DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10, 15-24, and 27 are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/6/25 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because descriptive labels other than numerical are needed for figures 1-2, 12A-C. See 37 CFR 1.84(o). A proposed drawing correction or corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawing figure 7 is objected to because the drawings are not of sufficient quality for satisfactory reproduction. See 37 CFR 1.84(l).
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction.
This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/138608 to Ramette et al. in view of Nickerson et al. "Freely Scalable Quantum Technologies Using Cells of 5-to-50 Qubits with Very Lossy and Noisy Photonic Links".
As per claim 1, Ramette et al. substantially teaches the claimed quantum computing system (Figure 1A, 7A, 8G) comprising: a first array and a second array of neutral atoms, each array having a first dimensionality (Figure 1A, paragraph [0044], local quantum processors A and B each being one dimensional); each neutral atom having a first state and an excited Rydberg state, each neutral atom arranged to impose a Rydberg blockade on at least its nearest neighbors in its array when in the excited Rydberg state, thereby implementing a plurality of physical qubits (Fig. 1A, "Local Rydberg Interaction", paragraph [0047]; Rydberg gates for Rydberg atoms, paragraph [0013]: "the first qubit register can be trapped within a Rydberg blockade radius of the first network element, and the second qubit register can be trapped within the Rydberg blockade radius of the second network element". In addition, it is noticed that although
only a single dot is shown in fig. 1A,7A and 8G for the qubit registers, Paragraph [0007] clearly describes that the qubit register has one or more qubits.);
wherein each array comprises a plurality of data qubits and a plurality of syndrome qubits, wherein, for each array, the plurality of syndrome qubits is configured to implement a quantum error correcting code with respect to the plurality of data qubits; and further wherein: the first array of neutral atoms comprises a first subarray of communication qubits, and the second array of neutral atoms comprises a second subarray of communication qubits (Figure 1A, 7A and 8G, Paragraph [0023]: "a network
element (communications qubit) "), the first and second subarrays having a second dimensionality that is lower than the first dimensionality (being only a single communications qubit, it represents a 0-dimensional sub-array); each communication qubit of the first subarray forming a Bell pair with one communication qubit of the second subarray (Paragraph [[0051] "establishing a Bell pair between the network elements 120a and 120b"); and the first and second arrays of neutral atoms are configured to interact with each other only via the communication qubits (Paragraph [0047] " After successful entanglement distribution among network elements 120, local
gates (e.g., Rydberg gates for Rydberg atoms ... ) between the qubit register 130 and network atom 120 at each node (local processor) allow for teleported gates between qubit registers at different nodes").
Not taught by Ramette et al is ‘each array comprises a plurality of data qubits and a plurality of syndrome qubits, wherein, for each array, the plurality of syndrome qubits is configured to implement a quantum error correcting code with respect to the plurality of data qubits’.
However in an analogous art Nickerson et al. "Freely Scalable Quantum Technologies Using Cells of 5-to-50 Qubits with Very Lossy and Noisy Photonic Links" teaches ‘each array comprises a plurality of data qubits and a plurality of syndrome qubits, wherein, for each array, the plurality of syndrome qubits is configured to implement a quantum error correcting code with respect to the plurality of data qubits’ (Paragraph [0004] of Ramette et al. teaches the nonlocal gates of Ramette et al. are favorable for error correction schemes. Applying quantum error correction by providing syndrome qubits in addition to data qubits as Nickerson et al. teaches in Figure 2 by way of a surface code in a monolithic array.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the present application to apply a surface code to the qubit registers of Ramette et al. in order to correct errors in the array.
As per claim 15, Ramette et al substantially teaches the claimed method of carrying out a logical operation between logical qubits, the method comprising: - providing a quantum computing system (Figure 1A, 7A, 8G) comprising: a first array and a second array of neutral atoms, each array having a first dimensionality (Figure 1A, paragraph [0044], local quantum processors A and B each being one dimensional); each neutral atom having a first state and an excited Rydberg state, each neutral atom arranged to impose a Rydberg blockade on at least its nearest neighbors in its array when in the excited Rydberg state, thereby implementing a plurality of physical qubits (Figure 1A, "Local Rydberg Interaction", paragraph [0047]; Rydberg gates for Rydberg atoms, paragraph [0013]: "the first qubit register can be trapped within a Rydberg blockade radius of the first network element, and the second qubit register can be trapped within the Rydberg blockade radius of the second network element". In addition, it is noticed that although only a single dot is shown in figure 1A,7A and 8G for the qubit registers, Paragraph [0007] clearly describes that the qubit register has one or more qubits.); wherein each array comprises a plurality of data qubits, and a plurality of syndrome qubits, wherein, for each array, the plurality of syndrome qubits is configured to implement a quantum error correcting code with respect to the plurality of data qubits;
and further wherein: the first array of neutral atoms comprises a first subarray of communication qubits, and the second array of neutral atoms comprises a second subarray of communication qubits, the first and second subarrays having a second dimensionality that is lower than the first dimensionality (Figure 1A, 7A and 8G, Paragraph [0023]: "a network element (communications qubit) " being only a single communications qubit, it represents a 0-dimensional sub-array); each communication qubit of the first subarray forms a Bell pair with one communication qubit of the second subarray (Paragraph [[0051] "establishing a Bell pair between the network elements 120a and 120b"), thereby extending the quantum error correcting code across the first and second arrays; the first and second arrays of neutral atoms are configured to interact with each other only via the communication qubits; and carrying out a logical operation between at least one data qubit of the first array and at least one data qubit of the second array (Paragraph [0047] "After successful entanglement distribution among network elements 120, local gates (e.g., Rydberg gates for Rydberg atoms ... ) between the qubit register 130 and network atom 120 at each node (local processor) allow for teleported gates between qubit registers at different nodes").
Not taught by Ramette et al is ‘each array comprises a plurality of data qubits and a plurality of syndrome qubits, wherein, for each array, the plurality of syndrome qubits is configured to implement a quantum error correcting code with respect to the plurality of data qubits’.
However in an analogous art Nickerson et al. "Freely Scalable Quantum Technologies Using Cells of 5-to-50 Qubits with Very Lossy and Noisy Photonic Links" teaches ‘each array comprises a plurality of data qubits and a plurality of syndrome qubits, wherein, for each array, the plurality of syndrome qubits is configured to implement a quantum error correcting code with respect to the plurality of data qubits’ (Paragraph [0004] of Ramette et al. teaches the nonlocal gates of Ramette et al. are favorable for error correction schemes. Applying quantum error correction by providing syndrome qubits in addition to data qubits as Nickerson et al. teaches in Figure 2 by way of a surface code in a monolithic array.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the present application to apply a surface code to the qubit registers of Ramette et al. in order to correct errors in the array.
As per claims 2 and 17, Ramette et al. the first array of neutral atoms comprises a first edge, the second array of neutral atoms comprises a second edge, and wherein: the first subarray of communication qubits is disposed at the first edge, and the second subarray of communication qubits is disposed at the second edge (Figure 1A qubits in a 1 dimensional array contain the communication qubits at the edge of those arrays).
As per claims 3 and 18, Nickerson et al. teaches for each array of neutral atoms, the plurality of syndrome qubits comprises a plurality of Z syndrome qubits and a plurality of X syndrome qubits configured to implement X and Z stabilizers with respect to data qubits of the plurality of data qubits, thereby implementing the quantum error correcting code (Figure 7 appendix C star (S) and plaquette (P) stabilizers, which are commonly known as Z and X stabilizers, respectively).
As per claim 8 Nickerson et al. teaches the quantum error correcting code is a topological code, a stabilizer code, or a surface code (Appendix C 2-4).
Claim(s) 7, 9, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/138608 to Ramette et al. in view of Nickerson et al. "Freely Scalable Quantum Technologies Using Cells of 5-to-50 Qubits with Very Lossy and Noisy Photonic Links" in further view of Weimer Hendrik et al. "A Rydberg quantum simulator".
As per claim 7, Ramette et al. and Nickerson et al. teach the elements of claim 1 but do not teach ‘each of the first and second arrays of neutral atoms is two-dimensional.’ However in an analogous art Hendrik et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the present application to make 2D arrays of the qubits in the quantum registers of Ramette et al.
Hendrik et al. teaches on (page 6) in the experimental sections that the setup consists of control (i.e. syndrome) and ensemble (i.e. data) atoms trapped in large-spacing
optical lattices as in fig. 1. This would have been obvious to implement larger arrays.
As per claim 9, Hendrik et al. teaches each data qubit in the plurality of data qubits of the first and the second arrays is a nearest neighbor to two Z syndrome qubits and to two X syndrome qubits; and each of the first and the second arrays further comprises a plurality of measurement qubits arranged such that each syndrome qubit in the plurality of syndrome qubits of the first and second arrays is a nearest neighbor to four data qubits. (Experimental implementation section on p. 6
that the Rydberg array is trapped in large-spacing optical lattices, as shown in
fig. 1 on p. 2; fig. 1 shows therefore not only the logical layout of qubits in the
code, but also the physical layout. p. 2 col. left, par 1 further describes mutually
commuting stabilizer operators Ap and Bs, representing, respectively, the X and
Z stabilizers. From fig. 1 b, it is clear that the data qubits (on the edges of the
lattice, left in fig. 1 a), interact with its four nearest neighbors: two X stabilizer
qubits (in the center of the squares), and two Z stabilizer qubits (on the lattice
vertices)).
As per claims 20-21 Hendrik et al. teaches implementing the quantum error correcting code comprises: dividing the plurality of syndrome qubits into a plurality of subsets; and for each of the plurality of subsets, measuring the syndrome qubits. And each of the plurality of subsets, the syndrome qubits are measured simultaneously. (page 4 left col, paragraph 2: "It is important to stress that in our set-up, the interactions are quasi-local and influence only the spins surrounding the control qubit. Consequently, the lattice system can be divided into a set of sublattices on which all gate operations that are needed for a single time step r can be carried out in parallel", which implies subsets (sublattices). Further measuring each of these subsets (simultaneously) is an obvious design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 is allowable over the prior arts of record.
Claims 4-6, 10, 19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2025/0390780 to Lukin et al. teaches arranging a plurality of qubits according to the output graph, where one of the plurality of qubits is associated with each of the second plurality of vertices, each qubit being excitable into a Rydberg state having a Rydberg blockade radius, and wherein the Rydberg blockade radius of each of the plurality of qubits corresponds to a unit disk of the unit disk graph.
US 2025/0384319 to Du et al. teaches perform quantum computing using a Rydberg blockade effect for a photon-photon nonlinear interaction at the single photon level that realizes a controlled-phase (CP) gate between control and target qubits that are encoded in the polarizations of a photon pair.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA H BRITT whose telephone number is (571)272-3815. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at (571)270-3750. 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.
CYNTHIA H. BRITT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2111
/CYNTHIA BRITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights