DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
This is first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 4/25/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-39 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 9/16/2024, 9/19/2024, 7/22/2025, and 10/23/2025 is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 13 and 26-27 are objected because of capital letters within body of claims, as in “C1 through C6 as defined in the specification in Table I”. Capital letter should only be used for first letter of claim or abbreviation. Also the definition should be recited in the claims, not quoting the specification.
In claim 14, line 6, “in the array radiation” should read --in an array radiation--.
In claim 20, line 5, “two- qubit” should read --two-qubit--.
Claims 15-26 and 28-37 are further objected due to their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-23, 25-35, and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam (US 20220101169 A1) in view of Monroe (US 20230196158 A1 along with US 63283780 20211129).
Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 38, Nam teaches A method for quantum computing, comprising (Nam: Abstract): A system for quantum computing, comprising (Nam: Abstract): A method for quantum computing, comprising (Nam: Abstract):
providing an array of qubits having an internal transition frequency from a ground state to an excited state (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0029-0030, 0038 teach(es) FIG. 4 depicts a schematic energy diagram of each ion in the chain of trapped ions according to one embodiment. Each ion in the chain of trapped ions is an ion having a nuclear spin I and an electron spin S such that a difference between the nuclear spin I and the electron spin S is zero; a laser beam from the laser may be split into a pair of non-copropagating laser beams (a first laser beam with frequency ω1 and a second laser beam with frequency ω2) in the Raman configuration, and detuned by a one-photon transition detuning frequency Δ=ω1−ω0e with respect to the transition frequency ω0e between |0> and |e>, as illustrated in FIG. 4);
initializing a two-qubit gate, comprising two of the qubits in the array, to a first state (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0084 teach(es) an array of single-qubit unitaries with the size of Nq is created and initialized to identities); and
switching the two-qubit gate by applying, for a time sufficient to drive the two-qubit gate to a second state, radiation comprising simultaneously (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0024 teach(es) A diffractive beam splitter creates an array of static Raman beams that are individually switched using a multi-channel acousto-optic modulator (AOM) and is configured to selectively act on individual ions. A global Raman laser beam illuminates ions at once):
first upper and lower spectral components, having a first amplitude, in upper and lower … sidebands, respectively, of the internal transition frequency; and second upper and lower spectral components, having a second amplitude with a magnitude that is at least 10% of the first amplitude, in upper and lower … sidebands, respectively, of the internal transition frequency (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0030, 0033-0035 teach(es) An individual qubit state of each trapped ion may be manipulated by, for example, a mode-locked laser at 355 nanometers (nm) via the excited 2P1/2 level (denoted as |e>); When the one-photon transition detuning frequency Δ is much larger than a two-photon transition detuning frequency (also referred to simply as “detuning frequency”) δ=ω1−ω2−ω01 (hereinafter denoted as ±μ, μ being a positive value), single-photon Rabi frequencies Ω0e(t) and Ω1e(t) (which are time-dependent, and are determined by amplitudes and phases of the first and second laser beams); A π/2-pulse on the blue sideband applied to a qubit transforms the combined qubit-motional state |0>|nph>p into a superposition of |0>|nph>p and |1>|nph+1>p. A π/2-pulse on the red sideband applied to a qubit transforms the combined qubit-motional |0>|nph>p into a superposition of |0>|nph>p and |1>|nph-1>p).
However, Nam does not explicitly teach displacement sidebands and squeezing sidebands.
Monroe from same or similar field of endeavor teaches displacement sidebands and squeezing sidebands (Monroe: Paragraph(s) 0046, 0064, 0078 teach(es) time-dependent squeezing may act simultaneously on multiple motional modes of a trapped ion chain. The evolution of the ions spin and motional states creates a number of effective spin Hamiltonians and quantum gates for the system to use in various operations. At least some embodiments utilize these spin Hamiltonians and quantum gates to achieve multimode squeezing and displacement forces to demonstrate particular applications).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nam to incorporate the teachings of Monroe for displacement sidebands and squeezing sidebands.
There is motivation to combine Monroe into Nam because Monroe’s teachings of displacement sidebands and squeezing sidebands would facilitate quantum computing applications (Monroe: Paragraph(s) 0046, 0064, 0078).
Regarding Claim 27, Nam teaches A method for quantum computing, comprising (Nam: Abstract):
providing an array of qubits having an internal transition frequency from a ground state to an excited state (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0029-0030, 0038 teach(es) FIG. 4 depicts a schematic energy diagram of each ion in the chain of trapped ions according to one embodiment. Each ion in the chain of trapped ions is an ion having a nuclear spin I and an electron spin S such that a difference between the nuclear spin I and the electron spin S is zero; a laser beam from the laser may be split into a pair of non-copropagating laser beams (a first laser beam with frequency ω1 and a second laser beam with frequency ω2) in the Raman configuration, and detuned by a one-photon transition detuning frequency Δ=ω1−ω0e with respect to the transition frequency ω0e between |0> and |e>, as illustrated in FIG. 4);
initializing a two-qubit gate, comprising two of the qubits in the array, to a first state (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0084 teach(es) an array of single-qubit unitaries with the size of Nq is created and initialized to identities); and
switching the two-qubit gate by applying, for a time sufficient to drive the two-qubit gate to a second state, radiation comprising simultaneously (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0024 teach(es) A diffractive beam splitter creates an array of static Raman beams that are individually switched using a multi-channel acousto-optic modulator (AOM) and is configured to selectively act on individual ions. A global Raman laser beam illuminates ions at once):
first spectral components w1 (t) in upper and lower … sidebands of the internal transition frequency; and second spectral components w2 (t) in upper and lower … sidebands, respectively, of the internal transition frequency (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0030, 0033-0035 teach(es) An individual qubit state of each trapped ion may be manipulated by, for example, a mode-locked laser at 355 nanometers (nm) via the excited 2P1/2 level (denoted as |e>); When the one-photon transition detuning frequency Δ is much larger than a two-photon transition detuning frequency (also referred to simply as “detuning frequency”) δ=ω1−ω2−ω01 (hereinafter denoted as ±μ, μ being a positive value), single-photon Rabi frequencies Ω0e(t) and Ω1e(t) (which are time-dependent, and are determined by amplitudes and phases of the first and second laser beams); A π/2-pulse on the blue sideband applied to a qubit transforms the combined qubit-motional state |0>|nph>p into a superposition of |0>|nph>p and |1>|nph+1>p. A π/2-pulse on the red sideband applied to a qubit transforms the combined qubit-motional |0>|nph>p into a superposition of |0>|nph>p and |1>|nph-1>p),
wherein the first and second spectral components have respective frequencies and amplitudes satisfying constraints C1 through C6 as defined in the specification in Table I (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0030 teach(es) single-photon Rabi frequencies Ω0e(t) and Ω1e(t) (which are time-dependent, and are determined by amplitudes and phases of the first and second laser beams)).
However, Nam does not explicitly teach displacement sidebands and squeezing sidebands.
Monroe from same or similar field of endeavor teaches displacement sidebands and squeezing sidebands (Monroe: Paragraph(s) 0046, 0064, 0078 teach(es) time-dependent squeezing may act simultaneously on multiple motional modes of a trapped ion chain. The evolution of the ions spin and motional states creates a number of effective spin Hamiltonians and quantum gates for the system to use in various operations. At least some embodiments utilize these spin Hamiltonians and quantum gates to achieve multimode squeezing and displacement forces to demonstrate particular applications).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nam to incorporate the teachings of Monroe for displacement sidebands and squeezing sidebands.
There is motivation to combine Monroe into Nam because Monroe’s teachings of displacement sidebands and squeezing sidebands would facilitate quantum computing applications (Monroe: Paragraph(s) 0046, 0064, 0078).
Regarding Claims 2, 15, and 28, the combination of Nam and Monroe teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 14, and 27 above; and Nam further teaches wherein the first state is an unentangled state, and the second state has a target entanglement phase φ ≠ 0 (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0036-0037 teach(es) the Lamb-Dicke parameter that quantifies the coupling strength between the i-th ion and the p-th motional mode having the frequency ωp, Ψ(t) is an accumulated phase function (also referred to simply as a “phase function”) Ψ(t)=Ψ0+∫0 tμ(t′)dt′ of the pulse).
Regarding Claims 3, 16, and 30, the combination of Nam and Monroe teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 14, and 27 above; and Nam further teaches wherein the first upper and lower spectral components have first frequencies given by f1 = ω ± (V + nξ), and the second upper and lower spectral components have second frequencies given by f2 = ω ± (2V + mξ), wherein ω is the internal transition frequency, V is a phonon frequency of the array of qubits, ξ is a detuning frequency, and m and n are integers (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0030, 0033-0035, 0038 teach(es) a laser beam from the laser may be split into a pair of non-copropagating laser beams (a first laser beam with frequency ω1 and a second laser beam with frequency ω2) in the Raman configuration, and detuned by a one-photon transition detuning frequency Δ=ω1−ω0e with respect to the transition frequency ω0e between |0> and |e>, as illustrated in FIG. 4; When the one-photon transition detuning frequency Δ is much larger than a two-photon transition detuning frequency (also referred to simply as “detuning frequency”) δ=ω1−ω2−ω01 (hereinafter denoted as ±μ, μ being a positive value), single-photon Rabi frequencies Ω0e(t) and Ω1e(t) (which are time-dependent, and are determined by amplitudes and phases of the first and second laser beams); A π/2-pulse on the blue sideband applied to a qubit transforms the combined qubit-motional state |0>|nph>p into a superposition of |0>|nph>p and |1>|nph+1>p. A π/2-pulse on the red sideband applied to a qubit transforms the combined qubit-motional |0>|nph>p into a superposition of |0>|nph>p and |1>|nph-1>p).
Regarding Claims 4, 17, and 31, the combination of Nam and Monroe teaches all the limitations of claims 3, 16, and 27 above; and Nam further teaches wherein applying the radiation comprises applying multiple first upper and lower spectral components having different, respective values of n and multiple second upper and lower spectral components having different, respective values of m (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0030, 0033-0035, 0038, as stated above with respect to claims 3, 16, 30).
Regarding Claims 5, 18, and 32, the combination of Nam and Monroe teaches all the limitations of claims 4, 17, and 31 above; and Nam further teaches wherein the multiple first upper and lower spectral components and multiple second upper and lower spectral components have different respective amplitudes, including at least one positive amplitude and at least one negative amplitude (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0030, 0033-0035, 0038, as stated above with respect to claims 3, 16, 30).
Regarding Claims 6 and 19, the combination of Nam and Monroe teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above; and Nam further teaches wherein the magnitude of the second amplitude is at least 50% of the first amplitude (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0030, 0032 teach(es) adjusting time duration and amplitudes of the composite pulse).
Regarding Claims 7 and 20, the combination of Nam and Monroe teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above; and Nam further teaches wherein applying the radiation comprises choosing the first and second upper and lower spectral components and the first and second amplitudes so as to increase a fidelity of the two-qubit gate under deviations in a Rabi frequency of the radiation (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0030 teach(es) single-photon Rabi frequencies Ω0e(t) and Ω1e(t) (which are time-dependent, and are determined by amplitudes and phases of the first and second laser beams)).
Regarding Claims 8, 21, and 33, the combination of Nam and Monroe teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 14, and 27 above; and Nam further teaches wherein applying the radiation comprises choosing the first and second upper and lower spectral components and the first and second amplitudes SO as to increase a fidelity of the two-qubit gate under deviations in a duration of application of the radiation relative to a switching time of the two-qubit gate (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0032, 0036, 0053-0054 teach(es) adjusting time duration and amplitudes of the composite pulse).
Regarding Claims 9, 22, and 34, the combination of Nam and Monroe teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 14, and 27 above; and Nam further teaches wherein providing the array of qubits comprises trapping an array of ions in an ion trap, wherein the two-qubit gate comprises two of the ions in the array (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0022, 0027, 0038).
Regarding Claims 10, 23, and 35, the combination of Nam and Monroe teaches all the limitations of claims 9, 22, and 34 above; and Nam further teaches wherein the internal transition frequency is an electronic transition frequency, and wherein applying the radiation comprises applying laser radiation (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0020, 0030).
Regarding Claims 12, 25, and 37, the combination of Nam and Monroe teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 14, and 27 above; and Nam further teaches wherein applying the radiation comprises choosing the first and second upper and lower spectral components and the first and second amplitudes so as to increase a fidelity of the two-qubit gate under deviations in a phonon frequency and temperature of the array of qubits (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0033, 0035, 0040 teach(es) two-qubit states that are entangled with a motional mode having a different number of phonon excitations; In the ion trap quantum computer, or system, there can be fluctuations in the frequencies ωp of the motional modes due to stray electric fields, build-up charges in the ion trap caused by photoionization or temperature fluctuations).
Regarding Claims 13 and 26, the combination of Nam and Monroe teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above; and Nam further teaches wherein applying the radiation comprises choosing the first upper and lower spectral components and the second upper and lower spectral components to satisfy constraints C1 through C6 as defined in the specification in Table 1 (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0032-0033, 0037, 0039, 0054-0056 teach(es) FIGS. 6A and 6B schematically depict views of a motional sideband spectrum for an ion in the chain in a motional mode |nph>p having frequency ωp according to one embodiment; phase function).
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Nam and Monroe teaches all the limitations of claim 28 above; and Nam further teaches wherein the target entanglement phase is φ = - π/2 for full entanglement (Nam: Paragraph(s) 0096, 0100 teach(es) ZZ(±π/2)).
Claim(s) 11, 24, 36, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Monroe, as applied to claims 1, 14, and 27 above, and in further view of Monroe (US 20190205784 A1; hereinafter Monroe’784) .
Regarding Claims 11, 24, and 36, the combination of Nam and Monroe teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 14, and 27 and the first upper and lower spectral components and the second upper and lower spectral components above; however the combination does not explicitly teach phase-coherent.
Monroe’784 from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the first upper and lower spectral components and the second upper and lower spectral components are all phase-coherent (Monroe’784: Paragraph(s) 0075 teach(es) generating the Raman beams from a single optical frequency comb and/or resulting from modulating an optical source, or from multiple phase-coherent sources phased locked).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Nam and Monroe to incorporate the teachings of Monroe’784 for phase-coherent.
There is motivation to combine Monroe’784 into the combination of Nam and Monroe because Monroe’784’s teachings of phase-coherent sources would facilitate configuring the optical beams to be Raman beams (Monroe’784: Paragraph(s) 0075).
Regarding Claim 39, the combination of Nam and Monroe teaches all the limitations of claim 38 and wherein applying the radiation comprises choosing the first and second upper and lower spectral components and the first and second amplitudes above; however the combination does not explicitly teach so as to increase a fidelity of the multi-qubit gate under deviations in an operating parameter of the multi-qubit gate.
Monroe’784 from same or similar field of endeavor teaches so as to increase a fidelity of the multi-qubit gate under deviations in an operating parameter of the multi-qubit gate (Monroe’784: Paragraph(s) 0032, 0035, 0049-0050, 0029 teach(es) For coherent transitions between qubit levels, there can be single qubit rotation operations and entangling multi-qubit operations).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Nam and Monroe to incorporate the teachings of Monroe’784 for so as to increase a fidelity of the multi-qubit gate under deviations in an operating parameter of the multi-qubit gate.
There is motivation to combine Monroe’784 into the combination of Nam and Monroe because Monroe’784’s teachings of multi-qubit gate would facilitate entangling multi-qubit operations (Monroe’784: Paragraph(s) 0032, 0035, 0049-0050, 0029).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (US 20220172095 A1) teaches Motional Mode Configuration For Implementation Of Entangling Gates In Ion Trap Quantum Computers, including deviation and fidelity.
Sutherland (US 20210116784 A1) teaches Trapped-Ion Entangling Gates With Bichromatic Pair Of Microwave Fields And Magnetic Field Gradient, including blue/red sideband, multi-qubit, displacement, phase pi/2, detuning, multiple blue and red sideband pairs, and deviation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAY LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm 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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571)270-1492. 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.
/CLAY C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights