DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Objection of claim 16 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant has amended claim 13 to recite “an optical and trap controller configured to detect one or more unintended frequency shifts caused by the stray electric field”. Applicant argues said amended overcomes the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. An “optical and trap controller” fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts to perform the entre claimed function. The function associated with the “optical and trap controller” is detecting one or more unintended frequency shifts caused by the stray electric field. Applicant’s specification fails to clearly link structure to said function. The only structure associated with the optical trap and controller is recited in paragraph 50 of the specification: “The lasers and optical systems can be at least partially located in the optical and trap controller 420 and/or in the chamber 450.” However, there is no explanation or suggestion of using a laser or optical system to detect unintended frequency shifts. Paragraph 50 of the specification recites “[i]n an aspect, the imaging system 430 can be implemented separate from the optical and trap controller 420, however, the use of fluorescence to detect, identify, and label atomic ions using image processing algorithms may need to be coordinated with the optical and trap controller 420.” As such, paragraph 50 suggests the optical and trap controller 420 is insufficient structure for detecting one or more unintended frequency shifts caused by the stray electric field. See rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant explains Saito uses ion displacement, measured in micrometer, as a function of compensation electric field combination. Applicant argues that Saito fails to disclose any frequency shift caused by the stray electric field. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites “identifying a plurality of frequency shifts each corresponding to a motional mode of the plurality of motional modes in response to each electric field of the plurality of electric fields; detecting one or more unintended frequency shifts caused by the stray electric field”. In reference to Figure 3 Saito recites “Each point represents the observed ion displacement at each compensation electric field combination. This ion displacement was induced by varying the radial trap frequency with a finite stray electric field condition. Therefore, we realized a change in the trap frequency by tuning the RF power applied to the RF electrodes” (Section B, para. [0002]). Saito identifies each “ion displacement” as representative of an ion frequency. As such the difference between ion displacements is representative of a frequency shift, each corresponding to a motional mode of the plurality of motional modes in response to each electric field of the plurality of electric fields. Therefore, by graphing the ion displacements Saito identifies a plurality of frequency shifts. Further, Saito explains “excess micromotion can be detected by the ion displacement between the two different confinements that rely on the stray electric field amplitude” (Fig. 1 caption). In relation to the experimental results in Figure 3, Saito teaches “To detect and minimize micromotion, we scanned the compensation voltage two-dimensionally and measured the ion displacement.” Therefore, ion displacements are also indicative of micromotion (unintended frequency shifts) and the difference between ion displacements includes detecting unintended frequency shifts caused by a stray electric field. Further, graphing said ion displacements covers detecting one or more unintended frequency shifts caused by the stray electric field. See rejection below.
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.This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“optical and trap controller” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 13-18 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.
Claims 13-18 are also 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.
Claim limitation “optical and trap controller” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim 13 recites “a magnetic system configured to detect one or more unintended frequency shifts caused by the stray electric field.” The function associated with the “optical and trap controller” is detecting one or more unintended frequency shifts caused by the stray electric field. Applicant’s specification fails to clearly link structure to said function. The only structure associated with the optical trap and controller is recited in paragraph 50 of the specification: “The lasers and optical systems can be at least partially located in the optical and trap controller 420 and/or in the chamber 450.” However, there is no explanation or suggestion of using a laser or optical system to detect unintended frequency shifts. Paragraph 50 of the specification recites “[i]n an aspect, the imaging system 430 can be implemented separate from the optical and trap controller 420, however, the use of fluorescence to detect, identify, and label atomic ions using image processing algorithms may need to be coordinated with the optical and trap controller 420.” As such, paragraph 50 suggests the optical and trap controller 420 is insufficient structure for detecting one or more unintended frequency shifts caused by the stray electric field. Therefore, it is unclear what structure is associated with the optical and trap controller. For this reason, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to make or use such an optical and trap controller to detect frequency shifts caused by a stray electric field. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, and 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.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, Ryoichi, Kota Saito, and Takashi Mukaiyama. "Measurement of ion displacement via RF power variation for excess micromotion compensation." Journal of Applied Physics 129.12 (2021)., hereinafter referred to as Saito, in view of Seidelin, Signe, et al. "Microfabricated surface-electrode ion trap for scalable quantum information processing." Physical review letters 96.25 (2006): 253003, hereinafter referred to as Seidelin.
