The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 23 July 2024.
Claims 10-29 are pending.
Claims 1-9 are cancelled.
Claims 10-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Claims 11, 19, 24-25 are objected to.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: "dissipater parameter" should read "dissipator parameter" (misspelling). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: "measureable" is misspelled as "measureable" is correct; note actual claim text reads "measureable" — should read "measurable." Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: "bosonic cubit" should read "bosonic qubit" (see also the §112(b) rejection above, as this typo independently creates an antecedent-basis problem)
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.
A claim is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification, it fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 110 USPQ.2d 1688, U.S. Supreme Court (2014).
Claims 10-29 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regrading claim 10 / 24, the claim recites deflating the bosonic qubit "such that phonons or photons are dissipated from the bosonic qubit while a measurement observable of the bosonic qubit is preserved." "Preserved" is a term of degree with no objective boundary recited in the claim or clear standard set forth in the specification for determining when an observable is sufficiently "preserved" versus degraded. Because this limitation defines the point of novelty over the cited art discussed in the prior analysis (deflation without loss of the readout-relevant information), the lack of any quantitative or qualitative benchmark for "preserved" fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention, the claim is therefore indefinite
Regarding claims 11-14, 22-23 / 25-29, which depend on above rejected claim 10 / 24, are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claims 11 / 25, the claim recites "changing a dissipater parameter such that an average photon number or average phonon number of the bosonic qubit (α) is reduced from an α_initial value to an α_final value, wherein |α_final| < |α_initial|." The claim identifies "α" as the "average photon number," yet the specification (¶¶0069, 0221) and the claim's own use of absolute-value notation (|α_final| < |α_initial|) treat α as a complex coherent-state amplitude, for which the average photon number is properly |α|², not α itself. This internal inconsistency between the claimed quantity ("photon number") and the mathematical treatment of the variable (a signed/complex amplitude subject to modulus comparison) renders the metes and bounds of the claimed deflation step unclear, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Regarding Claims 13 / 24, the claim recites, in substance, "an open transmission line coupled to the control circuit configured to absorb phonons or photons from a dump mode of the control circuit." The phrase "configured to absorb phonons or photons from a dump mode" is grammatically ambiguous as to its antecedent — it is unclear whether the phrase modifies "the control circuit" or "the open transmission line." One reasonable reading has the control circuit configured to absorb its own dump-mode output, which is nonsensical in view of the specification (which discloses the open transmission line, not the control circuit generally, as the element that dissipates photons to the environment, e.g., ¶0068, ¶0084), the claim is therefore indefinite. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 14 / 25-29, which depend on above rejected claim 13 / 24, are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites "the resonator is a mechanical resonator," but claim 24, from which claim 27 depends, recites only "resonators" (plural) — no singular "a resonator" was previously introduced. There is accordingly no antecedent basis for "the resonator" as recited in claim 27, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites "deflating the cat qubit such that an even number of phonons or photons are dissipated from the cat qubit." Under broadest reasonable interpretation, zero is itself an even number, so this limitation, as literally worded, is satisfied by dissipating no phonons/photons at all — which is inconsistent with "deflating" meaning an active amplitude-reduction step (see spec ¶¶0221, 0225: deflating reduces |α| from α_initial to a smaller α_final). The claim recites the parity of the dissipated quantity (even) rather than any requirement that it be nonzero or that it actually reduce the steady-state amplitude, leaving the metes and bounds of "deflating" unclear and potentially reading on a no-op, the claim is therefore indefinite. Suggested correction: recite that deflating reduces the steady-state amplitude (α) of the cat qubit, consistent with claim 11 / 25's "α_final < α_initial" language, rather than characterizing the dissipated quantity only by its parity.
Regarding claims 16-21, which depend on above rejected claim 15, are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claims 17, 18, and 19 each depend from claim 15 and recite "the Hamiltonian selected from the three or higher wave mixing Hamiltonian." Claim 15, however, recites only "a Hamiltonian that couples a number of excitations of the cat qubit to a change in a measurable property of another mode (b)" — it contains no antecedent basis for a Hamiltonian "selected from a three or higher wave mixing Hamiltonian." That antecedent is introduced for the first time in claim 16 ("the Hamiltonian is selected from a three or higher wave mixing Hamiltonian..."). Because claims 17–19 depend directly from claim 15 and not from claim 16, the limitation they attempt to further narrow lacks proper antecedent basis, rendering the scope of claims 17–19 unclear, the claim is therefore indefinite. Appropriate correction: amend claims 17–19 to depend from claim 16, or otherwise establish the antecedent within claim 15.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites "performing a next round of error correction gates in parallel...with said measuring of the other mode (b)." The term "next" implies a previously performed, antecedent round of error correction gates; however, no prior/first round of error correction gates is recited in claim 15 (from which claim 21 depends) or in claim 21 itself. It is therefore unclear what round "next" is relative to, the claim is therefore indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-29 are allowed since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per, MPEP §2111.01 or Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069, 1069 (Fed.Cir. 1999), none of the references of record alone or in combination disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in claims 10-29.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In interpreting the claims, in light of the specification filed on 7/23/2024, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior arts of record.
None of the cited prior art references, singly or in combination, fully teaches all limitations of independent claims 10, 15 and 24.
Regarding the independent claims, the primary reason for the allowance is the inclusion of the specific process/system of deflating a dissipatively-stabilized bosonic (cat) qubit's steady-state photon amplitude prior to readout, then coupling the qubit's excitation number to a second mode for homodyne/heterodyne-based measurement, thereby preserving the measurement observable while suppressing single-photon-loss-induced errors.
The followings are references close to the invention claimed:
Ofek et al., US-PGPUB NO.20190049495A1 [hereafter Ofek] teaches waveform-driven control of a CQED oscillator coupled to a physical qubit to encode and manipulate a cat-state qubit. However, Ofek does not teach deflating the oscillator's steady-state amplitude before readout to suppress photon-loss-induced measurement error.
Girvin et al., US-PGPUB NO 20200242500A1 [hereafter Girvin] teaches measuring the parity of a bosonic mode's state via a physical qubit dispersively coupled to the mode. However, Girvin does not teach deflating the bosonic mode's amplitude prior to that parity readout to preserve fidelity against loss events.
Sinclair et al., US Patent NO.10374612B1 [hereafter Sinclair] teaches an ancilla qubit device, separate from a dedicated readout device, used to detect an error syndrome via parity measurement in a superconducting processor. However, Naaman does not teach deflation of a dissipatively-stabilized bosonic qubit or a swap of an excitation to a bosonic readout mode prior to measurement.
Lescanne et al., "Exponential suppression of bit-flips in a qubit encoded in an oscillator," arXiv:1907.11729v1 [quant-ph] 26 Jul 2019 [hereafter Lescanne] teaches an ATS-coupled buffer mode engineering two-photon dissipation to stabilize a cat qubit's coherent-state manifold. However, Lescanne does not teach transiently reducing the stabilized amplitude specifically to protect a subsequent readout from single-photon-loss events.
Sun et al., "Tracking photon jumps with repeated quantum non-demolition parity measurements," Nature 511, 444 (2014) [hereafter Sun] teaches repeated QND parity measurements of a bosonic cavity mode via a dispersively-coupled ancilla to track photon-loss jump events. However, Sun does not teach deflating the cavity's photon number before measurement, nor coupling its excitation number to a second mode via an engineered Hamiltonian for homodyne/heterodyne readout.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights