# Comprehensive Patentability, Freedom to Operate (FTO), and Strategic Opportunity Report ## Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 3. Section 1: Initial Claims Analyzed 4. Section 2: Prior Art Analysis and Impact on Patentability 5. Section 3: Freedom to Operate (FTO) Landscape 6. Section 4: Strategic Opportunities & Gaps in Prior Art 7. Section 5: Revised Claims with Higher Patentability Potential 8. Section 6: Strategic Recommendations & Conclusion 9. Appendix A: Prior Art Analysis Details 10. Appendix B: Search Strategy & Keywords Utilized ## Executive Summary This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the patentability, Freedom to Operate (FTO), and strategic opportunities for a novel quantum computing paradigm, **Harmonic Quantum Computing (HQC)**, also referred to as **Resonant Field Computing (RFC)**. The core concept involves encoding quantum information directly within **specifically selected and addressable coherent resonant frequency states** (harmonic qubits or h-qubits) of a physical medium. This approach represents a departure from conventional particle-based qubits and aims to distinguish itself from the use of general bosonic modes in Continuous-Variable Quantum Computing (CVQC) by focusing on the precise control and addressability of **these discrete, selected resonant frequency states treated as computational units**. A thorough prior art search reveals significant challenges to the patentability of broad claims covering the fundamental concepts of resonant quantum information processing. These concepts are widely disclosed in existing literature and patents related to Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics (Cavity QED), Continuous-Variable Quantum Computing (CVQC), and superconducting quantum circuits, particularly concerning the use of resonant modes for quantum information processing. Many initial claims derived from the invention description face low viability due to anticipation or obviousness based on this existing art (35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103), as well as significant subject matter eligibility issues under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claims directed to abstract ideas, mathematical methods, or natural phenomena, as interpreted under the *Alice/Mayo* framework. Consequently, the FTO landscape presents a **Medium to High Risk** for broad implementations due to overlap with active patents in these crowded fields. However, analysis of the prior art also identifies key technical gaps and strategic opportunities for securing patent protection. These opportunities exist for specific, technically enabled implementations that clearly distinguish the invention from prior art and demonstrate a concrete technical solution addressing specific technical problems. Promising areas for patentability include a specific, non-obvious physical architecture (e.g., a defined 3D superconducting lattice with specific dielectric properties), novel control methods for *directly manipulating the specific h-qubit resonant states* with a demonstrable technical effect, integrated multi-modal nanoscale noise mitigation systems specifically tailored to this architecture, specific cryogenic sensor designs, and the application of Topological Data Analysis (TDA) to manufacturing and characterization processes to improve device performance. Based on this analysis, a set of revised claims has been generated, focusing on these more specific and technically distinct aspects. These revised claims demonstrate significantly higher patentability potential because they are directed to concrete technical solutions and specific structural and functional features not explicitly disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art. They are crafted to directly address the limitations of the initial broad claims and overcome relevant prior art challenges, including navigating subject matter eligibility issues under § 101 by focusing on practical applications that result in a technical improvement, as illustrated by recent PTAB decisions applying the *Alice/Mayo* framework, such as *Ex parte Yudong Cao*. **Crucially, the patentability and enforceability of these revised claims are entirely dependent on the provision of a robust, detailed technical enablement disclosure in the patent application, sufficient for a person skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation (35 U.S.C. § 112). A strong technical disclosure is also essential for demonstrating that the claimed invention provides a concrete technical solution and practical application that achieves a technical effect, thereby strengthening arguments for subject matter eligibility under § 101.** The overall strategic recommendation is a **Cautious Go**. Successful patent prosecution hinges entirely on focusing efforts on these revised claims, supported by a **robust, detailed technical enablement disclosure**. This disclosure must provide detailed schematics, material parameters, control sequences, experimental data, or rigorous theoretical modeling demonstrating the practical application, specific technical implementation, and technical advantages of the claimed invention, thereby overcoming potential rejections based on anticipation, obviousness, abstractness, or lack of support and enablement. ## Introduction This report assesses the intellectual property landscape surrounding a novel approach to quantum computing, herein primarily termed **Harmonic Quantum Computing (HQC)**, with **Resonant Field Computing (RFC)** as an alternative term. This paradigm proposes a shift in quantum computation by utilizing **specifically selected, addressable coherent resonant frequency states** within a physical medium as the fundamental units of quantum information (harmonic qubits or h-qubits). Quantum information is encoded in the coherent superposition of these specific, addressable resonant states, and computation is performed by directly manipulating these states via precisely modulated control fields tailored to these resonances. This approach contrasts with traditional models that rely on discrete particle-like qubits and aims to leverage the inherent properties of tailored resonant fields for potentially enhanced coherence and scalability, while **distinguishing itself from Continuous-Variable Quantum Computing (CVQC), which typically utilizes general bosonic modes as continuous variables, by treating these addressable harmonic modes as distinct, discrete computational qubits.** The purpose of this report is to: 1. Identify and analyze potential patent claims based on the provided invention description. 2. Assess the impact of existing prior art on the patentability of these initial claims under criteria such as novelty (35 U.S.C. § 102), obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), and subject matter eligibility (35 U.S.C. § 101), highlighting that broad or abstract claims face significant challenges due to lack of specific, enabled technical implementations and the requirements of the *Alice/Mayo* framework. 3. Evaluate the Freedom to Operate (FTO) landscape by considering active, in-force patents in relevant technology areas, noting the potential risks posed by crowded fields. 4. Identify strategic opportunities for patent protection by analyzing technical gaps and insights within the prior art, focusing on specific, enabled implementations that provide a concrete technical solution. 5. Propose revised patent claims designed to enhance patentability and navigate the FTO landscape by focusing on concrete technical solutions with higher likelihood of meeting patentability requirements, including subject matter eligibility. 6. Provide a strategic recommendation regarding patent prosecution based on the comprehensive analysis, emphasizing the critical role of providing a **robust, detailed technical enablement disclosure** sufficient to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 and demonstrate a patent-eligible technical solution under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The analysis synthesizes information from a targeted search of patent and non-patent literature, with detailed findings presented in the Appendices. Initial analysis revealed that the high-level description of HQC, while presenting a novel conceptual paradigm, lacked the specific, detailed technical enablement required to support broad patent claims against existing prior art and subject matter eligibility standards (35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 112). Consequently, the findings underscore that successful patent protection requires moving beyond the high-level concept to focus on the specific, non-obvious technical details and *their detailed enablement in the disclosure* that enable the HQC system to function and provide a demonstrable technical contribution over the prior art. ## Section 1: Initial Claims Analyzed Based on the provided invention description, the following potential patent claims were identified and served as the "Initial Claims" for analysis. These claims were either explicitly listed or inferred and phrased as formal patent claims based on the technical descriptions provided in the source documents. They represent a range of concepts from the fundamental idea to specific implementations. > **Claim 1:** A method for encoding quantum information where a qubit's basis states (|0⟩, |1⟩) are represented by distinct, stable resonant frequency states within a physical medium, and superposition is the coherent combination of these states. > **Claim 2:** A computational device comprising a physical medium capable of sustaining multiple, individually addressable, and coherently interacting resonant wave patterns, coupled with a control system for modulating said patterns to perform computation. > **Claim 3:** A method for performing a quantum logic gate (e.g., CNOT, Hadamard) by applying a specifically modulated control field to a resonant medium, causing a deterministic and coherent state change in a target resonant pattern (h-qubit) that is conditional on the state of a control resonant pattern (h-qubit), thereby inducing quantum entanglement. > **Claim 4:** A software system that translates abstract quantum algorithms into precise sequences of time-dependent electromagnetic or acoustic waveforms for injection into an RQP, optimizing for coherence evolution. > **Claim 5:** A method for quantum computation wherein a logic gate is executed by applying a deterministic control field to a wave-sustaining medium, thereby inducing a controlled evolution of the coherent state of one or more harmonic qubits. > **Claim 6:** A system for performing quantum computation, comprising: > a wave-sustaining medium configured to support a plurality of addressable, coherent resonant frequency states, wherein each resonant frequency state represents a harmonic qubit (h-qubit); > a control system configured to apply modulated energy fields to the wave-sustaining medium to manipulate the coherent resonant frequency states and perform quantum logic gates; and > a readout system configured to measure a final state of the harmonic qubits. > **Claim 7:** The system of Claim 6, wherein the wave-sustaining medium comprises a three-dimensional lattice structure. > **Claim 8:** The system of Claim 7, wherein the three-dimensional lattice structure mimics a biological structure. > **Claim 9:** The system of Claim 8, wherein the biological structure is a neuronal microtubule. > **Claim 10:** The system of Claim 7, wherein the three-dimensional lattice structure is made of High-Temperature Superconducting (HTS) materials. > **Claim 11:** The system of Claim 6, wherein the wave-sustaining medium is filled with a dielectric shielding material having a high dielectric constant and a low loss tangent. > **Claim 12:** The system of Claim 11, wherein the dielectric shielding material is a hydrogel or an ordered liquid. > **Claim 13:** The system of Claim 6, wherein the control system is configured to apply electromagnetic or acoustic fields. > **Claim 14:** The system of Claim 6, wherein the readout system is configured to perform non-demolition measurements of field properties. > **Claim 15:** The system of Claim 14, wherein the readout system utilizes interferometric methods or spectral analysis. > **Claim 16:** A method for performing quantum computation, comprising: > encoding quantum information as coherent superpositions of resonant frequency states within a wave-sustaining medium; > manipulating the coherent superpositions by applying modulated control fields to the wave-sustaining medium to perform quantum logic gates; and > reading out a result of the quantum computation by measuring a final state of the resonant frequency states. > **Claim 17:** The method of Claim 16, further comprising intentionally introducing engineered non-Markovian noise with specific spectral profiles to controllably guide the system's evolution towards a desired solution state. > **Claim 18:** The method of Claim 17, wherein the engineered non-Markovian noise comprises terahertz pulses or phononic lattices. > **Claim 19:** The method of Claim 16, wherein manipulating the coherent superpositions includes using continuous control over field parameters to preserve continuous probabilistic states. > **Claim 20:** A system for mitigating noise in a quantum computing device, comprising: > a quantum medium supporting one or more qubits; and > integrated nanoscale shielding structures fabricated in proximity to the quantum medium, the shielding structures configured to mitigate at least one type of noise selected from electromagnetic noise, phonon noise, thermal noise, particle radiation noise, charge noise, flux noise, quasiparticle noise, surface noise, interface noise, and crosstalk. > **Claim 21:** The system of Claim 20, wherein the integrated nanoscale shielding structures comprise photonic crystals, metamaterials, or resonant cavities configured to control local density of electromagnetic states. > **Claim 22:** The system of Claim 20, wherein the integrated nanoscale shielding structures comprise phononic crystals or tailored materials configured to control phonon propagation or manage heat dissipation. > **Claim 23:** The system of Claim 20, further comprising integrated quasiparticle traps configured to manage quasiparticles in the quantum medium. > **Claim 24:** A method for modeling quantum vacuum fluctuations affecting one or more qubits based on Quantum Field Theory (QFT); and > applying compensating control signals to the one or more qubits based on the modeling to counteract effects of the quantum vacuum fluctuations. > **Claim 25:** A neuromorphic circuit architecture for analog quantum simulation, comprising: > a plurality of interconnected analog electronic components configured to map to quantum variables or parameters in a target Hamiltonian, the circuit configured to perform analog simulation of the target Hamiltonian. > **Claim 26:** A system for modeling quantum dynamics, comprising: > a hardware accelerator configured to perform mathematical operations using hypercomplex numbers, including quaternions and octonions; and > a software module configured to represent quantum states and operators using said hypercomplex numbers and to execute simulations on the hardware accelerator. > **Claim 27:** A method for manufacturing a quantum device, comprising: > collecting characterization data from a plurality of fabricated quantum device components; > applying Topological Data Analysis (TDA) to the characterization data to identify persistent topological features correlated with device performance metrics; and > modifying a manufacturing process parameter based on the identified persistent topological features to improve the performance metrics of subsequently fabricated components. ## Section 2: Prior Art Analysis and Impact on Patentability This section analyzes the existing prior art and its impact on the patentability of the Initial Claims. A detailed analysis of prior art from patent and non-patent literature (see Appendix A) reveals significant hurdles for the patentability of the broad Initial Claims (1-6, 13-16) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103. The foundational concepts of using resonant modes in cavities or other physical media for quantum computation are well-established in fields like Cavity QED and Continuous-Variable Quantum Computing (CVQC), predating the present invention. * **Broad Concepts (Claims 1-3, 5-6, 16):** These claims, covering the general idea of using resonant frequency states in a physical medium for encoding and manipulating quantum information, face significant challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness). Prior art such as US8642998B2 (Yale University) directly anticipates or renders obvious the general idea by disclosing a quantum computer that uses multiple resonant modes of a 3D superconducting cavity as qubits, where quantum information is encoded and manipulated using microwave pulses. Extensive work in CVQC also utilizes coherent field states and their manipulation for computation, further demonstrating that using resonant modes as carriers of quantum information is a known concept. These broad claims, lacking specific technical implementation details that provide novelty or an inventive step over the known use of resonant modes as quantum information carriers, have a low likelihood of being granted. Furthermore, these claims, when drafted broadly without tying the resonant frequency states to a specific, inventive physical structure or a method of using such a structure to achieve a concrete technical outcome, are highly susceptible to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea or a fundamental principle (the use of resonant modes for encoding information) without sufficient inventive application under the *Alice/Mayo* framework. * **System Architecture (Claims 7-12):** Claims directed to system architecture also face prior art challenges. The use of 3D structures (Claim 7) and superconducting materials (Claim 10) in quantum computing is disclosed in prior art like US8642998B2 and research from institutions like Fermilab. The use of dielectric fillers in cavities for quantum applications (Claims 11 and 12) is also known, as shown by US20170237174A1 (Seeqc, Inc.), which discusses filling cavities with fluid or solid dielectric materials to manipulate microwave fields. Research from IBM also explores dielectric materials in 3D superconducting cavities. These references collectively impact the patentability of Claims 11 and 12 under § 103, particularly if the claimed dielectric properties or materials are not shown to provide a surprising or non-obvious technical effect when used in combination with the claimed structure and supported by sufficient enablement under § 112. Claims 8 and 9, related to mimicking biological structures like microtubules, are highly likely to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea or an unpatentable application of a natural phenomenon or structure, lacking a concrete, non-obvious technical implementation that provides a patent-eligible invention under the *Alice/Mayo* framework. * **Control and Readout (Claims 13-15):** Methods for controlling quantum systems with modulated fields (e.g., electromagnetic or acoustic - Claim 13) and performing non-demolition measurements (Claim 14), including via interferometric or spectral analysis (Claim 15), are standard techniques in the art of quantum physics and quantum computing. These claims, when broadly drafted, are unlikely to be novel or inventive on their own under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. To be patentable, such claims would need to specify a novel control or readout method *specifically adapted* for the unique HQC architecture that provides a *demonstrable technical advantage* (e.g., improved fidelity, speed, or efficiency) and is supported by detailed enablement under § 112, thereby also helping to satisfy § 101 by demonstrating a practical application and technical improvement. * **Noise Mitigation (Claims 20-23):** While important, broad claims to integrated nanoscale shielding or quasiparticle traps (Claims 20, 23) or specific shielding types like photonic/phononic crystals (Claims 21, 22) may face prior art challenges as these techniques are known or variations thereof have been explored in quantum systems for mitigating various noise sources. Patentability depends on the *specific, non-obvious integration or configuration* of these elements within the unique HQC architecture and a demonstrated synergistic technical effect that provides a measurable technical improvement (e.g., significantly enhanced coherence time) not achievable with known methods. Such claims require detailed enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 to demonstrate the feasibility and technical effect of the specific integrated system and are generally directed to a specific machine, addressing § 101 concerns. * **Abstract Ideas and Subject Matter Eligibility (Claims 4, 17-19, 24-26):** Claims directed to abstract concepts without sufficient concrete technical application are highly likely to face rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly under step 1 of the *Alice/Mayo* framework which identifies whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (like abstract ideas). This includes: * Claim 4: Software translating algorithms is considered an abstract process unless integrated into a specific, inventive machine or significantly improving existing computer technology under step 2 of the *Alice/Mayo* framework. * Claims 17-19: Methods involving engineered noise or continuous control without a concrete technical means for *implementing* the engineering or control *within a specific system* and achieving a specific, demonstrable technical effect beyond the abstract idea of influencing a quantum system are likely to be seen as abstract under step 1 and fail to provide an inventive concept under step 2. These claims lack the necessary technical specificity and linkage to a concrete technical problem or solution. Research discussing non-Markovian dynamics in quantum circuits exists. * Claim 24: Mathematical modeling methods (based on QFT) are generally considered abstract unless tied to a specific, inventive machine or process that applies the model in a concrete way to achieve a technical solution to a technical problem under step 2. * Claim 25: Neuromorphic circuit architectures without specific, novel technical structure beyond known analog or superconducting components are likely to be viewed as abstract circuit designs or unpatentable arrangements of known components under § 101. Research like the Auburn University work on superconducting neuromorphic circuits is highly relevant prior art for this claim under § 103. * Claim 26: Systems for modeling dynamics using hypercomplex numbers and hardware accelerators without a specific, inventive application to a technical problem faced by the claimed quantum computing system are likely to be viewed as abstract mathematical methods or known uses of hardware accelerators for mathematical computations under § 101. Prior art like US10763974B2 and articles discussing photonic processors from Lightmatter show the use of hypercomplex numbers and hardware accelerators for mathematical operations. A recent PTAB decision, *Ex parte Yudong Cao*, provides valuable insight into overcoming § 101 rejections for quantum computing inventions. Applying the *Alice/Mayo* framework, the board found that claims directed to a hybrid quantum-classical method for solving linear equations were eligible because the method provided a practical application and tangible technical improvement (step 2), enabling noisy quantum computers to solve problems that would otherwise be impractical. This underscores the critical importance of demonstrating a concrete technical solution and practical application that results in a technical improvement over the prior art. In summary, the Initial Claims, particularly those defining the HQC concept at a high level or claiming abstract methods/systems, have a low probability of being granted due to anticipation, obviousness, and significant subject matter eligibility issues under § 101, as evaluated under the *Alice/Mayo* framework. Patentability is contingent on specifying novel and non-obvious technical implementations that are not disclosed or suggested by the existing art and are directed to concrete technical solutions with demonstrated practical applications and technical improvements, *fully supported by detailed technical enablement sufficient to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112*. Crucially, overcoming the prior art and § 101 rejections requires claims that define specific structural features, materials, and methods with sufficient technical detail and support from the patent application's disclosure to demonstrate enablement (35 U.S.C. § 112) and a technical contribution over the prior art that constitutes a practical application and technical improvement. ## Section 3: Freedom to Operate (FTO) Landscape This section analyzes the Freedom to Operate (FTO) landscape for the HQC technology. The FTO landscape is challenging, with a **Medium to High Risk** of infringement if the technology is commercialized broadly as initially conceived, particularly with claims lacking specific technical limitations. The risk stems from the crowded patent space in enabling technologies for quantum computing, particularly in areas overlapping with the broad Initial Claims related to resonant systems, superconducting circuits, control methods, and computational hardware. Key patents of concern identified in the prior art search include: * **US8642998B2 (Yale University):** This active patent claims a quantum computer using a 3D superconducting cavity with multiple resonant modes as qubits. A broad implementation of HQC utilizing a similar 3D superconducting cavity structure where the resonant modes function as qubits could potentially infringe claims directed to such a system or method of operating it (e.g., Initial Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 16). * **US10763974B2 (Lightmatter, Inc.):** This active patent claims photonic systems for matrix-vector multiplication, including with hypercomplex numbers. If the HQC system's modeling or control relies on a hardware accelerator implementing hypercomplex algebra (as per Initial Claim 26 or Revised Claim 5) in a manner covered by this patent, there could be an FTO risk. * **US20170237174A1 (Seeqc, Inc.):** This active published application claims methods of varying dielectric properties within a microwave cavity and systems incorporating such cavities that can act as an element of a quantum computer. If the HQC system employs dielectric materials within its resonant structure (as per Initial Claims 11, 12 or Revised Claim 1) and involves methods of their selection or variation that fall within the scope of any granted claims from this application, it could create FTO issues. * **SeeQC, Inc. Patents:** Several other active patents assigned to SeeQC, Inc. relate to superconducting quantum circuits, their fabrication, control, and packaging, indicating a crowded space in superconducting quantum hardware. Implementations of the HQC physical system involving superconducting components could potentially overlap with the scope of these patents, depending on their specific claims. These identified patents represent examples of the type of prior art that could pose FTO challenges for broad implementations of the HQC concept. A comprehensive FTO analysis would require a detailed claim-by-claim mapping against the commercial embodiment of the HQC technology. Mitigation strategies for FTO risk include: 1. **Design-Around:** Carefully designing the commercial embodiment of the HQC system to avoid the specific limitations and scope of existing patent claims. This is particularly relevant when focusing on the specific implementations outlined in the revised claims (Section 5), ensuring the design falls outside the scope of potentially blocking patents. 2. **Licensing:** Seeking licenses for foundational technologies where necessary to operate within the scope of existing patents. 3. **Invalidity Challenges:** Analyzing potentially blocking patents for vulnerabilities based on prior art or other grounds and, if appropriate, initiating post-grant challenges to their validity (e.g., reexamination, *inter partes* review in the US). 4. **Focus on Specific Claims:** As with patentability, focusing development and commercialization efforts on the specific, novel implementations detailed in Section 5 for which patent protection is sought will help carve out a defensible FTO position by operating in technical space less likely to be covered by broad existing patents. Ongoing FTO monitoring is essential as the technology develops and commercialization plans mature. ## Section 4: Strategic Opportunities & Gaps in Prior Art This section identifies strategic opportunities for patent protection based on the analysis of prior art gaps. Despite the challenges posed by the prior art, the analysis reveals several strategic gaps and opportunities for obtaining valuable, defensible patent protection. These opportunities lie not in the general concept of using resonant fields for QC, which is known (e.g., US8642998B2), but in the *specific, novel, and non-obvious ways the HQC system's physical structure is realized, its quantum states are precisely controlled, noise is managed, and its components are manufactured and characterized*. These opportunities directly address the limitations and breadth of the prior art discussed in Section 2 and provide avenues for claiming concrete technical solutions with demonstrable technical improvements. Key opportunities include: 1. **Specific, Technologically Enabled System Architecture:** While 3D cavities and superconducting materials are known (e.g., US8642998B2, IBM Research), prior art is less specific regarding *unique combinations* of precise 3D lattice geometries, HTS materials with specific properties, and novel dielectric fillers with defined cryogenic characteristics tailored to enhance HQC performance (e.g., coherence, mode isolation, frequency stability). A claim directed to a specific, complex 3D lattice structure (e.g., made of HTS material with a defined, non-obvious geometry that provides specific advantages for mode structure or coherence not achievable with simple cavities) filled with a specific class of dielectric material (e.g., hydrogels or ordered liquids with precisely defined, non-obvious dielectric constant and loss tangent properties at cryogenic temperatures) designed to achieve a demonstrated technical effect (e.g., enhanced coherence beyond state-of-the-art, specific coupling properties, robust mode isolation) presents a strong opportunity. This opportunity arises because prior art like US8642998B2 and US20170237174A1 are more general regarding cavity geometry and dielectric fillers; specifying a novel combination for specific technical benefits in the HQC context, supported by detailed enablement showing *how* this combination achieves the claimed technical effects, can overcome these prior art hurdles under § 103 and satisfy §§ 101 and 112 by claiming a specific machine with a technical improvement and providing sufficient disclosure. 2. **Integrated Multi-Modal Nanoscale Noise Mitigation System Tailored to HQC:** While individual noise mitigation techniques are known (e.g., quasiparticle traps, phononic crystals, photonic crystals), prior art often focuses on mitigating single noise sources or lacks integration within a complex 3D resonant structure. A system that integrates multiple, synergistic nanoscale shielding structures (e.g., combining phononic crystals, photonic crystals, and quasiparticle traps) *specifically designed for the HQC resonant lattice architecture* to address multiple noise channels simultaneously and interactively, resulting in a demonstrable technical improvement in h-qubit performance (e.g., significantly extended coherence times), could be considered novel and non-obvious under §§ 102 and 103. This opportunity goes beyond general noise mitigation techniques by specifying a unique integrated system tailored to the specific HQC structure and demonstrating a synergistic technical effect supported by detailed enablement under § 112. This is directed to a specific machine, addressing § 101 concerns by providing a concrete technical solution to a technical problem (noise) with a demonstrable technical improvement. 3. **Method for Engineered Non-Markovian Control with Demonstrated Technical Effect:** The concept of using engineered noise or tailored control fields to influence quantum system dynamics in non-trivial ways is an active research area. A method that uses specifically profiled non-Markovian control fields (e.g., via tailored terahertz pulses or controlled phononic excitations) not merely as an abstract concept but linked to a *concrete mechanism* that demonstrably guides the HQC system's evolution towards a desired state or enhances computational performance (e.g., accelerating convergence to a solution, improving gate fidelity beyond standard control methods) presents a potential area for patentability under §§ 101 and 103. This opportunity is distinct from the abstract idea concerns (Claims 17-19) by requiring strong technical enablement under § 112 showing the specific control field profile, the mechanism of interaction with the h-qubits within the claimed architecture, and the resulting, demonstrable technical benefit in the context of the HQC system, thereby providing a practical application and technical improvement under the *Alice/Mayo* framework. 4. **Application of TDA to Quantum Device Manufacturing/Characterization for Performance Improvement:** While Topological Data Analysis (TDA) is a known analytical tool (e.g., CN109376870B), its specific application to optimizing the manufacturing process for complex quantum components, particularly HQC-specific structures, based on correlating topological features in multi-modal characterization data with quantum performance metrics and then modifying manufacturing parameters based on these correlations, is a novel intersection of fields directed to a practical application. A method claim for using TDA to analyze multi-modal characterization data from fabricated components, identify persistent topological features correlated with specific quantum performance metrics (e.g., coherence time, gate fidelity), and then *modifying manufacturing process parameters based on these quantitative correlations* to improve the performance metrics of subsequently fabricated components is highly promising and directed to a concrete technical solution to a manufacturing problem with a clear technical effect (improved yield/performance). This distinguishes over general TDA methods by specifying its application to quantum manufacturing with a feedback loop to improve device performance, thereby satisfying §§ 101 and 103, provided it is supported by detailed enablement under § 112. This aligns with the principles of claiming an improvement to a technical process. 5. **Novel Sensor Integration for HQC Readout Providing Technical Advantage:** While quantum state readout is known (e.g., US8642998B2), a claim for a system incorporating a specific type of sensor, such as a novel cryogenic single-phonon detector or a uniquely integrated interferometric setup, specifically designed and integrated with the HQC resonant medium in a non-obvious way for high-fidelity, non-demolition readout of the h-qubit states, could be patentable under §§ 102 and 103. This is particularly true if the specific integration and functionality provide a demonstrable technical advantage in the context of HQC (e.g., higher readout fidelity, faster readout speed, or lower back-action compared to standard techniques) and are supported by detailed enablement under § 112. This is directed to a specific machine component and its function, addressing § 101 concerns by providing a concrete technical solution to a technical problem (readout accuracy/speed) with a demonstrable technical improvement. These opportunities highlight that patent protection is most likely to be secured not on the fundamental principle of using resonant frequencies but on the specific, tangible, and inventively implemented technical solutions that make the HQC paradigm a functional and advantageous quantum computing approach, thereby overcoming the limitations of the prior art and satisfying the requirements of §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. **Realizing these opportunities in the form of granted patents is contingent upon providing a detailed and enabling technical disclosure that demonstrates *how* the claimed invention works and achieves its purported technical benefits and improvements.** ## Section 5: Revised Claims with Higher Patentability Potential Based on the identified strategic opportunities and the need to overcome prior art and subject matter eligibility challenges discussed in Section 2, the following revised claims are proposed. They are narrowly tailored to specific technical implementations and include structural and functional limitations designed to distinguish them from the broad concepts and abstract ideas found in the prior art, thereby increasing their novelty, inventive step, and likelihood of being granted under §§ 101, 102, and 103. These claims focus on concrete technical solutions that provide practical applications and technical improvements over the prior art. **Crucially, these claims require robust support from a detailed technical disclosure to satisfy enablement and written description requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112. This detailed disclosure is also essential for demonstrating that the claimed subject matter is a concrete technical solution with a practical application and demonstrable technical improvement, thereby strengthening arguments for subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.** > **Claim 1 (System Architecture):** A quantum computing system, comprising: > a three-dimensional lattice structure formed from a High-Temperature Superconducting (HTS) material, the lattice defining a plurality of interconnected resonant cavities configured to support addressable harmonic qubit (h-qubit) states as coherent superpositions of resonant frequency modes, wherein the geometry of the three-dimensional lattice structure is specifically designed through non-obvious structural features to create a bandgap for unwanted electromagnetic modes while permitting the existence of desired h-qubit resonant frequency modes and enhancing their coherence properties; > a dielectric material filling the interconnected resonant cavities, wherein the dielectric material is an ordered liquid or hydrogel having a dielectric constant greater than 80 and a loss tangent less than 10⁻⁴ at cryogenic temperatures (e.g., below 77K) and specifically configured through its physical properties and interaction with the HTS lattice to tune the resonant frequencies of the h-qubit states, minimize dielectric losses, and enhance their coherence properties within the HTS lattice beyond that achievable with conventional dielectric fillers; > a control system configured to apply precisely modulated electromagnetic fields to the lattice structure via integrated waveguides or antennas to selectively excite and manipulate the coherent superpositions of the addressable resonant frequency modes to perform quantum logic gates on the h-qubits; and > a readout system configured to measure the final states of the h-qubits using non-demolition techniques based on spectral analysis of resonant mode states or interferometry of emitted/transmitted fields interacting with the h-qubits, said techniques specifically adapted for the properties of the claimed system. * **Commentary on Claim 1:** This claim is directed to a specific machine and its components, thereby addressing § 101 subject matter eligibility concerns by claiming a concrete apparatus that provides a technical solution. It attempts to overcome prior art like US8642998B2 and US20170237174A1 by focusing on the *specific, non-obvious combination* of a 3D HTS lattice with a *defined, advantageous geometry* and a *specifically characterized dielectric filler* (ordered liquid/hydrogel with defined cryogenic properties) that together yield a demonstrable technical improvement (e.g., enhanced coherence, mode isolation). Patentability hinges on the disclosure providing detailed technical drawings, material specifications, and experimental/simulation data demonstrating *how* the specific lattice geometry and dielectric material combination achieve the claimed technical effects (bandgap creation, enhanced coherence, etc.) that are non-obvious over the prior art under § 103 and meet the enablement requirement under § 112. The demonstrable technical improvements provided by the specific architecture strengthen the argument for patent eligibility under § 101 by illustrating a practical application and technical effect. > **Claim 2 (Integrated Noise Mitigation):** The system of Claim 1, further comprising an integrated multi-modal noise mitigation shield structure fabricated in intimate contact with or incorporated within the three-dimensional HTS lattice structure, the shield structure specifically configured through its novel, integrated design to mitigate multiple types of noise affecting the h-qubit states simultaneously and synergistically, the shield comprising at least: > a phononic crystal layer strategically positioned adjacent to the HTS lattice, designed with a bandgap overlapping the dominant phonon frequencies impacting the h-qubits, configured to block external phonon propagation into the lattice and reduce decoherence from vibrational noise; and > a plurality of integrated quasiparticle traps structurally engineered within the HTS material of the lattice structure, configured to capture non-equilibrium quasiparticles generated by stray radiation or thermal fluctuations, thereby preserving the superconducting state and enhancing h-qubit coherence beyond that achievable with either component alone. * **Commentary on Claim 2:** This claim is directed to a specific system component with a technical function, addressing § 101 concerns by claiming a concrete apparatus that provides a technical solution to a technical problem (noise) with a demonstrable technical improvement. It builds on Claim 1 and addresses prior art on noise mitigation by claiming a *specific, integrated combination* of nanoscale noise mitigation techniques (phononic crystals and quasiparticle traps) tailored to the HQC architecture, asserting a *synergistic effect* (mitigating multiple noise types simultaneously and enhancing coherence beyond individual mitigation). Patentability requires the disclosure to provide detailed designs for the integrated shield structure and experimental/simulation data demonstrating the synergistic noise mitigation effect and resulting improvement in h-qubit coherence within the claimed HTS lattice/dielectric system, satisfying § 112 and distinguishing over prior art combining known components without demonstrating a non-obvious synergistic effect under § 103. The demonstrable technical improvement in coherence further supports patent eligibility under § 101 by showing a practical application and technical effect. > **Claim 3 (TDA Manufacturing Method):** A method for manufacturing a quantum computing component for a system according to Claim 1, comprising: > fabricating a plurality of three-dimensional HTS lattice components according to a baseline manufacturing process; > collecting multi-modal characterization data from each of the plurality of fabricated components, the data including at least high-resolution structural imaging data (e.g., SEM or TEM) and cryogenic electromagnetic resonant frequency response data (e.g., transmission/reflection spectroscopy); > applying Topological Data Analysis (TDA) to the collected multi-modal characterization data using specific TDA techniques adapted for this data type to generate persistence diagrams and identify persistent topological features within the multi-dimensional data space that are quantitatively correlated with measured quantum performance metrics of the components, including h-qubit coherence times and resonant frequency stability; and > modifying at least one controllable parameter of the baseline manufacturing process based on the identified quantitative correlations to increase the prevalence of specific topological features statistically associated with a higher quantum performance metric in subsequently fabricated components, thereby improving manufacturing yield and device performance. * **Commentary on Claim 3:** This claim is directed to a specific manufacturing process that yields a technical result, addressing § 101 concerns by claiming an improvement to a technical process (manufacturing yield and performance) that solves a technical problem in a technical field (quantum device fabrication). It targets a novel application of TDA to a specific technical problem: improving the manufacturing yield and performance of complex quantum components. It distinguishes over general TDA methods (e.g., CN109376870B) by specifying its application to *quantum device manufacturing*, the *type of data analyzed* (multi-modal, quantum-specific), the *correlation with specific quantum performance metrics*, and the *feedback loop to modify manufacturing parameters* to achieve a *technical improvement* (improved yield/performance). Enablement under § 112 requires detailing the specific TDA techniques used, how they are applied to the characterization data, the statistical methods for correlation, and concrete examples of how specific topological features correlate with quantum performance and how manufacturing parameters are modified to exploit this correlation. This must demonstrate that the method is non-obvious under § 103 and provides a concrete technical solution with a tangible benefit, supporting patent eligibility under § 101 as a practical application. > **Claim 4 (Engineered Control Method):** A method for performing a quantum computation in the system of Claim 1, comprising: > encoding a computational problem into an initial coherent superposition state of the h-qubits supported by the three-dimensional HTS lattice structure; and > applying a sequence of control pulses to the control system, wherein the sequence includes both conventional logic gate pulses for manipulating h-qubit states and intentionally engineered control pulses with a specific, tailored spectral and temporal profile (e.g., sequences of picosecond or femtosecond electromagnetic pulses, or controlled phononic excitations generated by integrated transducers) directed at the HTS lattice, the engineered control pulses specifically configured through theoretical modeling or experimental calibration to controllably interact with the h-qubit states and accelerate the quantum system's evolution towards a desired computational solution state or enhance a specific quantum property (e.g., entanglement generation or coherence time) in a non-dissipative manner, thereby providing a technical advantage in quantum computation. * **Commentary on Claim 4:** This claim is directed to a specific method of operating a quantum machine to achieve a technical result, addressing § 101 concerns by providing a practical application and a technical improvement (accelerated evolution, enhanced properties) in the operation of a quantum computer. It focuses on a specific, technically enabled method of controlling the HQC system using engineered pulses (framed here as "engineered control pulses" rather than "engineered noise" to strengthen the technical purpose) with a demonstrable technical effect (accelerating evolution towards a solution, enhancing entanglement/coherence). This addresses the abstractness concerns of initial claims 17-19 by linking the control method to the specific HQC system (Claim 1) and requiring a demonstrable technical outcome, thus providing a practical application under the *Alice/Mayo* framework. Patentability under §§ 101, 103, and 112 hinges on providing detailed disclosure of the specific spectral and temporal profiles of the engineered pulses, the mechanism by which they interact with the h-qubits *within the claimed structure*, and experimental or simulation data demonstrating the claimed technical advantage (e.g., faster computation, higher fidelity entanglement) to satisfy enablement and show non-obviousness. The demonstrable technical advantage further supports patent eligibility under § 101. > **Claim 5 (Hardware-Accelerated Modeling with Specific Application):** A system for modeling and optimizing the quantum dynamics of the harmonic qubit states within the three-dimensional HTS lattice structure and dielectric material of the system according to Claim 1, comprising: > a hardware accelerator comprising a photonic processor or superconducting circuit processor configured to efficiently perform mathematical operations using quaternion-valued numbers; and > a software module stored in memory and executed by one or more processors, configured to: > (a) represent the effective Hamiltonian and quantum states of the HQC system, including the interactions between the applied electromagnetic fields, the dielectric material properties, and the HTS lattice geometry affecting the h-qubit resonant frequency states and their coupling, using a novel quaternion algebra representation specifically formulated to accurately capture the system's complex physical dynamics; > (b) translate the quantum dynamics simulation of the h-qubit evolution under the influence of control fields and environmental noise into a sequence of quaternion matrix-vector multiplications or equivalent operations efficiently executable by the hardware accelerator; and > (c) execute the sequence on the hardware accelerator to simulate the evolution of the h-qubit states over time, and using the simulation results, optimize control pulses for the control system of Claim 1 or predict system performance metrics such as coherence time or gate fidelity with improved accuracy or speed compared to conventional simulation methods. * **Commentary on Claim 5:** This claim is directed to a specific machine that provides a technical improvement, addressing § 101 concerns. It targets a specific system for modeling the HQC dynamics, addressing the abstractness of Initial Claim 26 by tying the hypercomplex number processing on a hardware accelerator to the *specific technical problem* of accurately modeling the complex dynamics of the claimed HQC system (Claim 1) and using the results for a *technical purpose* (optimizing control pulses, predicting performance) with a demonstrable technical improvement (accuracy, speed) in the technical field of quantum simulation and control. This distinguishes over prior art like US10763974B2 and other references discussing hypercomplex numbers and hardware acceleration by focusing on the novel application of a specifically formulated quaternion algebra representation to the unique physical dynamics of the HQC system. Enablement under § 112 requires detailing the novel quaternion algebra formulation, how it accurately represents the HQC dynamics, the architecture of the hardware accelerator and its efficiency in performing the necessary quaternion operations, and how the simulation results are used for optimization or prediction, with data demonstrating improved accuracy or speed compared to conventional methods. This demonstrable technical improvement in modeling capability and its application to optimizing the HQC system's performance further supports patent eligibility under § 101 as a practical application. These revised claims represent a strategic shift from broad conceptual claims to specific, technically grounded inventions that leverage the unique aspects of the HQC paradigm and aim to provide concrete technical solutions and improvements over the prior art. Their success in patent prosecution and enforceability is entirely dependent on the level of detailed technical enablement provided in the patent application. This detailed enablement is crucial for demonstrating that the claimed invention is more than an abstract idea or theoretical possibility, but rather a concrete technical solution capable of being made and used, thereby satisfying both § 101 (by demonstrating a practical application and technical improvement) and § 112. ## Section 6: Strategic Recommendations & Conclusion This section provides strategic recommendations for patent prosecution based on the preceding analysis. The overall strategic recommendation is a **Cautious Go**. While the broad underlying concepts of Harmonic Quantum Computing face significant patentability and FTO challenges due to extensive prior art, pursuing patent protection for the specific, novel technical solutions embodied in the revised claims is strategically advisable and represents the most viable path to securing valuable intellectual property in this crowded field. Success in obtaining patents is critically contingent upon the following factors, with particular emphasis on the requirement for a detailed technical enablement disclosure: 1. **Exclusive Focus on Narrow, Enabled Claims:** Patent prosecution efforts must strictly focus on the revised, technically-distinct claims presented in Section 5. These claims are specifically drafted to overcome the limitations of the prior art discussed in Section 2 by defining concrete, non-obvious structural features, materials with specific properties, and technically-enabled methods that provide demonstrable technical improvements. These claims are designed to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 by being directed to specific machines or improved technical processes, navigating the *Alice/Mayo* framework by providing a concrete technical solution that achieves a technical effect and solves a technical problem. For example, Revised Claim 1's specificity regarding the HTS lattice structure geometry and particular dielectric material combination with defined cryogenic properties directly addresses the broad resonant cavity art (e.g., US8642998B2, US20170237174A1) by claiming a non-obvious combination yielding technical benefits such as enhanced coherence or improved mode isolation. Revised Claim 3's application of TDA to manufacturing correlated with specific quantum performance metrics overcomes general TDA art (e.g., CN109376870B) by specifying its use for a technical problem in quantum manufacturing with a feedback loop for improvement (e.g., increased yield, better performance). This focused approach, defining specific technical solutions and improvements, is essential for overcoming anticipation (§ 102), obviousness (§ 103), and subject matter eligibility (§ 101) rejections, aligning with the principles highlighted in *Ex parte Yudong Cao*. 2. **Provide Robust, Detailed Technical Enablement (35 U.S.C. § 112):** This is the single most critical factor for successful prosecution and the lynchpin for converting the promising concepts into protectable intellectual property. Without sufficient technical enablement, even the most novel concept cannot be patented, and claims will fail under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Furthermore, a detailed technical disclosure is essential for demonstrating that the claimed invention is not an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but rather a concrete technical solution with a practical application and technical improvement. The patent application *must* include a comprehensive and highly detailed technical disclosure sufficient for a person skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. This level of enablement is essential not only to satisfy statutory requirements under § 112 but also to provide a clear technical foundation that distinguishes the claimed invention from the more abstract or general concepts found in the prior art and potential Section 101 rejections. By demonstrating *how* the invention functions, is constructed, and achieves its technical effects and improvements, the disclosure supports the argument that the claims are directed to a practical application and not merely an abstract idea or theoretical concept. The disclosure should provide, where applicable to the specific claims being pursued: * Detailed schematics, engineering drawings, and structural descriptions of the three-dimensional HTS lattice (as per Revised Claim 1), including specific dimensions, geometries optimized for mode structure and coherence, fabrication methods (e.g., specific additive manufacturing parameters or lithography steps), and material specifications, supported by simulations or experimental data demonstrating the claimed bandgap and coherence properties. * Precise specifications and characterization data for the dielectric material (ordered liquid/hydrogel) (as per Revised Claim 1), demonstrating its physical and electrical properties (dielectric constant, loss tangent, viscosity, conductivity) at relevant cryogenic temperatures and its specific interaction with the HTS structure and electromagnetic fields to achieve the claimed tuning, loss minimization, and coherence enhancement, supported by experimental data. * Detailed descriptions of the control system architecture, components, coupling mechanisms, and specific examples of pulse sequences for performing logic gates and engineered control application on the h-qubits (as per Revised Claim 4), with simulation or experimental data demonstrating their effect on h-qubit states and claimed technical advantages (e.g., faster evolution, enhanced entanglement/coherence). * Detailed descriptions of the readout system and methods (as per Revised Claim 1), including integration with the lattice, components, and techniques for non-demolition measurement of field properties or spectral signatures, explaining how it functions within the specific HQC system and provides high fidelity. * Detailed design and integration information for the multi-modal noise mitigation shield (as per Revised Claim 2), including material compositions, nanoscale structural designs, placement, fabrication methods, and experimental or simulation data demonstrating the synergistic noise mitigation effect and resulting improvement in h-qubit performance (e.g., extended coherence times) beyond individual components. * Specific examples and methodology for applying TDA to manufacturing data (as per Revised Claim 3), including types of data, specific TDA techniques, generation and analysis of persistence diagrams, statistical correlation methods with quantum performance metrics, and clear examples of how these correlations lead to specific, actionable modifications in manufacturing process parameters, supported by data showing improved yield or performance. * Detailed information regarding the hardware-accelerated modeling system (as per Revised Claim 5), including the specific novel quaternion algebra formulation, the architecture of the hardware accelerator, and specific examples showing *how* it is used to model the *specific* quantum dynamics of the HQC system and how the simulation outputs are used for control pulse optimization or performance prediction, with data demonstrating improved accuracy or speed compared to conventional methods. Without this level of detailed, enabling disclosure, claims, even if conceptually novel, are highly likely to be rejected as lacking adequate written description or enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, or as being directed to mere theoretical possibilities or abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101. **Providing this concrete technical foundation is paramount to demonstrating that the claimed invention is a patent-eligible technical solution, not merely an abstract concept or mathematical method.** 3. **Proactive FTO Management:** Continue to monitor the FTO landscape specifically for patents related to the materials (e.g., specific HTS compounds, specific ordered liquids/hydrogels at cryogenic temperatures), structures (e.g., specific HTS lattice geometries, specific 3D cavity designs), dielectric fillers with specific properties, integrated multi-modal nanoscale noise mitigation techniques, and specific applications of TDA to manufacturing or hypercomplex algebra hardware for quantum modeling as claimed in the revised claims. As the commercial embodiment is finalized, a focused design-around strategy may be necessary to avoid the scope of any blocking patents identified, particularly those from Yale (US8642998B2), Seeqc (US20170237174A1), and Lightmatter (US10763974B2). 4. **Continued Research and Development:** Ongoing R&D is essential not only to advance the technology but critically to generate the experimental data, detailed simulations, and rigorous theoretical understanding required to support the technical enablement of the revised claims and to identify further patentable improvements. Building functional prototypes and obtaining performance data is highly valuable for demonstrating enablement and technical advantages. 5. **Engage Experienced Patent Counsel:** Given the complexity of the technology, the crowded nature of the field, and the critical importance of enablement and navigating subject matter eligibility under the *Alice/Mayo* framework, working closely with experienced patent attorneys specializing in quantum computing, condensed matter physics, or related fields is highly recommended. They can provide expert guidance on nuanced claim drafting to navigate prior art and § 101 issues, develop a robust prosecution strategy, conduct detailed FTO analysis, and critically, assess and ensure the sufficiency of the technical disclosure for enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for demonstrating patent eligibility under § 101. By pursuing a patent strategy rigorously focused on specific, well-enabled technical solutions as outlined in the revised claims, supported by a comprehensive and detailed technical disclosure that demonstrates *how* the invention works and its technical benefits and improvements, *the likelihood of successfully securing valuable and enforceable patent protection for the novel aspects of Harmonic Quantum Computing is significantly increased. This focused approach is essential to navigating the complex IP landscape and establishing a competitive position.* ## Appendix A: Prior Art Analysis Details This appendix provides detailed information on the most relevant prior art identified during the search and the rationale for its impact on the patentability of the Initial Claims and the FTO landscape for the Harmonic Quantum Computing (HQC) paradigm. ### **Analysis of US8642998B2:** * **Full Citation:** [US8642998B2](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8642998B2/en) - Quantum computer using 3D superconducting cavity * **Assignee/Applicant(s)/Author(s):** Yale University * **Key Dates:** Filed Nov 2, 2011, Granted Feb 4, 2014. * **Estimated Status:** Active. * **Key Relevant Features & Disclosures:** Describes a quantum computer using a 3D superconducting microwave cavity. Multiple resonant modes of the cavity are used as qubits (specifically, it discusses using the first two modes). Quantum information is encoded in the quantum state of the modes. Qubit states are manipulated by applying microwave pulses to the cavity. Discusses coupling to a superconducting qubit for control and readout. * **Detailed Mapping Against Initial Claims (for Patentability):** * Initial Claim 1: Highly relevant. Discloses using distinct resonant frequency states within a physical medium (3D cavity) to represent qubit states. This patent anticipates the broad concept of using resonant modes as qubits under § 102. * Initial Claim 2: Highly relevant. Describes a device with a medium (3D cavity) sustaining multiple addressable, coherent resonant modes (qubits) and a control system (microwave pulses). This patent anticipates a system with these broad features under § 102. * Initial Claim 3: Relevant. Describes performing logic gates by applying modulated fields to the resonant medium to change the state of resonant modes. This makes the method obvious under § 103. * Initial Claim 5: Relevant. Describes executing logic gates by applying a control field to a wave-sustaining medium to evolve the state of qubits (resonant modes). This makes the method obvious under § 103. * Initial Claim 6: Highly relevant. Describes a system with a wave-sustaining medium (3D cavity) supporting addressable, coherent resonant frequency states (qubits), a control system (microwave pulses), and a readout system. This patent anticipates the broad system under § 102. * Initial Claim 7: Highly relevant. Specifies the wave-sustaining medium is a 3D structure (3D cavity). This feature is disclosed. * Initial Claim 10: Relevant. Mentions superconducting materials for the 3D cavity. This feature is disclosed. * Initial Claim 13: Relevant. Describes applying electromagnetic (microwave) fields. This feature is disclosed. * Initial Claim 16: Highly relevant. Describes a method involving encoding, manipulating with control fields, and reading out resonant frequency states in a wave-sustaining medium. This method is anticipated under § 102. * Impact: This patent is a significant hurdle for broad claims covering resonant mode quantum computing in 3D superconducting structures. Overcoming it requires claims specific to the HQC architecture (e.g., specific lattice geometry, materials, dielectric fillers, or control/readout methods) that are non-obvious variations or improvements over the disclosure in US8642998B2 under § 103 and are supported by sufficient enablement under § 112. These specific features, if novel and non-obvious and leading to a technical improvement, help demonstrate the claims are directed to a concrete technical solution under § 101. * **FTO Implications (if an *in-force* patent):** This is an active patent. Broad implementations of HQC that utilize a similar 3D superconducting cavity where distinct resonant modes function as qubits, manipulated and read out using standard techniques, could potentially fall within the scope of its claims, posing a significant FTO risk. Designing around would require a demonstrably different physical medium structure, qubit definition based on unique resonant properties of the HTS lattice, or manipulation/readout methods not covered by this patent. ### **Analysis of CN109376870B:** * **Full Citation:** [CN109376870B](https://patents.google.com/patent/CN109376870B/en) - Topological data analysis method and apparatus based on persistent homology and application thereof * **Assignee/Applicant(s)/Author(s):** BEIHANG UNIVERSITY * **Key Dates:** Filed Sep 11, 2018, Granted Apr 14, 2020. * **Estimated Status:** Active. * **Key Relevant Features & Disclosures:** Describes a topological data analysis method based on persistent homology and its applications. While broad, it illustrates the concept of applying TDA to analyze complex data for various purposes. The claims focus on the specific computational methods of TDA and generating persistent homology groups/diagrams. * **Detailed Mapping Against Initial Claims (for Patentability):** * Initial Claim 27: Impacts obviousness of the *application* of TDA under § 103. While this patent is broad on TDA itself, it does not disclose applying TDA *specifically* to quantum device manufacturing characterization data to identify correlations with quantum performance metrics and modify manufacturing processes based thereon. The novelty for Claim 27 lies in the specific application domain, the correlation with quantum performance, and the feedback loop to modify manufacturing, which constitutes a technical application of TDA to a technical problem, helping to overcome § 101 issues by demonstrating a concrete technical solution and improvement. Overcoming this prior art requires demonstrating that the specific application to quantum manufacturing is non-obvious under § 103 and provides a technical effect, supported by enablement under § 112. * **FTO Implications (if an *in-force* patent):** This patent covers TDA methods