Regarding claim 1, Saito teaches a method of compensating for a stray electric field for an ion comprising:
applying a plurality of electric fields to the ion (In our proposed micromotion minimization method, we trapped the ion in several radial trap confinement conditions by changing the RF power applied to the helical resonator (section III, para [0003]));
identifying a plurality of motional modes associated with the ion (We deliberately applied modulation voltage superposing to the GND A or END electrode and excited the secular ion motion to independently measure the trap frequency (section III, para [0003]));
identifying a plurality of frequency shifts each corresponding to a motional mode of the plurality of motional modes in response to each electric field of the plurality of electric fields (To detect and minimize micromotion, we scanned the compensation voltage two-dimensionally and measured the ion displacement (section B, para. [0001])) (Figure 3);
detecting one or more unintended frequency shifts caused by the stray electric field (The strength of the stray electric field can be evaluated from the measurement of the ion displacement due to two different radial confinements (Introduction, para. [0003])) (The ion displacement measurement with RF power variation is shown in Fig. 3(a) (section IV, subsection B, para. [0003])) (Figure 3);
identifying an orientation and an intensity of the stray electric field based on comparing the one or more unintended frequency shifts to at least a portion of the plurality of frequency shifts; and applying a compensating electric field based on the orientation and the intensity of the stray electric field.
PNG
media_image1.png
256
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Saito fails to teach the method of claim 1 performed on an ion chain on a surface trap.
PNG
media_image2.png
250
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Seidelin teaches an ion chain on a surface trap (Fig. 1b above).
Further Seidelin teaches the issue of stray electric fields on the electrodes (We believe the primary cause for the disagreement is due to the presence of additional stray static potentials on the electrodes (para. [0013])).
To be clear, Saito teaches the method of compensating for stray electric field on an ion in a linear Paul trap. Saito further explains “[t]herefore, this technique is suitable for various ion trap architectures, including planar traps.” Seidelin teaches the use of a surface trap to trap an ion chain and further identifies the issue of stray electric fields on the surface trap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Saito, to include the teachings of Seidelin by substituting the linear Paul trap of Saito with the surface trap taught by Seidelin. Doing so is a matter of simple substitution to obtain the predictable result of correcting for the stray electric field in an ion chain.
Regarding claim 2, Saito fails to explicitly teaches the method of claim 1, wherein applying plurality of electric fields comprises applying a first electric field in a first direction along the ion chain and a second electric field in a second direction perpendicular to the surface trap.
However, Seidelin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein applying plurality of electric fields comprises applying a first electric field in a first direction along the ion chain and a second electric field in a second direction perpendicular to the surface trap (Fig. 1b above).
The specifications of the present disclosure explain “Such chains of ions may be trapped on a surface ion-trap using transverse (perpendicular to the chain) and axial (along the chain) electrical confinement by applying voltages to arrays of electrodes that generate the electric fields of the ion trap.” Seidelin teaches using an array of 2D electrodes on a surface trap to generate the electric fields of the ion trap. Therefore, Seidelin teaches perpendicular and axial electric fields.
Regarding claim 3, Saito teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of motional modes comprises a highest motional mode of a plurality of available motional modes associated with the ion chain, a middle motional mode of the plurality of available motional modes, and one of three lower motional modes of the plurality of available motional modes (Fig. 3).
The specification of the present disclosure explains “The vibration frequencies of the motional modes may depend on the spacings between the ions of the ion chain 122, the presence of light and/or electric fields, and/or other factors.” The motional mode of an ion is a product of the electric field which it is in. As shown in Fig. 3 of Saito, various electric fields were applied to the trapped ion. Therefore, Saito inherently teaches a highest motional mode, a middle motional mode, and a lower motional mode.
Regarding claim 4, Saito teaches the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the plurality of frequency shifts comprises identifying the plurality of frequency shifts each corresponding to a motional mode of the plurality of motional modes in response to a change in an electric field of the plurality of electric fields (Fig. 3).
Figure 3 of Saito shows ion displacement as a function of electric field applied to the trap where “stray electric field is detectable by measuring the ion displacement due to the two different trap frequencies.”
Regarding claim 5, Saito fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 4, wherein the electric field is in a direction along the ion chain or perpendicular to the ion chain.
However, Seidelin teaches wherein the electric field is in a direction along the ion chain or perpendicular to the ion chain (Fig. 1b above).
The specifications of the present disclosure explain “Such chains of ions may be trapped on a surface ion-trap using transverse (perpendicular to the chain) and axial (along the chain) electrical confinement by applying voltages to arrays of electrodes that generate the electric fields of the ion trap.” Seidelin teaches using an array of 2D electrodes on a surface trap to generate the electric fields of the ion trap. Therefore, Seidelin teaches perpendicular and axial electric fields.
Regarding claim 6, Saito teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the compensating electric field has a compensating orientation opposite of the orientation of the stray electric field and a compensating intensity identical to the intensity of the stray electric field (The ion displacement is proportional to the stray electric field; thus, the ion displacement becomes zero when the stray electric field is reduced by applying another external electric field for compensation (section II, para. [0008])).
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, in view of Seidelin, and in further view of Shantanu Debnath (US 10622978 B1), hereinafter referred to as Debnath.
Regarding claim 7, Saito fails to teach a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein that, when executed by a processor of quantum information processing (QIP) system, cause the processor to: apply a plurality of electric fields to an ion chain on a surface trap; identify a plurality of motional modes associated with the ion chain; identify a plurality of frequency shifts each corresponding to a motional mode of the plurality of motional modes in response to each electric field of the plurality of electric fields; detect one or more unintended frequency shifts caused by a stray electric field; identify an orientation and an intensity of the stray electric field based on comparing the one or more unintended frequency shifts to at least a portion of the plurality of frequency shifts; and apply a compensating electric field based on the orientation and the intensity of the stray electric field.
However, Debnath teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein that, are executed by a processor of quantum information processing (QIP) system (The CPU 120, the ROM 122, the RAM 124, and the storage unit 126 are interconnected via a bus 128. The RF controller 118 executes a control program which is stored in the ROM 122 or the storage unit 126 and uses the RAM 124 as a working area. The control program will include software applications that include program code that may be executed by processor in order to perform various functionalities associated with receiving and analyzing data and controlling any and all aspects of the methods and hardware used to create the ion trap quantum computer system 100 discussed herein (col. 4, lines 45-55)).
Further, Saito teaches the method of applying a plurality of electric fields to an ion (In our proposed micromotion minimization method, we trapped the ion in several radial trap confinement conditions by changing the RF power applied to the helical resonator (section III, para [0003])) on a surface trap (Therefore, this technique is suitable for various ion trap architectures, including planar traps (section I, para. [0004]));
Further, Saito teaches applying a plurality of electric fields to an ion (In our proposed micromotion minimization method, we trapped the ion in several radial trap confinement conditions by changing the RF power applied to the helical resonator (section III, para [0003])) on a surface trap (Therefore, this technique is suitable for various ion trap architectures, including planar traps (section I, para. [0004]))
identifying a plurality of motional modes associated with the ion (We deliberately applied modulation voltage superposing to the GND A or END electrode and excited the secular ion motion to independently measure the trap frequency (section III, para [0003]));
identifying a plurality of frequency shifts each corresponding to a motional mode of the plurality of motional modes in response to each electric field of the plurality of electric fields ([t]his ion displacement was induced by varying the radial trap frequency with a finite stray electric field condition. Therefore, we realized a change in the trap frequency by tuning the RF power applied to the RF electrodes (section IV, subsection B, para. [0002]));
detecting one or more unintended frequency shifts caused by the stray electric field (The strength of the stray electric field can be evaluated from the measurement of the ion displacement due to two different radial confinements (Introduction, para. [0003])) (The ion displacement measurement with RF power variation is shown in Fig. 3(a) (section IV, subsection B, para. [0003]));
identifying an orientation and an intensity of the stray electric field based on comparing the one or more unintended frequency shifts to at least a portion of the plurality of frequency shifts; and applying a compensating electric field based on the orientation and the intensity of the stray electric field.
PNG
media_image1.png
256
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Saito fails to teach the method performed on an ion chain on a surface trap.
However, Seidelin teaches an ion chain on a surface trap (Fig. 1b above).
Further Seidelin teaches the issue of stray electric fields on the electrodes (We believe the primary cause for the disagreement is due to the presence of additional stray static potentials on the electrodes (para. [0013])).
To be clear, Saito teaches the method of compensating for stray electric field on an ion in a linear Paul trap. Saito further explains “[t]herefore, this technique is suitable for various ion trap architectures, including planar traps.” Seidelin teaches the use of a surface trap to trap an ion chain and further identifies the issue of stray electric fields on the surface trap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Saito, to include the teachings of Seidelin by substituting the linear Paul trap of Saito with the surface trap taught by Seidelin. Doing so is a matter of simple substitution to obtain the predictable result of correcting for the stray electric field in an ion chain.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Saito to include the teachings of Debnath by incorporating a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein that, when executed by a processor of quantum information processing (QIP) system, cause the processor to perform the method taught by Saito. Doing so is more efficient than human driven processes and removes human error.
Regarding claim 8, Saito fails to teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 7, wherein the instructions for applying plurality of electric fields comprises instructions for applying a first electric field in a first direction along the ion chain and a second electric field in a second direction perpendicular to the surface trap.
However, Seidelin teaches wherein the instructions for applying plurality of electric fields comprises instructions for applying a first electric field in a first direction along the ion chain and a second electric field in a second direction perpendicular to the surface trap (Fig. 1b above).
The specifications of the present disclosure explain “Such chains of ions may be trapped on a surface ion-trap using transverse (perpendicular to the chain) and axial (along the chain) electrical confinement by applying voltages to arrays of electrodes that generate the electric fields of the ion trap.” Seidelin teaches using an array 2D electrodes on a surface trap to generate the electric fields of the ion trap. Therefore, Seidelin teaches applying perpendicular and axial electric fields to an ion chain on a surface trap.
Regarding claim 9, Saito teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 7, wherein the plurality of motional modes comprises a highest motional mode of a plurality of available motional modes associated with the ion chain, a middle motional mode of the plurality of available motional modes, and one of three lower motional modes of the plurality of available motional modes (Fig. 3).
The specification of the present disclosure explains “The vibration frequencies of the motional modes may depend on the spacings between the ions of the ion chain 122, the presence of light and/or electric fields, and/or other factors.” The motional mode of an ion is a product of the electric field which it is in. As shown in Fig. 3 of Saito, various electric fields were applied to the trapped ion. Therefore, Saito inherently teaches a highest motional mode, a middle motional mode, and a lower motional mode.
Regarding claim 10, Saito teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 7, wherein the instructions for identifying the plurality of frequency shifts comprises instructions for identifying the plurality of frequency shifts each corresponding to a motional mode of the plurality of motional modes in response to a change in an electric field of the plurality of electric fields (Fig. 3).
Figure 3 of Saito shows ion displacement as a function of electric field applied to the trap where “stray electric field is detectable by measuring the ion displacement due to the two different trap frequencies.”
Regarding claim 11, Saito fails to teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 7, wherein the electric field is in a direction along the ion chain or perpendicular to the ion chain.
However, Seidelin teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 7, wherein the electric field is in a direction along the ion chain or perpendicular to the ion chain (Fig. 1b above).
The specifications of the present disclosure explain “Such chains of ions may be trapped on a surface ion-trap using transverse (perpendicular to the chain) and axial (along the chain) electrical confinement by applying voltages to arrays of electrodes that generate the electric fields of the ion trap.” Seidelin teaches using a 2D array of electrodes on a surface trap to generate the electric fields of the ion trap. Therefore, Seidelin teaches perpendicular and axial electric fields.
Regarding claim 12, Saito teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 7, wherein the compensating electric field has a compensating orientation opposite of the orientation of the stray electric field and a compensating intensity identical to the intensity of the stray electric field (Minimization of micromotion is carried out by applying DC voltage to the GND A and Comp electrodes to cancel out the stray electric field (GND B electrode is connected to laboratory ground) (section II, para. [0008])).
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Debnath.
Regarding claim 13, Saito teaches a quantum information processing (QIP) system, comprising: one or more electrodes configured to: apply a plurality of electric fields to an ion chain on a surface trap, and apply a compensating electric field based on an orientation and an intensity of a stray electric field (Comp electrodes to cancel out the stray electric field (Fig. 1 caption));
To be clear, all electrodes are configured for the application of an electric field. The ion chain and surface trap are not positively claimed.
an optical and trap controller configured to detect one or more unintended frequency shifts caused by the stray electric field (To detect and minimize micromotion, we scanned the compensation voltage two-dimensionally and measured the ion displacement (section B, para. [0001]));
Saito fails to teach and one or more processors configured to: identify a plurality of motional modes associated with the ion chain, identify a plurality of frequency shifts each corresponding to a motional mode of the plurality of motional modes in response to each electric field of the plurality of electric fields, and identify the orientation and the intensity of the stray electric field based on comparing the one or more unintended frequency shifts to at least a portion of the plurality of frequency shifts.
However, Debnath teaches a quantum information processing system ((QIP) system (The CPU 120, the ROM 122, the RAM 124, and the storage unit 126 are interconnected via a bus 128. The RF controller 118 executes a control program which is stored in the ROM 122 or the storage unit 126 and uses the RAM 124 as a working area. The control program will include software applications that include program code that may be executed by processor in order to perform various functionalities associated with receiving and analyzing data and controlling any and all aspects of the methods and hardware used to create the ion trap quantum computer system 100 discussed herein (col. 4, lines 45-55)).
Further, Saito teaches identifying a plurality of motional modes associated with the ion (In our proposed micromotion minimization method, we trapped the ion in several radial trap confinement conditions by changing the RF power applied to the helical resonator (section III, para [0003])),
identifying a plurality of frequency shifts each corresponding to a motional mode of the plurality of motional modes in response to each electric field of the plurality of electric fields ([t]his ion displacement was induced by varying the radial trap frequency with a finite stray electric field condition. Therefore, we realized a change in the trap frequency by tuning the RF power applied to the RF electrodes (section IV, subsection B, para. [0002])),
and identifying the orientation and the intensity of the stray electric field based on comparing the one or more unintended frequency shifts to at least a portion of the plurality of frequency shifts.
PNG
media_image1.png
256
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Saito to include the teachings of Debnath by incorporating the method taught by Saito on a processor. Doing so is more efficient than human driven processes and removes human error.
Regarding claim 14, The QIP system of claim 13, wherein the one or more electrodes are further configured to apply a first electric field in a first direction along the ion chain and a second electric field in a second direction perpendicular to the surface trap (Minimization of micromotion is carried out by applying DC voltage to the GND A and Comp electrodes to cancel out the stray electric field (GND B electrode is connected to laboratory ground) (Fig. 1 caption)).
Any electrode is configured for the application of electric fields in 2 dimensions.
Regarding claim 15, Saito teaches the QIP system of claim 13, wherein the plurality of motional modes comprises a highest motional mode of a plurality of available motional modes associated with the ion chain, a middle motional mode of the plurality of available motional modes, and one of three lower motional modes of the plurality of available motional modes (Fig. 3).
The specification of the present disclosure explains “The vibration frequencies of the motional modes may depend on the spacings between the ions of the ion chain 122, the presence of light and/or electric fields, and/or other factors.” The motional mode of an ion is a product of the electric field which it is in. As shown in Fig. 3 of Saito, various electric fields were applied to the trapped ion. Therefore, Saito inherently teaches a highest motional mode, a middle motional mode, and a lower motional mode.
Regarding claim 16, Saito fails to teach the QIP system of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify the plurality of frequency shifts each corresponding to a motional mode of the plurality of motional modes in response to a change in an electric of the plurality of electric fields.
However, Debnath teaches the QIP system of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify the plurality of frequency shifts each corresponding to a motional mode ((QIP) system (The CPU 120, the ROM 122, the RAM 124, and the storage unit 126 are interconnected via a bus 128. The RF controller 118 executes a control program which is stored in the ROM 122 or the storage unit 126 and uses the RAM 124 as a working area. The control program will include software applications that include program code that may be executed by processor in order to perform various functionalities associated with receiving and analyzing data and controlling any and all aspects of the methods and hardware used to create the ion trap quantum computer system 100 discussed herein (col. 4, lines 45-55))) (FIG. 17 shows an example of the simulated frequency shifts of the motional mode frequencies of all 13 transverse motional modes in a chain 102 of 13 trapped ions subject to a stray electric field (col. 16, lines 37-40)).
Further, Saito teaches the method of identifying the plurality of frequency shifts each corresponding to a motional mode of the plurality of motional modes in response to a change in an electric of the plurality of electric fields (Fig. 3).
Figure 3 of Saito shows ion displacement as a function of electric field applied to the trap where “stray electric field is detectable by measuring the ion displacement due to the two different trap frequencies.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Saito to include the teachings of Debnath by implementing the method of Saito on a processor. Doing so improves efficiency and eliminates human error.
Regarding claim 17, Saito fails to explicitly teach the QIP system of claim 16, wherein the electric field is in a direction along the ion chain or perpendicular to the ion chain (Fig. 1, Comp electrodes).
Electrodes are 2 dimensional, and therefore configured to apply an electric field in 2 dimensions. Further, the ion chain is not positively claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Saito teaches the QIP system of claim 13, wherein the compensating electric field has a compensating orientation opposite of the orientation of the stray electric field and a compensating intensity identical to the intensity of the stray electric field (The ion displacement is proportional to the stray electric field; thus, the ion displacement becomes zero when the stray electric field is reduced by applying another external electric field for compensation (section II, para. [0008])).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights