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 .
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 8 and 9 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.
The phrase “the OAD” recited in claims 8 and 9 is confusing and indefinite since it lacks proper antecedent basis from their respective base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Duan et al (US 2022/0222566 A1) in view of the patent issued to Saffman (PN. 11,488,052).
Duan et al teaches, with regard to claims 1 and 10, a method for individually address qubits in a set of qubits. Duan et al teaches that the plurality of qubits, which may have N qubits with regard to claim 10, that each have two internal states that a transition between the two internal states of each qubit causes a two-photon Raman transition, (please see Figure 9). Duan et al teaches that the method comprises addressing a first selected one of the plurality of qubits by applying a pair, including a first and second laser beams, (please see Figures 7 and 8 and paragraph [0018]) to the first selected qubit the first and second laser beams having frequency difference equals to qubit transition frequency that represents a difference in frequency between the two internal states of the qubit, (please see paragraph [0085]).
Duan et al teaches that a number of emergent laser beam pairs may be generated which means a second selected one of the plurality of qubits may be addressed by a second pair including a third and fourth laser beams to the second selected qubit, such that the third and fourth laser beams having frequency difference equals to qubit transition frequency that represents a difference in frequency between the two internal states of the qubit, (please see paragraph [0085]).
Duan et al teaches that a number of such as N of (with regard to claim 10) emergent laser beam pairs may be generated which means a second selected one of the plurality of qubits may be addressed by a second pair including a third and fourth laser beams to the second selected qubit, such that the third and fourth laser beams having frequency difference equals to qubit transition frequency that represents a difference in frequency between the two internal states of the qubit, (please see paragraph [0085]).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. Duan et al teaches that a number of emergent laser beam pairs that each beam pair addresses a qubit of a plurality of qubits. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the first, second, third and fourth laser beams each have a frequency that is different from one another.
With regard to claim 10, Duan et al teaches the method to address individually one of a plurality of qubits which means to address each of N ones of the qubits. N being an integer greater than or equal to two, just as explicitly stated above to have two different pairs of the laser beams.
Saffman in the same field of endeavor teaches a method for addressing qubits wherein a first pair of laser beams used to address a first selected qubit (A1, Figure 1) and a second pair of laser beams used to address a second selected qubit (A5) wherein the frequency for first and second laser beams of the first pair and the frequency for the third and fourth laser beams of the second pair are all different from each other, (please see Figure 1). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Saffman to modify the laser beam pairs for addressing the first and second qubits respectively of Duan et al to have different frequency from each other, to ensure the individual first and second qubits being addressed individually.
Duan et al also teaches that the qubits are for quantum computer (please see paragraph [0003]) this means that the internal states of the qubits are representing a unit of quantum information.
With regard to claim 2, both Duan et al and Saffman teaches that the qubits in the plurality of qubits are from trapped ions qubits, (please see paragraph [0004] for Duan et al and column 2, lines 1-3 of Saffman).
With regard to claim 5, both Duan et al and Saffman teach comprising directing a laser beam to an acousto-optic deflector (AOD, Figure 10 of Duan et al and AOD, Figure 1 of Saffman) and controlling the AOD to split the laser beam into at least four laser beams that represent the first, second, third and fourth laser beams.
With regard to claim 6, Saffman teaches that the applying first and second beams to the first selected qubit further comprises selectively directing the first, second, third and fourth beams from the AOD to an imaging optics (lens 116, please see Figure 1) and focus the first and second laser beams onto the first selected qubit (A1, Figure 1) and the third and fourth laser beams onto the second selected qubit (A5).
With regard to claim 7, both Duan et al and Saffman teach to include an objective lens (please see convex lens, Figure 10 of Duan et al and 116, Figure 1 of Saffman) as the imaging optics. But these references do not teach explicitly to include a beam expander. However one skilled in the art has the basic knowledge that beam width may be expanded by using an expander, it would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the arrangement to include an expander for the benefit of allowing the beam width of the laser beams be controlled and adjusted.
With regard to claim 8, both Duan et al and Saffman teach that the controlling the AOD would be able to selectively adjust the amplitude, phase and/or frequency of the first, second, third and fourth laser beams.
With regard to claim 9, Duan et al teaches to include a radio frequency driver, (please see Figure 7) to control the frequency.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al and Saffman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Monroe et al (US 2019/02005784 A1).
The method for addressing qubits in a set of qubits taught by Duan et al in combination with the teachings of Saffman as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 3 and 4, both Duan et al and Saffman teaches that the qubits are from trapped ions (please see paragraph [0004] for Duan et al and column 2, lines 1-3 of Saffman). These references however do not teach that the plurality of qubits comprises a linear chain of trapped ions that is selected from the claimed isotopes. Monroe et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of optical controlling atomic qubits wherein the qubits are from linear chain of trapped ions, (please see Figure 1A) that the trapped ions are from Ytterbium isotope, (Yb, please see paragraphs [0026] and [0027]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Monroe et al to make the plurality of qubits comprises linear chain of trapped ions including Ytterbium isotope since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Duan et al (US 2022/0222566 A1) in view of the US patent issued to Saffman (PN. 11,488,052).
Duan et al teaches, with regard to claim 11, an addressing system that serves as the quantum state controller for individually addressing qubits in a set of qubits that is comprised of a quantum system that includes a plurality of qubits that each have two internal states wherein a transition between two internal states of each qubit being caused by a two-photons Raman transition, (please Figure 9 and 10 and paragraph [0085]). The addressing system further comprises one or more acousto-optic deflectors (AODs, please see Figure 10) configured to receive at least one laser beam, (please see Figure 8), split each of the laser beams into a number of, which may be at least two, pairs of laser beams. The laser beams in each pair having a frequency difference equal to a qubit transition frequency that represents a difference in frequency between the two internal states of the qubits, (please see the abstract and paragraph [0085]).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It is implicitly true that the pairs of the laser beams should be directed to the selected one of the qubit.
Saffman in the same field of endeavor teaches an acousto-optic quantum array addressing system that is comprises one or more AOD, (111, 112, Figure 1) to split each of laser beams into at least two pairs of laser beams, and selectively direct each of the laser beam pairs in a direction that causes each of the laser beam pairs to be directed onto a selected one of the qubits, (array 102, please see Figure 1). Saffman further teaches to include an imaging optics (lens 116) configured to receive the pairs of laser beams from the one or more AODs and respectively direct the pairs of laser beams onto the selected ones of the qubits and an address (133) serves as the electronic controller configured to control operation of the one or more AODs such that the laser beam pairs are respectively directed onto the selected ones of the qubits.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Saffman to modify the addressing system of Duan et al for the benefit of providing explicitly arrangement to direct the pairs of the laser beams to the selected one of the qubits.
With regard to claim 12, Duan et al teaches the addressing system comprises a first and second addressing units, (please see Figure 7). Saffman teaches that the one or more AODs comprises a first and second AODs, (111 and 112, Figure 1) each providing one of the laser beams in each of the pairs of laser beams, (please see Figure 1).
With regard to claim 14, both Duan et al and Saffman teaches that the qubits in the plurality of qubits are from trapped ions qubits, (please see paragraph [0004] for Duan et al and column 2, lines 1-3 of Saffman).
With regard to claim 17, both Duan et al and Saffman teach to include an objective lens (please see convex lens, Figure 10 of Duan et al and 116, Figure 1 of Saffman) as the imaging optics. But these references do not teach explicitly to include a beam expander. However one skilled in the art has the basic knowledge that beam width may be expanded by using an expander, it would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the arrangement to include an expander for the benefit of allowing the beam width of the laser beams be controlled and adjusted.
With regard to claim 18, both Duan et al and Saffman teach that the controlling the AOD would be able to selectively adjust the amplitude, phase and/or frequency of the first, second, third and fourth laser beams.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al and Saffman as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Duan et al (US 2020/0301241 A1).
The addressing system taught by Duan et al in combination with the teachings of Saffman as described in claim 11 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 13, these references teach that one or more AODs comprise two AODs but does not teach explicitly to alternatively include a single AOD. Duan et al (‘1241) in the same field of endeavor teaches an addressing system wherein a single AOD, (please see Figure 3) is used to generate the laser beams for the addressing a one dimensional qubit array. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Duan et al (‘1241) to modify the addressing system of Duan et al (‘2566) to use a single AOD to provide each laser beam in each of the pairs of the laser beams to address a one dimensional qubit array.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan et al and Saffman as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Monroe et al (US 2019/02005784 A1).
The addressing system for qubits in a set of qubits taught by Duan et al in combination with the teachings of Saffman as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 15 and 16, both Duan et al and Saffman teaches that the qubits are from trapped ions (please see paragraph [0004] for Duan et al and column 2, lines 1-3 of Saffman). These references however do not teach that the plurality of qubits comprises a linear chain of trapped ions that is selected from the claimed isotopes. Monroe et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of optical controlling atomic qubits wherein the qubits are from linear chain of trapped ions, (please see Figure 1A) that the trapped ions are from Ytterbium isotope, (Yb, please see paragraphs [0026] and [0027]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Monroe et al to make the plurality of qubits comprises linear chain of trapped ions including Ytterbium isotope since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights