DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. The effective filing date of the present application is 12/23/2021.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
3. Claim 10 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 10 and 14 are missing the conjunctive term in a list. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 5, 11, 12, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 11, 12, and 20 the phrase "such that" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “sufficiently large” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 14 recites “wherein at least one of a), b), c)” however, there is no listed element c) rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation exist.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the model” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saffman1.
8. With regards to claim 1 (similarly claim 19 and 20), Saffman disclosed limitations of,
wherein the quantum system comprises two or more neutral atoms, wherein each atom of the two or more neutral atoms is configured to transition between atomic states comprising: a first hyperfine ground state of the atom, a second hyperfine ground state of the atom, a Rydberg state and at least one intermediate excited state, wherein the quantum system further comprises an interaction between the Rydberg states of the two or more neutral atoms (Section II, §1; Figure 1 ), and wherein the method comprises:
generating a pulse sequence and providing the generated pulse sequence to the two or more neutral atoms to transition the atoms between said atomic states, wherein the pulse sequence takes into account at least part of the hyperfine structure of the at least one intermediate atomic state (Sections II and Ill).
9. With regards to claim 2, Saffman disclosed limitations of,
wherein the quantum gate operation corresponds to an evolution of the at least two neutral atoms between said atomic states (Section I, §§ 6 and 7; Sections II and Ill; Figures 1, 2and 5) and wherein the pulse sequence comprises at least one property based on a calculation or application of a model of the quantum system that includes an effect of at least one hyperfine component of the at least one intermediate state on said evolution (Section Ill, §1 ).
10. With regards to claim 3, Saffman disclosed limitations of,
wherein the at least one property comprises at least one of: a shape, size, amplitude, frequency or duration of the pulse (D1:Figures 6 and 7; Sections Ill-A and B).
11. With regards to claim 4, Saffman disclosed limitations of,
selecting and/or varying an operational parameter of a pulse generator thereby to generate said pulse sequence having said at least one property.
12. With regards to claim 5, Saffman disclosed limitations of,
wherein the at least one property of the pulse sequence is represented by one or more pulse parameters and the method comprises obtaining values for the one or more pulse parameters based on said calculation or applying the model (D1:Sections Ill-A and B).
9. With regards to claim 6, Saffman disclosed limitations of,
wherein at least one pulse of the sequence of pulses is characterised by a frequency detuning curve, wherein the frequency detuning curve comprises at least one compensation feature to compensate for a perturbative effect on the one or more hyperfine components of the intermediate state (Figure 9; Section Ill, esp. last§).
13. With regards to claim 7, Saffman disclosed limitations of,
wherein the compensation feature comprises a discontinuity, a rate of change, an adjustment in rate of change, a maxima, minima or turning point, a peak and/or a nadir (D2: Figures 2, 6, 7 and 8).
14. With regards to claim 8, Saffman disclosed limitations of,
controlling at least one laser to generate at least one chirped excitation pulse, where the chirped excitation pulse comprises a sweep over a range of frequencies that include at least the two-photon resonance frequency between the second hyperfine ground state and the Rydberg state (Section II, §3; Figure 2).
15. With regards to claim 9, Saffman disclosed limitations of,
generating a first pulse comprising a range of frequencies that is sufficient to non-resonantly couple the at least one intermediate atomic state and the Rydberg state (Section II, §§1 and) and
generating a second pulse comprising a sweep over a range of frequencies that includes the resonant frequency between the first hyperfine ground state and the Rydberg state (Section II, §3; Figure 2).
16. With regards to claim 10, Saffman disclosed limitations of,
a) the pulse sequence comprises a two-photon adiabatic rapid passage (ARP) protocol (Section I, §§4, 6 and 7, for example);
b) the pulse sequence is characterised by time-dependent changes in at least an effective Rabi frequency and a two-photon detuning parameter;
c) the generated pulse sequence comprises energies based on the energy separation of the ground hyperfine levels and the intermediate and Rydberg states subject to a selected detuning value;
d) wherein the pulse sequence comprises applying single qubit rotations.
17. With regards to claim 11, Saffman disclosed limitations of,
wherein the quantum system is represented by a first model having a first number of dimensions and wherein the pulse sequence is generated as part of a time dependent detuning process over a sufficiently large frequency range such that that the quantum system can be effectively represented by a second model having a second, lower, number of dimensions (Sections Ill-A and B).
18. With regards to claim 12, Saffman disclosed limitations of,
wherein the detuning process is such that the quantum system may be characterised by a single effective Rabi frequency and a single detuning parameter (Section II, §1 ).
19. With regards to claim 13, Saffman disclosed limitations of,
wherein the method further comprises performing a further modulation to the generated pulse sequence, wherein the further modulation is based on a quantum optimal control process (Section Ill, §1; Figure 5).
20. With regards to claim 14, Saffman disclosed limitations of,
wherein at least one of a), b), c):
a) the transitions between atomic states comprise Rabi oscillations (e.g. Figure 5);
b) preparing the entangled quantum state is provided as part of a quantum gate protocol (Section III-B, esp. the 2nd§).
21. With regards to claim 15, Saffman disclosed limitations of,
comprising providing the generated pulse sequence symmetrically to the two or more neutral atoms (Title; Abstract).
22. With regards to claim 18, Saffman disclosed limitations of,
wherein the Rydberg interaction between the Rydberg state of the two or more neutral atoms prevents simultaneous excitation of the two or more neutral atoms to their respective Rydberg states (Section I, 1st sentence and esp.§4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
23. 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.
24. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenable by Saffman in view of Walker2.
25. With regards to claim 16, Saffman is silent on limitations of,
wherein the two or more neutral atoms comprise alkali atoms.
However, Walker teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the quantum art to include the two or more neutral atoms comprise alkali atoms (Abstract, Fig. 1., and Section I discussing two-body interaction strength for ground-state Rb atoms. Examiner notes Rb is alkali.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the quantum art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Saffman to include the two or more neutral atoms comprise alkali atoms, as disclosed by walker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have strong interaction that has resonant dipole-dipole character (Section I).
26. With regards to claim 17, Saffman is silent on limitations of,
wherein the two or more neutral atoms comprise one of: sodium (Na), rubidium (Rb), caesium (Cs), and potassium (K) atoms.
However, Walker teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the quantum art to include the two or more neutral atoms comprise one of: sodium (Na), rubidium (Rb), caesium (Cs), and potassium (K) atoms (Abstract, Fig. 1., and Section I discussing two-body interaction strength for ground-state Rb atoms.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the quantum art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Saffman to include the two or more neutral atoms comprise one of: sodium (Na), rubidium (Rb), caesium (Cs), and potassium (K) atoms, as disclosed by walker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have strong interaction that has resonant dipole-dipole character (Section I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is (303)297-4407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT.
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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at (571)270-3324. 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.
/MICHAEL JARED WALKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov
1 SAFFMAN M ET AL: "Symmetric Rydberg controlled-Z gates with adiabatic pulses", ARXIV.ORG, CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, 201 OLIN LIBRARY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA, NY 14853, 5 June 2020 (2020-06-05), XP081681224, DOI: 10.1103/PHYSREVA.101.062309
2 SAFFMAN M ET AL: "Quantum information with Rydberg atoms", Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2313, Published 18 August, 2010.
Prosecution Insights