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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first target particle one of the at least two particles”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“first optical delay” in claims 1 and 4 interpreted to be a first drive component (as interpreted under 112(f) below) and an optical path adjustment component (as interpreted under 112(f) below)
“first drive component” in claim 5 interpreted to be a voltage or current source
“optical path adjustment component” in claim 5 interpreted to be a galvanometer and a reflector, or a MEMS reflector, or a MEMS waveguide
“first optical branch” in claim 7 interpreted to be an acoustic-optical modulator and a polarizer
“second optical branch” in claims 7 and 13, interpreted to be an acoustic-optical modulator and a polarizer
“delay submodule” in claim 10 interpreted to be a first drive component (as interpreted under 112(f) above) and an optical path adjustment component (as interpreted under 112(f) above)
“first light beam recovery” in claims 11 and 12 interpreted to be a reflector, a diffraction grating, or a polarizing beam splitter
“second relative delay module” in claim 11 interpreted to be a first drive component (as interpreted under 112(f) above) and an optical path adjustment component (as interpreted under 112(f) above)
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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are also 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 1 recites “and a first optical delay configured to adjust a delay for the first light beam and the second light beam to reach a first target particle, wherein an adjusted first light beam and an adjusted second light beam overlap at the first target particle, and wherein the first target particle one of the at least two particles.” It is unclear if the adjusted first light beam and adjusted second light beam are a result of adjustment from the first optical delay. Therefore, it is unclear if the first and second light beams overlapping at the target particle is a function associated with the first optical delay. For the purposes of examination, the first and second light beams overlapping at the target particle will be interpreted to be a function of the first optical delay.
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, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall K. Morse (US 20180299745 A1), hereinafter referred to as Morse, in view of Yangchao Shen (WO 2020135086 A1), hereinafter referred to as Shen, and in further view of Niffenegger, Robert J., et al. "Integrated multi-wavelength control of an ion qubit." Nature 586.7830 (2020): 538-542., hereinafter referred to as Niffenegger.
Regarding claim 1, Morse teaches a particle trap system, comprising: a particle trap configured to trap at least two particles (ion trap 238),
a first optical splitter configured to split an input light beam into a first light beam and a second light beam (a first beamsplitter 1260)
and wherein the first target particle one of the at least two particles.
The first target particle is not positively claimed.
Morse does not explicitly teach wherein an adjusted first light beam and an adjusted second light beam overlap at the first target particle.
However, Morse explains the lasers can strike the atom trap perpendicular to one another (In still another example embodiment now described with reference to FIG. 15, a similar laser system 1230′ allows for the atom trap 1238′ to be illuminated from different angles. In the illustrated example, the light beams 1246′ and 1253′ strike the atom trap 1238′ at 90° to one another (i.e., they strike adjacent, orthogonal sides of the atom trap 1238′) (para. [0055])).
Further, Niffenegger teaches an adjusted first light beam and an adjusted second light beam overlap at the first target particle (Fig. 1 as annotated below) (Chief among these are the numerous free-space optical elements used to tightly focus and direct multiple laser beams of varied wavelength to the location of each ion (para. [0001])).
PNG
media_image1.png
595
792
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 have the first and second light beams overlap at the first target particle. The simultaneous illumination of an ion is used to perform qubit state preparation.
Morse fails to teach and a first optical delay configured to adjust a delay for the first light beam and the second light beam to reach a first target particle.
However, Shen teaches a first optical delay (as interpreted under 112f above) configured to adjust a delay for the first light beam and the second light beam to reach a first target particle (first MEMS mirrors 113a) (The first MEMS mirror 113a adjusts the angle of the first MEMS mirror 113a based on the received first control signal, changing the transmission direction of the corresponding first beam, so that when the first beam is transmitted to the corresponding ion 121, it is aligned with the ion 121 (para. [0186])).
To be clear a current or voltage source (first drive component) is inherent to first the control signal which adjusts the angle of the MEMS mirror.
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 Morse to include the teachings of Shen by incorporating the MEMS with a control signal, to adjust a delay for the first and second light beam. Doing so allows the direction of the beam to be adjusted for precise ion control and to correct for beam deviation.
Regarding claim 2, Morse fails to teach the system according to claim 1, wherein the particle trap system further comprises a light source configured to transmit the input light beam based on a first pulse width, wherein a first space distance corresponding to the first pulse width is less than a spacing between any two adjacent particles of the at least two particles in the particle trap.
However, Shen teaches wherein the particle trap system further comprises a light source configured to transmit the input light beam based on a first pulse width, wherein a first space distance corresponding to the first pulse width is less than a spacing between any two adjacent particles of the at least two particles in the particle trap (For any of the six examples above, the ion trap system may further add a laser 10, which may be either a laser outputting a continuous laser or a pulsed laser (para. [0226])).
Space distance (dL) = C × dt where dt represents the time interval between the two adjacent pulses. Shen explains “It can also be understood that the repetition frequency of the beam emitted by the laser can be determined by the length of the laser's cavity. For example, piezoelectric ceramics on the cavity of pulsed lasers. Piezoelectric ceramics can be used to control the position of the mirror inside the cavity to change the cavity length (para. [0227]).” The pulse spacing is the inverse of the pulse repetition rate. Therefore, Shen teaches a system where the space distance is adjustable. Further, the at least two particles are not positively claimed.
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 Morse to include the teachings of Shen by incorporating a pulsed laser with piezoelectric ceramics. As explained by Shen, “[b]y modulating the light intensity and repetition frequency of the first and second beams, stable quantum state manipulation can be achieved (para. [0031]).”
Regarding claim 3, Morse fails to teach the system according to claim 2, wherein a second space distance corresponding to a time interval at which two adjacent light beams are sent is greater than a spacing between any two of the at least two particles in the particle trap.
However, Shen teaches wherein a second space distance corresponding to a time interval at which two adjacent light beams are sent is greater than a spacing between any two of the at least two particles in the particle trap (For any of the six examples above, the ion trap system may further add a laser 10, which may be either a laser outputting a continuous laser or a pulsed laser (para. [0226])).
Shen teaches a system where the space distance is adjustable, as described in the rejection of claim 2 above. Further, the at least two particles are not positively claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Morse fails to teach the system according to claim 1, wherein the first optical delay is configured to change an optical path of the first light beam and/or an optical path of the second light beam.
However, Shen teaches wherein the first optical delay is configured to change an optical path of the first light beam (That is, one first MEMS mirror 113a can change the transmission direction of one first beam (para. [0150])) and/or an optical path of the second light beam.
Regarding claim 5, Morse fails to teach the system according to claim 1, wherein the first optical delay comprises: a first drive component configured to send a first drive signal to an optical path adjustment component based on a first control signal, the first control signal being determined based on a position of the first target particle; and the optical path adjustment component, which is configured to change, based on the first drive signal, an optical path of the first light beam and/or an optical path of the second light beam.
However, Shen teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the first optical delay comprises: a first drive component configured to send a first drive signal to an optical path adjustment component based on a first control signal, the first control signal being determined based on a position of the first target particle (The first MEMS mirror 113a adjusts the angle of the first MEMS mirror 113a based on the received first control signal, changing the transmission direction of the corresponding first beam, so that when the first beam is transmitted to the corresponding ion 121, it is aligned with the ion 121. In this way, N first beams can be aligned one-to-one with N ions 121 (para. [0186]));
and the optical path adjustment component, which is configured to change, based on the first drive signal, an optical path of the first light beam (That is, one first MEMS mirror 113a can change the transmission direction of one first beam (para. [0150])) and/or an optical path of the second light beam.
Regarding claim 6, Morse fails to teach the system according to claim 5, wherein the optical path adjustment component comprises: a galvanometer configured to: change the optical path of the first light beam and/or the optical path of the second light beam based on the first drive signal, and propagate the first light beam and/or the second light beam to a reflector; and the reflector, which is configured to reflect, to the first target particle, the first light beam and/or the second light beam.
However, Shen teaches wherein the optical path adjustment component comprises: a galvanometer configured to: change the optical path of the first light beam (That is, one first MEMS mirror 113a can change the transmission direction of one first beam (para. [0150])).
The specifications of the present disclosure recite “For example, the galvanometer may include but is not limited to a micro electro-mechanical system (MEMS) reflector, a MEMS waveguide, or the like.” Shen teaches MEMS reflector.
Regarding claim 10, Morse teaches the system according to claim 1, further comprising: a second optical splitter configured to split the second light beam into N third light beams, N being an integer greater than 1 (The laser source 131 may be similar to the laser source 31 described above. A diffractive/refractive beam splitter 142 divides the first laser light beam 141 into a plurality of second laser light beams 143 (para. [0030])) (Fig. 14 as annotated below),
PNG
media_image2.png
444
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Morse fails to teach wherein the first optical delay comprises N relative delay submodules, wherein each respective third light beam of the N third light beams corresponds to a respective relative delay submodule of the N relative delay submodules, and wherein each respective relative delay submodule is configured to change a delay amount for the first light beam and the respective third light beam to which it corresponds to reach the first target particle.
However, Shen teaches wherein the first optical delay comprises N relative delay submodules (first MEMS mirrors 113a), wherein each respective third light beam of the N third light beams corresponds to a respective relative delay submodule of the N relative delay submodules, and wherein each respective relative delay submodule is configured to change a delay amount for the first light beam and the respective third light beam (Fig. 4a as annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
532
733
media_image3.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 Morse to include the teachings of Shen by providing a relative delay with each N third light beam. Doing so allows the direction of each beam to be adjusted for precise ion control.
Further, Niffeneger teaches using “Six wavelengths are needed to load and control 88Sr+.” 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 Morse, in view of Shen, to include the teachings of Niffeneger by using the relative delay submodules to direct the N third light beams to the first target particle. Doing so allows for effecting loading and controlling of an ion in an electrode trap, as taught by Niffeneger.
Claims 7-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morse, in view of Shen and Niffenegger, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Jonathan King (US 20210272006 A1), hereinafter referred to as King.
Regarding claim 7, Morse teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein the particle trap system further comprises a first optical modulator configured to propagate, to the first target particle, the first light beam (a multi-channel AOM 132) and a second optical modulator configured to propagate, to the first target particle, the second light beam (a single channel AOM 258);
Morse fails to teach wherein the particle trap system further comprises a first optical branch and a second optical branch; the first optical branch being configured to propagate, to the first target particle, the first light beam; and the second optical branch being configured to propagate, to the first target particle, the second light beam because Morse fails to teach a first and second polarizer.
However, King teaches the use of polarizers for qubit control (The polarization through the 2D AODs is typically horizontal linear and vertical linear but can easily be transformed into right circular or left circular (para. [0229])) (Alternatively or in addition, two separate SLMs or AODs may be configured to each handle light with orthogonal polarizations. The light with orthogonal polarizations may be overlapped before the microscope objective. In such a scheme, each photon used in a two-photon transition described herein may be passed to the objective by a separate SLM or AOD, which may allow for increased polarization control (para. [0156])).
To be clear Morse teaches the use of optical modulators to propagate the first and second light beams. King teaches the use of AOD’s to polarize first and second light beams for qubit manipulation. 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 Morse to include the teachings of King by incorporating polarizing AOD’s along the paths of the first and second light beams such that the particle trap system further comprises a first optical branch and a second optical branch; the first optical branch being configured to propagate, to the first target particle, the first light beam; and the second optical branch being configured to propagate, to the first target particle, the second light beam. Doing so allows for enhanced manipulation of atomic states.
Regarding claim 8, Morse teaches the system according to claim 7, wherein the first optical branch comprises a first optical modulator configured to modulate a time sequence and/or a frequency of the first light beam (a multi-channel AOM 132); and/or the second optical branch comprises a second optical modulator configured to modulate a time sequence and/or a frequency of the second light beam.
Regarding claim 9, Morse fails to teach the system according to claim 8, wherein the first optical branch further comprises a first polarizer, and the second optical branch further comprises a second polarizer; and the first polarizer is configured to convert a polarization state of the first light beam into left hand circularly polarized light and the second polarizer is configured to convert a polarization state of the second light beam into right hand circularly polarized light; or the first polarizer is configured to convert a polarization state of the first light beam into right hand circularly polarized light and the second polarizer is configured to convert a polarization state of the second light beam into left hand circularly polarized light.
However, King teaches wherein the first optical branch further comprises a first polarizer, and the second optical branch further comprises a second polarizer; and the first polarizer is configured to convert a polarization state of the first light beam into left hand circularly polarized light and the second polarizer is configured to convert a polarization state of the second light beam into right hand circularly polarized light; or the first polarizer is configured to convert a polarization state of the first light beam into right hand circularly polarized light and the second polarizer is configured to convert a polarization state of the second light beam into left hand circularly polarized light. (The polarization through the 2D AODs is typically horizontal linear and vertical linear but can easily be transformed into right circular or left circular (para. [0229])) (Alternatively or in addition, two separate SLMs or AODs may be configured to each handle light with orthogonal polarizations. The light with orthogonal polarizations may be overlapped before the microscope objective. In such a scheme, each photon used in a two-photon transition described herein may be passed to the objective by a separate SLM or AOD, which may allow for increased polarization control (para. [0156])).
Regarding claim 14, Morse fails to teach the system according to claim 2, wherein the light source comprises a femtosecond pulse laser.
However, King teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein the light source comprises a femtosecond pulse laser (The lasers may emit pulsed laser light. The lasers may have a pulse length of at least about 1 femtoseconds (para. [0120])).
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 Morse to include the teachings of King by incorporating a femtosecond pulse laser. Femtosecond lasers are known in the art to provide precise qubit control.
Conclusion
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