NON-FINAL REJECTION
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites that the trap field comprises an electrical pulse, but claim 2 from which claim 3 depends states that the trap field comprises an optical pulse. This is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 10, 12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 6,678,450 B1 to Franson et al. (“Franson”) in view of U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2002/0281561 A1 to Tomaru et al. (“Tomaru”).
As to claim 1, Franson discloses:
A method for confining an optical signal in a non-linear optical quantum computing system, the method comprising:
Franson discloses a method for providing an optical signal in a non-linear optical quantum computing system. Franson at Abstract ("[a]n optical method for quantum computing…nonlinear phase shifts are used to construct quantum logic gates”).
generating an optical signal in the non-linear optical quantum computing system; and
Franson discloses generating an optical signal in the computing system. Franson at FIGS 5 and 8 and at 7:46-8:3 (“two photons interact with two different atoms in a medium, such as those labeled A and B in FIG. 5”). See also id. at FIG 1 and 2:20-25 showing the production of the two photons and 8:31-33 (“applying a laser pulse”).
generating a […] field […] by causing a nonlinear interaction, wherein the […] field propagates with the optical signal.
Franson discloses generating a field (implicit to "exchange interaction" with second photon) for the optical signal by causing a nonlinear interaction, wherein
the field propagates with the optical signal. Franson at FIG 5 and 8 and at 8:35-40 (“the two photons propagate together through the same medium … [t]his corresponds to a nonlinear phase shift whose origin ultimately derives from the exchange interaction”).
Franson does not disclose that the field is a trap field confining the signal.
Tomaru discloses an analogous invention as it is towards a quantum optical transmission including a phase relation between optical signals. Tomaru at Abstract (“a relative phase relation between the signal light and the reference light cannot be maintained constant due to a difference in the external environments of a transmission path between the signal light and the reference light. In order to solve this problem, the signal light and the reference light are transmitted so as to be temporally superimposed on each other with orthogonal polarizations to the same optical path, thereby making the external environments equal to each other to maintain the constant phase relation.”) Tomaru suggests the optical signal of signal light is confined with reference light and that the field of the reference light is a trap field that confines the optical signal light. Id. at ¶45 (“by satisfying the soliton condition to impede the instability with respect to the nonlinear effect, and for the signal light, by making the signal light spatially and temporally coincide with the reference light with the orthogonal polarization. In this case, the reference light traps the signal light through so-called cross-phase modulation between the signal light and the reference light due to the third-order nonlinear effect…the signal trapped by the soliton is transmitted without any problem.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to confine the optical signal of Franson and provide the field as a trap field that confines the optical signal to impede instability with respect to the non-linear phase shift, as suggested by Tomaru as stated by Tomaru, to satisfy the soliton condition “to impede the instability with respect to the nonlinear effect, and for the signal light, by making the signal light spatially and temporally coincide with the reference light with the orthogonal polarization…the reference light traps the signal light through
so-called cross-phase modulation between the signal light and the reference light due to the third-order nonlinear effect…the signal trapped by the soliton is transmitted without any problem.”). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have understood such to be merely an example of using a known technique in a known device ready for improvement, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. D., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the trap field comprises an optical pulse that imparts a time-dependent phase shift on a target field to create a temporal trap for the optical signal.
Franson in view of Tomaru discloses the subject matter of claim 1, as described above, wherein the trap field comprises an optical pulse (corresponding to a "soliton") that imparts a time-dependent phase shift on a target field to create a temporal trap for the optical signal as it is implicit in Tomaru. Tomaru at ¶45 (“by satisfying the soliton condition to impede the instability with respect to the nonlinear effect, and for the signal light, by making the signal light spatially and temporally coincide with the reference light with the orthogonal polarization. In this case, the reference light traps the signal light through so-called cross-phase modulation between the signal light and the reference light due to the third-order nonlinear effect."). “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 2144.01.
Further as to claim 3:
The method of claim 2, wherein the trap field comprises an electrical pulse.
Franson in view of Tomaru discloses the subject matter of claim 2, as described above, wherein the trap field comprises an electrical pulse (corresponding to an electromagnetic pulse forming the "soliton" which is implicit since light waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation) as it is implicit in Tomaru. Tomaru at ¶45 (“by satisfying the soliton condition to impede the instability with respect to the nonlinear effect, and for the signal light, by making the signal light spatially and temporally coincide with the reference light with the orthogonal polarization. In this case, the reference light traps the signal light through so-called cross-phase modulation between the signal light and the reference light due to the third-order nonlinear effect.").
Further as to claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein the trap field confines the optical signal in a time domain.
Franson in view of Tomaru discloses the subject matter of claim 1, as described above, wherein the trap field confines ("temporally coincide") the optical signal in a time domain. Tomaru at ¶45 (“by making the signal light spatially and temporally coincide with the reference light with the orthogonal polarization. In this case, the reference light traps the signal light.”).
Further as to claim 5:
The method of claim 1, wherein the trap field confines the optical signal in space.
Franson in view of Tomaru discloses the subject matter of claim 1, as described above, wherein the trap field confines ("spatially coincide") the optical signal in space. Tomaru at ¶45 (“by making the signal light spatially and temporally coincide with the reference light with the orthogonal polarization. In this case, the reference light traps the signal light..").
Further as to claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein the trap field confines the optical signal in space and in a time domain.
Franson in view of Tomaru discloses the subject matter of claim 1, as described above, wherein the trap field confines ("spatially and temporally coincide") the optical signal in space and in a time domain. Tomaru at ¶45 (“by making the signal light spatially and temporally coincide with the reference light with the orthogonal polarization. In this case, the reference light traps the signal light”).
Further as to claim 10:
The method of claim 1, wherein the non-linear optical quantum computing system comprises a single-pass waveguide, wherein the trap field comprises a waveguide soliton.
Franson in view of Tomaru discloses the subject matter of claim 1, as described above, wherein the trap field comprises a waveguide soliton (optical fiber). Tomaru at ¶45 (“by satisfying the soliton condition the reference light traps the signal light. the soliton can be maintained and transmitted through the optical fiber”)
Franson in view of Tomaru fails to specify wherein the non-linear optical quantum computing system comprises a single-pass waveguide.
However, Franson suggests optical waveguides are provided to the optical quantum computer to make logical connections. Franson at 5:5-8 (“this approach is eventually expected to allow the construction of large numbers of quantum gates on a single substrate, with optical waveguides to provide the necessary logical connections.”) and "single-pass" waveguide is deemed to correspond to a particular unidirectional logic construction which would have been a matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the non-linear optical quantum computing system of Franson in view of Tomaru to comprise a single-pass waveguide to facilitate implementation of logical connections in quantum computation, as suggested by Franson above (“this approach is eventually expected to allow the construction of large numbers of quantum gates on a single substrate, with optical waveguides to provide the necessary logical connections.”) and since "single-pass" waveguide is deemed to correspond to a particular unidirectional logic construction which would have been a matter of design choice. MPEP § 2143 I. F, noting that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives, citing KSR.
Further as to claim 12:
The method of claim 1, wherein the optical signal comprises a single target optical pulse.
Franson in view of Tomaru discloses the subject matter of claim 1, as described above, wherein the optical signal comprises a single target optical pulse. Tomaru at ¶45. NOTE: the "signal light" is deemed "single target" since it is confined within optical fiber 300 having a single target represented by optical receiver 200 in Fig 1).
As to claim 14, Franson discloses:
A non-linear optical quantum computing system configured to:
Franson discloses a system for providing an optical signal in a non-linear optical quantum computing system. Franson at Abstract ("[a]n optical method for quantum computing…nonlinear phase shifts are used to construct quantum logic gates”).
generate an optical signal; and
Franson discloses generating an optical signal in the computing system. Franson at FIGS 5 and 8 and at 7:46-8:3 (“two photons interact with two different atoms in a medium, such as those labeled A and B in FIG. 5”). See also id. at FIG 1 and 2:20-25 showing the production of the two photons and 8:31-33 (“applying a laser pulse”).
generate a […] field […] by causing a nonlinear interaction, wherein the […] field propagates with the optical signal.
Franson discloses generating a field (implicit to "exchange interaction" with second photon) for the optical signal by causing a nonlinear interaction, wherein
the field propagates with the optical signal. Franson at FIG 5 and 8 and at 8:35-40 (“the two photons propagate together through the same medium … [t]his corresponds to a nonlinear phase shift whose origin ultimately derives from the exchange interaction”).
Franson does not disclose that the field is a trap field confining the signal.
Tomaru discloses an analogous invention as it is towards a quantum optical transmission including a phase relation between optical signals. Tomaru at Abstract (“a relative phase relation between the signal light and the reference light cannot be maintained constant due to a difference in the external environments of a transmission path between the signal light and the reference light. In order to solve this problem, the signal light and the reference light are transmitted so as to be temporally superimposed on each other with orthogonal polarizations to the same optical path, thereby making the external environments equal to each other to maintain the constant phase relation.”) Tomaru suggests the optical signal of signal light is confined with reference light and that the field of the reference light is a trap field that confines the optical signal light. Id. at ¶45 (“by satisfying the soliton condition to impede the instability with respect to the nonlinear effect, and for the signal light, by making the signal light spatially and temporally coincide with the reference light with the orthogonal polarization. In this case, the reference light traps the signal light through so-called cross-phase modulation between the signal light and the reference light due to the third-order nonlinear effect…the signal trapped by the soliton is transmitted without any problem.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to confine the optical signal of Franson and provide the field as a trap field that confines the optical signal to impede instability with respect to the non-linear phase shift, as suggested by Tomaru as stated by Tomaru, to satisfy the soliton condition “to impede the instability with respect to the nonlinear effect, and for the signal light, by making the signal light spatially and temporally coincide with the reference light with the orthogonal polarization…the reference light traps the signal light through
so-called cross-phase modulation between the signal light and the reference light due to the third-order nonlinear effect…the signal trapped by the soliton is transmitted without any problem.”). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have understood such to be merely an example of using a known technique in a known device ready for improvement, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. D., citing KSR.
Further as to claim 15:
The non-linear quantum computing system of claim 14, wherein the trap field comprises an optical pulse that is configured to impart a time-dependent phase shift on a target field to create a temporal trap for the optical signal.
Franson in view of Tomaru discloses the subject matter of claim 14, as described above, wherein the trap field comprises an optical pulse (corresponding to a "soliton") that imparts a time-dependent phase shift on a target field to create a temporal trap for the optical signal as it is implicit in Tomaru. Tomaru at ¶45 (“by satisfying the soliton condition to impede the instability with respect to the nonlinear effect, and for the signal light, by making the signal light spatially and temporally coincide with the reference light with the orthogonal polarization. In this case, the reference light traps the signal light through so-called cross-phase modulation between the signal light and the reference light due to the third-order nonlinear effect."). “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 2144.01.
Further regarding claim 16:
The non-linear quantum computing system of claim 14, wherein the trap field is configured to confine the optical signal in a time domain.
Franson in view of Tomaru discloses the subject matter of claim 14, as described above, wherein the trap field confines ("temporally coincide") the optical signal in a time domain. Tomaru at ¶45 (“by making the signal light spatially and temporally coincide with the reference light with the orthogonal polarization. In this case, the reference light traps the signal light.”).
Further as to claim 17:
The non-linear quantum computing system of claim 14, wherein the trap field is configured to confine the optical signal in space.
Regarding claim 17, Franson in view of Tomaru discloses the subject matter of claim 14, as described above, wherein the trap field confines ("spatially coincide") the optical signal in space. Tomaru at ¶45 (“by making the signal light spatially and temporally coincide with the reference light with the orthogonal polarization. In this case, the reference light traps the signal light”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 11, 13, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 7, the prior art fails to teach or suggest wherein the non-linear optical quantum computing system comprises a resonator having a ring cavity with one or more couplers, wherein the one or more couplers prevent the trap field from resonating within the resonator. Claims 8-9 are deemed as comprising allowable subject matter based on a dependence on claim 7.
As to claim 11, none of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the non-linear optical quantum computing system comprises a segmented single-pass waveguide, wherein the trap field is periodically refreshed.
As to claim 13, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the subject matter claimed. Specifically, none of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests a method for confining an optical signal in a non-linear optical quantum computing system, the method comprising: generating an optical signal in the non-linear optical quantum computing system; and generating a trap field that confines the optical signal by causing a nonlinear interaction, wherein the trap field propagates with the optical signal, wherein the optical signal comprises multiple optical pulses that are trapped in a single cavity.
As to claim 18, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the subject matter claimed. Specifically, none of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests the non-linear quantum computing system of claim 14, comprising a resonator having a ring cavity with one or more couplers configured to prevent the trap field from resonating within the resonator. Claims 19 and 20 are deemed as comprising allowable subject matter based on a dependence on claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Charles Craver whose telephone number is (571) 272-7849. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30-5:30 PT Pacific
Time.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. The fax phone
number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-
273-8300.
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.
Signed,
/CHARLES R CRAVER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights