the quantum dots and making a judgment on the tuning).
Claim 5 do not recite any additional elements.
8. Dependent claim 6 is directed to a method and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 6 recites the following abstract ideas:
wherein performing quantum dot fine tuning comprises tuning coupling between quantum dots by identifying charge transitions on each quantum dot associated with the coupling between quantum dots (Mental process directed to identifying charge transitions on each quantum dot associated with the coupling between quantum dots which can be done by observing the charge transitions on each quantum dot and making a judgment on the identification of the charge transitions on each quantum dot).
Claim 6 do not recite any additional elements.
9. Dependent claim 7 is directed to a method and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 7 recites the following abstract ideas:
wherein optimizing the MPR signal comprises selecting a quantum dot detuning to maximize a difference between parity states (ΔCQ(Φ)=|CQ(+, Φ)−CQ(−, Φ) (Mathematical concepts directed to selecting a quantum dot detuning to maximize a difference between parity states)
Claim 7 do not recite any additional elements.
10. Dependent claim 8 is directed to a method and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 8 do not recite any abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the method is performed on an interference loop comprising two or more quantum dots and two MZMs (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use and this limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 8 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the method is performed on an interference loop comprising two or more quantum dots and two MZMs (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use and it does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
11. Dependent claim 9 is directed to a method and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 9 do not recite any abstract ideas.
Claim 9 recites the following additional elements:
further comprising using a readout resonator capacitively coupled to a quantum dot to probe a parity of MZMs of the quantum computing device (This limitation amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 9 recites the following additional elements:
further comprising using a readout resonator capacitively coupled to a quantum dot to probe a parity of MZMs of the quantum computing device (This limitation amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05 (h)).
12. Dependent claim 10 is directed to a method and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 10 is directed to the following abstract ideas:
wherein the success metric comprises one or more of reaching a threshold value of CQ or reaching a threshold value of ΔCQ (Mental process directed to success metric that include reaching a threshold value of CQ or reaching a threshold value of ΔCQ. This can be done by observing the threshold value and making a judgement on when it reaches a threshold).
Claim 10 do not recite any additional elements.
13. Independent claim 11 is directed to a device and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
With regards to claim 11, it is substantially similar to claim 1, and is rejected in the
same manner and reasoning applying.
Further claim 11 recites the following additional elements:
a topological qubit device (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05 (h)), comprising
a semiconducting part comprising a set of quantum dots (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h));
a superconducting part comprising a plurality of topological segments configured to instantiate one or more pairs of Majorana zero modes (MZMs) (This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and
a controller configured to (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 11 recites the following additional elements:
a topological qubit device (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05 (h)), comprising
a semiconducting part comprising a set of quantum dots (This limitation is directed to a particular type or source of data, which is field of use. This does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h));
a superconducting part comprising a plurality of topological segments configured to instantiate one or more pairs of Majorana zero modes (MZMs) (This limitation is directed to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception. This does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and
a controller configured to (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This does not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f))
14. Dependent claim 12 is directed to a device and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 12 recites the following abstract ideas:
tune coupling between quantum dots and MZMs (Mental process directed to tune coupling between quantum dots and MZMs which can be done by observing the coupling between quantum dots and MZMs and making a judgement on the tuning).
to measure a coupling between quantum dots and the MZMs (Mental process directed to measuring coupling between quantum dots and MZMs which can be done by observing the coupling between quantum dots and MZMs and making a judgement on the measurement)
Claim 12 recite the following additional elements:
wherein the controller is configured to (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f))
by using dispersive gate sensing (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Claim 12 recite the following additional elements:
wherein the controller is configured to (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f))
by using dispersive gate sensing (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h))
15. Dependent claim 13 is directed to a device and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 13 recites the following abstract ideas:
to optimize the MPR signal comprises by selecting a quantum dot detuning to maximize a difference between parity states (ΔCQ(Φ)=|CQ(+, Φ)−CQ(−, Φ)|) (Mathematical concepts directed to selecting a quantum dot detuning to maximize a difference between parity states), and
wherein the success metric comprises one or more of reaching a threshold value of CQ or reaching a threshold value of ΔCQ (Mental process directed to success metric that include reaching a threshold value of CQ or reaching a threshold value of ΔCQ. This can be done by observing the threshold value and making a judgement on when it reaches a threshold).
Claim 13 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the controller is configured (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Claim 13 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the controller is configured to (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h))
16. Dependent claim 14 is directed to a device and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 14 recites the following abstract ideas:
to tune coupling between the two or more quantum dots and the two MZMs of the interference loop (Mental process directed to tune coupling between two or more quantum dots and two MZMs which can be done by observing the coupling between the quantum dots and the MZMs and making a judgement on the tuning).
Claim 14 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the topological qubit device comprises an interference loop comprising two or more quantum dots and two MZMs (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h)), and
the controller is configured (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 14 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the topological qubit device comprises an interference loop comprising two or more quantum dots and two MZMs (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h)), and
the controller is configured (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f))
17. Dependent claim 15 is directed to a device and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 15 do not recite any abstract ideas.
Claim 15 recite the following additional elements:
further comprising a readout resonator capacitively coupled to a quantum dot of the interference loop (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h)), and
wherein the controller is configured (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f))
to use the readout resonator to probe a parity of the two MZMs of the interference loop (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 15 recite the following additional elements:
further comprising a readout resonator capacitively coupled to a quantum dot of the interference loop (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h)), and
wherein the controller is configured (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f))
to use the readout resonator to probe a parity of the two MZMs of the interference loop (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
18. Independent claim 16 is directed to a device and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
With regards to claim 16, it is substantially similar to claim 11 and it is rejected in the same manner and reasoning applying.
Furthermore, claim 16 recites the following abstract ideas:
to perform quantum dot coarse tuning by tuning gates of the semiconducting part of the topological qubit device (Mental process directed to tuning gates which can be done by observing the superconducting part of the topological qubit device making a judgment on the tuning),
tune topological segments of the superconducting part of the topological qubit device into a topological phase (Mental process directed to tuning topological segments which can be done by observing the superconducting part of the topological qubit device and making a judgement on the tuning),
perform quantum dot fine tuning (Mental process directed to performing the quantum dot fine tuning which can be carried out by making a judgement on the fine tuning),
tune coupling between quantum dots and MZMs (Mental process directed to tuning a coupling between quantum dots and the MZMs. This can be done by observing the quantum dots and MZMs and making a judgment on the tuning), and
to control the quantum computing device to (Mental process directed to controlling the quantum computing device. This can be done by observing the quantum computing device and making a judgement on the controlling)
Furthermore, claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
a readout resonator coupled to a quantum dot of the set of quantum dots (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and
a controller configured (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)):
Claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
a readout resonator coupled to a quantum dot of the set of quantum dots (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h)); and
a controller configured (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f)):
19. Dependent claim 17 is directed to a device and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 17 recites the following abstract ideas:
to control the quantum computing device (Mental process directed to controlling the quantum computing device. This can be done by observing the quantum computing device and making a judgement on the controlling)
to perform quantum dot fine tuning by tuning coupling between quantum dots by identifying charge transitions on each quantum dot associated with the coupling between quantum dots (Mental process directed to identifying charge transitions on each quantum dot associated with the coupling between quantum dots which can be done by observing the charge transitions on each quantum dot and making a judgment on the identification of the charge transitions on each quantum dot).
Claim 17 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the controller is configured (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 17 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the controller is configured (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f))
20. Dependent claim 18 is directed to a device and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 18 recites the following abstract ideas:
to control the quantum computing device (Mental process directed to controlling the quantum computing device. This can be done by observing the quantum computing device and making a judgement on the controlling)
to perform quantum dot fine tuning by pairwise tuning adjacent quantum dot pairs of a set of two or more quantum dots (Mental process directed to pairwise tuning adjacent quantum dot pairs which can be done by observing the quantum dots and making a judgment on the tuning).
Claim 18 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the controller is configured (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 18 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the controller is configured (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h))
21. Dependent claim 19 is directed to a device and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 19 recites the following abstract ideas:
to control the quantum computing device (Mental process directed to controlling the quantum computing device. This can be done by observing the quantum computing device and making a judgement on the controlling)
to tune coupling between quantum dots and MZMs (Mental process directed to tuning a coupling between quantum dots and the MZMs. This can be done by observing the quantum dots and MZMs and making a judgment on the tuning)
to measure a coupling between quantum dots and the MZMs (Mental process directed to measuring coupling between quantum dots and MZMs which can be done by observing the coupling between quantum dots and MZMs and making a judgement on the measurement).
Claim 19 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the controller is configured (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f))
by using dispersive gate sensing (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h))
Claim 19 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the controller is configured (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f))
by using dispersive gate sensing (This limitation is directed to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h))
22. Dependent claim 20 is directed to a device and falls into one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 20 recites the following abstract ideas:
to control the quantum computing device (Mental process directed to controlling the quantum computing device. This can be done by observing the quantum computing device and making a judgement on the controlling)
to optimize the MPR signal comprises by selecting a quantum dot detuning (Mental process directed to selecting a quantum dot detuning which can be done by observing the quantum dot detuning and making a judgement on the selection), and
reaching the success metric comprises reaching a threshold value of a difference between parity states (ΔCQ(Φ)=|CQ(+, Φ)−CQ(−, Φ)|) (Mathematical concepts directed to reaching a threshold value of a difference between parity states).
Claim 20 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the controller is configured (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Claim 20 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the controller is configured (This limitation is directed to a generic computer component. This limitation does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f))
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.
23. Claims 7, 10, 13 and 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 7 recites “… parity states (ΔCQΦ=CQ+, Φ-CQ (-, Φ))”.
Claim 10 recites “a threshold value of CQ or reaching a threshold value of ΔCQ”.
Claim 13 recites “… (ΔCQ(Φ)=|CQ (+, Φ) −CQ(−, Φ)|)”.
Claim 20 recites … “(ΔCQ(Φ)=|CQ (+, Φ) −CQ(−, Φ)|)”.
In the above recited limitations, it is unclear what CQ, Φ, ΔCQ(Φ), ΔCQ denotes because these limitations are not defined in the claimed invention.
For the purpose of examination, the recited limitation “ΔCQΦ=CQ+,Φ-CQ(-,Φ)” has been interpreted to represent a measurement of charge to distinguish different parity states.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
24. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Karzig et al. ("Scalable designs for quasiparticle-poisoning-protected topological quantum computation with Majorana zero modes." Physical Review B 95.23 (2017): 235305).
Regarding claim 1, Karzig teaches on a quantum computing device (We present designs for scalable quantum computers composed of qubits encoded in aggregates of four or more Majorana zero modes, abstract), a method of tuning a topological qubit device (A key feature of our approach to scalable topological quantum computing is the ability to perform projective measurements of the combined fermionic parity of multiple MZMs. Such measurements are initiated by appropriately tuning gates to couple MZMs to quantum dots, as seen in the magnified right panel of Fig. 1. This realizes the devices depicted in Fig. 2 with one quantum dot (left panel) or two quantum dots (right panel), pg. 235305-4, right col., first para.) into a Majorana Parity Readout (MPR) configuration (Quantum dots can be defined and selectively coupled to MZMs by tuning depletion gates in a nearby semiconducting wire that is connected to the hexon’s MZMside (see Fig. 1). Measurements of the parity iγjγk can then be done by connecting MZMs γj and γk to quantum dots in the semiconducting wire (pg. 235305-3, right col., last para.); As an example, performing a sequence of parity measurements of iγ3γ4, iγ1γ3, iγ2γ3 (pg. 235305-3, right col., second to the last para.). Instant specification discloses [0052]: “a qubit device that includes Majorana zero modes that can be coupled to QDs for readout”), the method comprising:
performing optimization of an MPR signal by iteratively (While the outcomes of quantum measurements are inherently probabilistic, for our purposes, we can use a “forced-measurement” protocol … to obtain the desired measurement outcome of a particular step of the measurement-only protocol. This is a repeat-until-success protocol …, until the desired outcome is achieved, 235305-10, right col., third para.) adjusting one or more tuning parameters of a plurality of tuning parameters (FIG. 2. Appropriately tuning the gates shown in the magnification of the right of Fig. 1 creates the scenarios depicted in the left and right panels here. Left panel: a device configuration for measuring the two-MZM parity p12 (eigenvalue of iγ1γ2). MZMs γ1 and γ2 are coupled to a single quantum dot with tunneling amplitudes t1 and t2, respectively, pg. 235305-4, right col., last para.),
the plurality of tuning parameters comprising a quantum dot (QD) detuning, an enclosed flux, a voltage of a topological wire, a QD-Majorana zero mode (MZM) coupling (The quantum dots (gray ellipses) and their couplings (yellow lines) to MZMs are defined by appropriately tuning a set of underlying gates, Fig. 9, pg. 235305-12; All of our designs feature (i) parallel topological wires connected into units with appreciable charging energy, pg. 235305-20, right col., second para.), and a QD-QD coupling (the tunneling between a quantum dot on the left and one on the right is modulated by the enclosed flux, pg. pg. 235305-20, right col., last para.), and
measuring the MPR signal using a readout resonator (One possible spectroscopic measurement is done by coupling the system (MZM island and quantum dots) to a superconducting transmission line resonator. The resonator frequency will have a parity-dependent frequency shift ω which can be detected using the reflectometry technique, pg. 235305-8, left col., second to the last para.), until reaching a success metric (This is a repeat-until-success protocol …, until the desired outcome is achieved, (pg. 235305-10, right col., third para.); one could repeat the measurement until the final dot occupations are as desired, pg. 235305-5, left col., second para.).
Regarding claim 2, Karzig teaches the method of claim 1, Karzig teaches further comprising, prior to performing optimization of the MPR signal (If the charge of the quantum dot(s) is different after the measurement than it was before the measurement, pg. 235305-5, left col., second para.), tuning coupling between quantum dots and MZMs (Quantum information can be manipulated according to a measurement-only protocol, which is facilitated by tunable couplings between Majorana zero modes and nearby semiconductor quantum dots, abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Karzig teaches the method of claim 2, Karzig teaches wherein tuning coupling between quantum dots and MZMs (Quantum information can be manipulated according to a measurement-only protocol, which is facilitated by tunable couplings between Majorana zero modes and nearby semiconductor quantum dots, abstract) comprises measuring a coupling between quantum dots and the MZMs by dispersive gate sensing (dispersive readout would require resolving a frequency of … we find the maximal dispersive shift, pg. 235305-25, left col., first para.).
Regarding claim 4, Karzig teaches the method of claim 2, Karzig teaches further comprising, prior to tuning coupling between quantum dots and MZMs, performing quantum dot coarse tuning (Quantum dots can be defined and selectively coupled to MZMs by tuning depletion gates in a nearby semiconducting wire that is connected to the hexon’s MZM side, pg. 235305-3, right col., last para.; instant specification discloses: “control the quantum computing device to perform quantum dot coarse tuning by tuning gates of the semiconducting part of the topological qubit device”[0079]),
tuning topological segments of a superconducting part of the topological qubit device into a topological phase (A linear hexon consists of a single 1DTS wire of length L, where two segments of length ℓc are tuned to be in a normal superconducting state (for example, by gating) (pg. 235305-13, left col., last sentence); Here, we assume that quantum dot is in the spinless regime due to the large magnetic field necessary to drive the semiconductor nanowires into the topological phase, pg. 235305-5, right col., first para.), and
performing quantum dot fine tuning (As in the other hexon designs, we envision floating topological superconductors as coherent links that can bridge longer distances. Each MZM measurement in a linear hexon array involves a combination of such links and quantum dots, pg. 235305-13, right col., first para.).
Regarding claim 5, Karzig teaches the method of claim 4, Karzig teaches wherein performing quantum dot fine tuning comprises pairwise tuning adjacent quantum dot pairs of a set of two or more quantum dots (Measurements of … and … between vertically neighboring tetrons can be performed by turning on the couplings of the corresponding MZMs to the adjacent quantum dots … More specifically, quantum dots connecting MZMs of vertically neighboring tetrons can be directly coupled to the pairs … By turning on two such pairs of couplings, we can measure the claimed two-qubit operators, pg. 235305-17, left col., second para.).
Regarding claim 6, Karzig teaches the method of claim 4, Karzig teaches wherein performing quantum dot fine tuning comprises tuning coupling between quantum dots (Such measurements are initiated by appropriately tuning gates to couple MZMs to quantum dots, as seen in the magnified right panel of Fig. 1, pg. 235305-4, right col., first para.) by identifying charge transitions on each quantum dot associated with the coupling between quantum dots (The virtual transitions of electrons to the island are state dependent and, therefore, shift the energy levels in a parity-dependent manner (235305-4, right col., first para.); detect the average charge on a quantum dot. Indeed, the charge nf,1 on the upper dot is related to the energy, pg. 235305-9, left col., third para.).
Regarding claim 7, Karzig teaches the method of claim 1, Karzig teaches wherein optimizing the MPR signal comprises selecting a quantum dot detuning (Quantum dots can be defined and selectively coupled to MZMs by tuning depletion gates in a nearby semiconducting wire that is connected to the hexon’s MZM side (see Fig. 1), pg. 235305-3, right col., last para.) to maximize a difference between parity states (ΔCQΦ=CQ+,Φ-CQ(-,Φ)) (Hence, measurement of the charge on the dot allows one to distinguish different parity states, pg. 235305-9, left col., second to the last para.).
Regarding claim 8, Karzig teaches the method of claim 1, Karzig teaches wherein the method is performed on an interference loop (involve moving probe quasiparticles through an interferometry loop, pg. 235305-2, left col., first para.) comprising two or more quantum dots and two MZMs (Such entangling operations between hexons can be achieved by performing four-MZM measurements, involving two MZMs from each hexon. The latter can also be realized using quantum dots … The main idea is to use an interference effect … in the hybridization of two quantum dots arranged as in the magnified panel of Fig. 1, pg. 235305-4, left col., first para.).
Regarding claim 9, Karzig teaches the method of claim 1, Karzig teaches further comprising using a readout resonator capacitively coupled to a quantum dot (One possible spectroscopic measurement is done by coupling the system (MZM island and quantum dots) to a superconducting transmission line resonator pg. 235305-8, left col., last para.) to probe a parity of MZMs of the quantum computing device (Measurements … between vertically neighboring tetrons can be performed by turning on the couplings of the corresponding MZMs to the adjacent quantum dots located between the two tetrons, and then probing these quantum dots by measuring the shift of the capacitance or charge, pg. 235305-17, left col., second para.).
Regarding claim 10, Karzig teaches the method of claim 1, Karzig teaches wherein the success metric comprises one or more of reaching a threshold value of CQ or reaching a threshold value of ΔCQ (there will be a maximum vertical distance between MZMs that can be simultaneously coupled to a given quantum dot, pg. 235305-13, right col., last para.).
Regarding claim 11, Karzig teaches a quantum computing device (We present designs for scalable quantum computers composed of qubits encoded in aggregates of four or more Majorana zero modes, abstract; FIG. 10 (pg. 235305-13) and FIG. 15, pg. 235305-21), comprising:
a topological qubit device (Fig. 10), comprising
a semiconducting part comprising a set of quantum dots; a superconducting part comprising a plurality of topological segments (FIG. 10. A two-sided hexon architecture. ... The magnification shows a single two-sided hexon. Additional topological super conducting links and semiconducting structures allow appropriate measurements to manipulate and entangle two-sided hexons, pg. 235305-13, left col.; The quantum dots (gray ellipses), Fig. 9)
configured to instantiate one or more pairs of Majorana zero modes (MZMs) (Due to the connectivity of all the MZMs to the semiconducting structure at each corresponding side of the two-sided hexon, adding a single link of length L to each hexon is sufficient to perform arbitrary two-MZM measurements within the hexon, pg. 235305-13, left col., first para.); and
a controller configured to adjust one or more tuning parameters of a plurality of tuning parameters (The gates VG2 and VG3, respectively, control the tunneling amplitude t2 and t3 for an electron to tunnel between the quantum dot and the corresponding MZM, pg. 235305-25, left col., third para.),
the plurality of tuning parameters comprising a quantum dot (QD) detuning, an
enclosed flux, a voltage of a topological wire, a QD-MZM coupling (The quantum dots (gray ellipses) and their couplings (yellow lines) to MZMs are defined by appropriately tuning a set of underlying gates, Fig. 9, pg. 235305-12; All of our designs feature (i) parallel topological wires connected into units with appreciable charging energy, pg. 235305-20, right col., second para.), and
a QD-QD coupling (the tunneling between a quantum dot on the left and one on the right is modulated by the enclosed flux, pg. pg. 235305-20, right col., last para.), and
perform optimization of a Majorana Parity Readout (MPR) signal by iteratively (While the outcomes of quantum measurements are inherently probabilistic, for our purposes, we can use a “forced-measurement” protocol … to obtain the desired measurement outcome of a particular step of the measurement-only protocol. This is a repeat-until-success protocol …, until the desired outcome is achieved, 235305-10, right col., third para.) adjusting the one or more tuning parameters (FIG. 2. Appropriately tuning the gates shown in the magnification of the right of Fig. 1 creates the scenarios depicted in the left and right panels here. Left panel: a device configuration for measuring the two-MZM parity p12 (eigenvalue of iγ1γ2). MZMs γ1 and γ2 are coupled to a single quantum dot with tunneling amplitudes t1 and t2, respectively, pg. 235305-4, right col., last para.), and
measuring the MPR signal (One possible spectroscopic measurement is done by coupling the system (MZM island and quantum dots) to a superconducting transmission line resonator. The resonator frequency will have a parity-dependent frequency shift ω which can be detected using the reflectometry technique, pg. 235305-8, left col., second to the last para.), until reaching a success metric (This is a repeat-until-success protocol …, until the desired outcome is achieved, (pg. 235305-10, right col., third para.); one could repeat the measurement until the final dot occupations are as desired, pg. 235305-5, left col., second para.).
Regarding claim 12, Karzig teaches the quantum computing device of claim 11, wherein the controller (Quantum dots exist in the orange regions of Fig. 11 and can be controlled by gates, pg. 235305-13, right col., second para.) is configured to tune coupling between quantum dots and MZMs (Quantum information can be manipulated according to a measurement-only protocol, which is facilitated by tunable couplings between Majorana zero modes and nearby semiconductor quantum dots, abstract) by using dispersive gate sensing to measure a coupling between quantum dots and the MZMs (dispersive readout would require resolving a frequency of … we find the maximal dispersive shift, pg. 235305-25, left col., first para.).
Regarding claim 13, Karzig teaches the quantum computing device of claim 11, Karzig teaches wherein the controller is configured to optimize the MPR signal comprises by selecting a quantum dot detuning (Quantum dots can be defined and selectively coupled to MZMs by tuning depletion gates in a nearby semiconducting wire that is connected to the hexon’s MZMside (see Fig. 1), pg. 235305-3, right col., last para.) to maximize a difference between parity states (ΔCQ(Φ)=|CQ(+, Φ)−CQ(−, Φ)|) (Hence, measurement of the charge on the dot allows one to distinguish different parity states, pg. 235305-9, left col., second to the last para.), and
wherein the success metric comprises one or more of reaching a threshold value of CQ or reaching a threshold value of ΔCQ (there will be a maximum vertical distance between MZMs that can be simultaneously coupled to a given quantum dot, pg. 235305-13, right col., last para.).
Regarding claim 14, Karzig teaches the quantum computing device of claim 11, Karzig teaches wherein the topological qubit device comprises an interference loop (involve moving probe quasiparticles through an interferometry loop, pg. 235305-2, left col., first para.) comprising two or more quantum dots and two MZMs (Such entangling operations between hexons can be achieved by performing four-MZM measurements, involving two MZMs from each hexon. The latter can also be realized using quantum dots … The main idea is to use an interference effect … in the hybridization of two quantum dots arranged as in the magnified panel of Fig. 1, pg. 235305-4, left col., first para.), and
the controller is configured to tune coupling between the two or more quantum dots and the two MZMs of the interference loop (Similarly, the two-MZM parity measurements of Sec. IIIA could also be performed using two quantum dots instead of one (pg. 235305-7, right col., first para.); The quantum dots (gray ellipses) and their couplings (yellow lines) to MZMs are defined by appropriately tuning a set of underlying gates (see Fig. 1), pg. 235305-12, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 15, Karzig teaches quantum computing device of claim 14, Karzig teaches further comprising a readout resonator capacitively coupled to a quantum dot of the interference loop (One possible spectroscopic measurement is done by coupling the system (MZM island and quantum dots) to a superconducting transmission line resonator, pg. 235305-8, left col., last para.), and
wherein the controller is configured to use the readout resonator to probe a parity of the two MZMs of the interference loop (Measurements … between vertically neighboring tetrons can be performed by turning on the couplings of the corresponding MZMs to the adjacent quantum dots located between the two tetrons, and then probing these quantum dots by measuring the shift of the capacitance or charge (pg. 235305-17, left col., second para.); The resonator frequency will have a parity-dependent frequency shift ∆ω, 235305-8, left col., last para.).
Regarding claim 16, Karzig teaches a quantum computing device (We present designs for scalable quantum computers composed of qubits encoded in aggregates of four or more Majorana zero modes, abstract; FIG. 10 (pg. 235305-13) and FIG. 15, pg. 235305-21), comprising:
a topological qubit device (Fig. 10), comprising
a superconducting part comprising a plurality of topological segments (FIG. 10. A two-sided hexon architecture. ... The magnification shows a single two-sided hexon. Additional topological super conducting links and semiconducting structures allow appropriate measurements to manipulate and entangle two-sided hexons, pg. 235305-13, left col.)
configured to instantiate one or more pairs of Majorana zero modes (MZMs) (Due to the connectivity of all the MZMs to the semiconducting structure at each corresponding side of the two-sided hexon, adding a single link of length L to each hexon is sufficient to perform arbitrary two-MZM measurements within the hexon, pg. 235305-13, left col., first para.),
a semiconducting part comprising a set of quantum dots (FIG. 10. A two-sided hexon architecture. ... The magnification shows a single two-sided hexon. Additional topological super conducting links and semiconducting structures allow appropriate measurements to manipulate and entangle two-sided hexons, pg. 235305-13, left col.; The quantum dots (gray ellipses), Fig. 9), and
a readout resonator coupled to a quantum dot of the set of quantum dots (One possible spectroscopic measurement is done by coupling the system (MZM island and quantum dots) to a superconducting transmission line resonator. The resonator frequency will have a parity-dependent frequency shift ω which can be detected using the reflectometry technique … where g is the coupling between the resonator and the quantum dot, pg. 235305-8, left col., last para.); and
a controller configured to control the quantum computing device to (Quantum dots exist in the orange regions of Fig. 11 and can be controlled by gates, pg. 235305-13, right col., second para.):
perform quantum dot coarse tuning by tuning gates of the semiconducting part of the topological qubit device (Quantum dots can be defined and selectively coupled to MZMs by tuning depletion gates in a nearby semiconducting wire that is connected to the hexon’s MZM side, pg. 235305-3, right col., last para.; instant specification discloses: “control the quantum computing device to perform quantum dot coarse tuning by tuning gates of the semiconducting part of the topological qubit device”[0079]),
tune topological segments of the superconducting part of the topological qubit device into a topological phase (A linear hexon consists of a single 1DTS wire of length L, where two segments of length ℓc are tuned to be in a normal superconducting state (for example, by gating) (pg. 235305-13, left col., last sentence); Here, we assume that quantum dot is in the spinless regime due to the large magnetic field necessary to drive the semiconductor nanowires into the topological phase, pg. 235305-5, right col., first para.),
perform quantum dot fine tuning (As in the other hexon designs, we envision floating topological superconductors as coherent links that can bridge longer distances. Each MZM measurement in a linear hexon array involves a combination of such links and quantum dots, pg. 235305-13, right col., first para.),
tune coupling between quantum dots and MZMs (Measurements of … and … between vertically neighboring tetrons can be performed by turning on the couplings of the corresponding MZMs to the adjacent quantum dots … More specifically, quantum dots connecting MZMs of vertically neighboring tetrons can be directly coupled to the pairs … By turning on two such pairs of couplings, we can measure the claimed two-qubit operators, pg. 235305-17, left col., second para.), and
perform optimization of a Majorana Parity Readout (MPR) signal by iteratively (While the outcomes of quantum measurements are inherently probabilistic, for our purposes, we can use a “forced-measurement” protocol … to obtain the desired measurement outcome of a particular step of the measurement-only protocol. This is a repeat-until-success protocol …, until the desired outcome is achieved, 235305-10, right col., third para.)
adjusting one or more tuning parameters of a plurality of tuning parameters (FIG. 2. Appropriately tuning the gates shown in the magnification of the right of Fig. 1 creates the scenarios depicted in the left and right panels here. Left panel: a device configuration for measuring the two-MZM parity p12 (eigenvalue of iγ1γ2). MZMs γ1 and γ2 are coupled to a single quantum dot with tunneling amplitudes t1 and t2, respectively, pg. 235305-4, right col., last para.),
the plurality of tuning parameters comprising a quantum dot (QD) detuning, an enclosed flux, a voltage of a topological wire, a QD-MZM coupling (The quantum dots (gray ellipses) and their couplings (yellow lines) to MZMs are defined by appropriately tuning a set of underlying gates, Fig. 9, pg. 235305-12; All of our designs feature (i) parallel topological wires connected into units with appreciable charging energy, pg. 235305-20, right col., second para.), and a QD-QD coupling (the tunneling between a quantum dot on the left and one on the right is modulated by the enclosed flux, pg. pg. 235305-20, right col., last para.), and
measuring the MPR signal using the readout resonator (One possible spectroscopic measurement is done by coupling the system (MZM island and quantum dots) to a superconducting transmission line resonator. The resonator frequency will have a parity-dependent frequency shift ω which can be detected using the reflectometry technique, pg. 235305-8, left col., second to the last para.), until reaching a success metric (This is a repeat-until-success protocol …, until the desired outcome is achieved, (pg. 235305-10, right col., third para.); one could repeat the measurement until the final dot occupations are as desired, pg. 235305-5, left col., second para.).
Regarding claim 17, Karzig teaches the quantum computing device of claim 16, Karzig teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the quantum computing device to perform quantum dot fine tuning by tuning coupling between quantum dots (Such measurements are initiated by appropriately tuning gates to couple MZMs to quantum dots, as seen in the magnified right panel of Fig. 1, pg. 235305-4, right col., first para.) by identifying charge transitions on each quantum dot associated with the coupling between quantum dots (The virtual transitions of electrons to the island are state dependent and, therefore, shift the energy levels in a parity-dependent manner (235305-4, right col., first para.); detect the average charge on a quantum dot. Indeed, the charge nf,1 on the upper dot is related to the energy, pg. 235305-9, left col., third para.).
Regarding claim 18, Karzig teaches the quantum computing device of claim 16, Karzig teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the quantum computing device (In principle, it is also possible to detect fusion rules in the devices show in Figs. 15(b) and 15(c), provided one can control the coupling between MZMs γ1 and γ2 or between γ3 and γ4, for example, by tuning the topological gap via the external magnetic field, pg. 235305-21, right col., second to the last para.) to perform quantum dot fine tuning by pairwise tuning adjacent quantum dot pairs of a set of two or more quantum dots (Measurements of … and … between vertically neighboring tetrons can be performed by turning on the couplings of the corresponding MZMs to the adjacent quantum dots … More specifically, quantum dots connecting MZMs of vertically neighboring tetrons can be directly coupled to the pairs … By turning on two such pairs of couplings, we can measure the claimed two-qubit operators, pg. 235305-17, left col., second para.).
Regarding claim 19, Karzig teaches the quantum computing device of claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to control the quantum computing device to tune coupling between quantum dots and MZMs (Quantum information can be manipulated according to a measurement-only protocol, which is facilitated by tunable couplings between Majorana zero modes and nearby semiconductor quantum dots, abstract.) by using dispersive gate sensing to measure a coupling between quantum dots and the MZMs (dispersive readout would require resolving a frequency of … we find the maximal dispersive shift, pg. 235305-25, left col., first para.).
Regarding claim 20, Karzig teaches the quantum computing device of claim 16, Karzig teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the quantum computing device to optimize the MPR signal comprises by selecting a quantum dot detuning (Quantum dots can be defined and selectively coupled to MZMs by tuning depletion gates in a nearby semiconducting wire that is connected to the hexon’s MZMside (see Fig. 1), pg. 235305-3, right col., last para.), and
reaching the success metric comprises reaching a threshold value ΔCQ (there will be a maximum vertical distance between MZMs that can be simultaneously coupled to a given quantum dot, pg. 235305-13, right col., last para.) of a difference between parity states (ΔCQ(Φ)=|CQ(+, Φ)−CQ(−, Φ)|) (Hence, measurement of the charge on the dot allows one to distinguish different parity states, pg. 235305-9, left col., second to the last para.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAM MOSUNMOLA GODO whose telephone number is (571)272-8670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Michelle T. Bechtold can be reached on (571) 431-0762. 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.
/M.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2148
Prosecution Insights