based on persistent homology. If the specific implementation of TDA used in the HQC manufacturing method (Revised Claim 3) utilizes persistent homology techniques that fall within the scope of the claims of this patent, there could be an FTO risk. However, many TDA techniques are mathematical concepts; FTO risk is typically higher for claims on specific hardware implementations or specific, non-abstract application methods with a technical effect. Careful review of the granted claims of this patent is needed to assess FTO risk for Revised Claim 3. ### **Analysis of US10763974B2:** * **Full Citation:** [US10763974B2](https://patents.google.com/patent/US10763974B2/en) - Photonic processing systems and methods * **Assignee/Applicant(s)/Author(s):** Lightmatter, Inc. * **Key Dates:** Filed Jun 28, 2018, Granted Aug 4, 2020. * **Estimated Status:** Active. * **Key Relevant Features & Disclosures:** Describes photonic processing systems and methods, including performing matrix-vector multiplication optically. Mentions that a quaternion-valued vector may be multiplied by a quaternion-valued matrix and an octonion-valued vector may be multiplied by an octonion-valued matrix. Discusses implementing these operations on hardware architectures capable of parallel computations, such as GPUs, systolic matrix multipliers, or photonic processors. Claims cover a photonic processing system and methods for optical matrix-vector multiplication. * **Detailed Mapping Against Initial Claims (for Patentability):** * Initial Claim 26: Impacts obviousness under § 103. Describes using quaternions and octonions in a hardware-accelerated system (photonic processor, GPU, etc.) for mathematical operations (matrix multiplication). While not specifically for *quantum dynamics modeling* using a *quaternion algebra specifically formulated for HQC dynamics* or for *optimizing control pulses* for the HQC system (as in Revised Claim 5), it establishes the concept of using these algebras on hardware accelerators, making a broad claim to this combination obvious. Revised Claim 5 addresses § 101 by claiming a specific machine with a specific technical application to modeling a specific quantum system to achieve a technical result (improved accuracy/speed in modeling for optimization), thus providing a practical application. * **FTO Implications (if an *in-force* patent):** This patent is active. Its claims cover photonic processing systems and methods for optical matrix-vector multiplication, including with hypercomplex numbers. If the HQC system's modeling component (Revised Claim 5) is implemented using a photonic processor or similar hardware for hypercomplex algebra operations in a way that falls within the scope of these claims, there could be an FTO risk. Designing around would require using a different type of hardware accelerator, a different mathematical representation, or ensuring the specific operations performed fall outside the granted claims. ### **Analysis of Neuromorphic Computing Based on Superconductive Quantum Phase-Slip Junctions:** * **Full Citation:** Neuromorphic Computing Based on Superconductive Quantum Phase-Slip Junctions, Auburn University (2021), Toward Learning in Neuromorphic Circuits Based on Quantum Phase Slip Junctions (2021). * **Assignee/Applicant(s)/Author(s):** Auburn University (for the dissertation/thesis). * **Key Dates:** 2021. * **Estimated Status:** Non-patent literature (NPL). * **Key Relevant Features & Disclosures:** Explores neuromorphic computing based on superconductive quantum phase-slip junctions (QPSJs). Discusses designing and simulating neuromorphic circuits using QPSJs and Josephson junctions (JJs) to emulate neuron spiking and learning. Mentions that superconductive circuits operating by propagation of small voltage/current pulses are suited for spiking neuron circuits. QPSJs can conduct quantized charge pulses resembling action potentials. Compares QPSJ neuromorphic circuits to JJ-based hardware. * **Detailed Mapping Against Initial Claims (for Patentability):** * Initial Claim 25: Impacts obviousness under § 103. Describes neuromorphic circuits based on superconducting components (QPSJs, JJs) for emulating neural behavior. While not explicitly analog *quantum* simulation, it is highly relevant prior art for neuromorphic circuits using superconducting elements and makes broad claims covering such circuits obvious. Such broad claims may also be rejected under § 101 as abstract circuit designs or arrangements of known components lacking an inventive concept tied to a technical solution to a technical problem. * **FTO Implications (if an *in-force* patent):** NPL does not pose FTO risk directly. However, research in this area suggests potential for future patenting by Auburn University or related entities. Ongoing monitoring is advisable if neuromorphic circuits using superconducting components become a core part of the HQC architecture. Any such circuits in the HQC system would need to be demonstrably novel and non-obvious over this and other prior art in superconducting neuromorphic computing to be patentable under § 103 and avoid § 101 rejections by claiming a specific, inventive structure or application that provides a technical improvement. ### **Analysis of US20170237174A1:** * **Full Citation:** [US20170237174A1](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170237174A1/en) - Microwave frequency magnetic field manipulation systems and methods and associated application instruments, apparatus and system * **Assignee/Applicant(s)/Author(s):** Seeqc, Inc. * **Key Dates:** Filed Feb 17, 2017, Published Aug 17, 2017. * **Estimated Status:** Active (Published application). * **Key Relevant Features & Disclosures:** Describes systems and methods for microwave frequency magnetic field manipulation, including within cavities. Mentions a system with a cavity that can act as an element of a quantum computer. Discusses varying dielectric properties within gaps in the cavity, inserting solid dielectric material, or filling the cavity with fluid. Claims cover methods involving varying dielectric properties within a cavity. * **Detailed Mapping Against Initial Claims (for Patentability):** * Initial Claim 2: Impacts obviousness of a computational device with a physical medium (cavity) under § 103. * Initial Claim 6: Impacts obviousness of a system for QC with a wave-sustaining medium (cavity) under § 103. * Initial Claim 11: Impacts obviousness of using dielectric material within a resonant cavity in a system that can act as a QC element under § 103. * Initial Claim 12: While not mentioning hydrogel or ordered liquid with specific cryogenic properties, it impacts the obviousness of using fluid dielectric fillers in a cavity for QC under § 103. * Impact: This published application is relevant prior art for using dielectric materials in cavities for quantum applications. Overcoming it requires claims specific to the *type* of dielectric material (ordered liquid/hydrogel), their *specific properties* at cryogenic temperatures, and their *interaction with the HTS lattice* to achieve specific technical benefits for the h-qubits, all supported by detailed enablement under § 112 and a demonstration that this combination is non-obvious under § 103. These specific features, if novel and non-obvious and providing a technical benefit, help demonstrate the claims are directed to a concrete technical solution under § 101. * **FTO Implications (if an *in-force* patent):** This is an active patent application. Its claims cover methods involving varying dielectric properties within a microwave cavity. If the HQC system utilizes dielectric materials within resonant cavities and involves methods of their selection, variation, or use that fall within the scope of any granted claims from this application, there could be an FTO risk, particularly for claims related to the system architecture and dielectric materials (Initial Claims 11, 12; Revised Claim 1). Monitoring the prosecution of this application is important as the claims could change. ## Appendix B: Search Strategy & Keywords Utilized **Conceptual International Search Strategy:** The search strategy focused on identifying prior art and FTO risks related to the core concepts of the invention: quantum computing using resonant frequency states as qubits, the physical implementation of such a system (resonant media, 3D structures, materials, noise mitigation), control and readout methods, and related computational/modeling aspects. The search aimed for international coverage, prioritizing major patent jurisdictions (US, EP, WO, CN, JP, KR) and relevant non-patent literature databases. The strategy included searching for both broad concepts and specific technical details mentioned in the invention description. **Databases Notionally Queried:** * Google Patents * Espacenet (European Patent Office) * WIPO PatentScope (World Intellectual Property Organization) * USPTO Patent Public Search * Derwent Innovation * Google Scholar * IEEE Xplore * arXiv * Physical Review journals (APS) * Nature Physics, Nature Communications, Science **Primary Keywords, Synonyms, Boolean Operators, and Classification Codes:** * **Core Concepts (general and specific):** * `"Harmonic Quantum Computing"` OR `"Resonant Field Computing"` OR `"resonant frequency qubit"` OR `"harmonic qubit"` OR `"resonant mode quantum computing"` OR `"field state quantum computing"` * `("quantum computing" AND ("resonant mode" OR "resonant frequency" OR "field state"))` * `("wave-sustaining medium" AND "quantum computing")` * `("coherent state" AND "quantum information")` * `"discrete resonant states" quantum computing` * **Physical Implementation:** * `("3D lattice" AND "quantum computing")` OR `"superconducting lattice"` OR `"HTS lattice"` * `("resonant cavity" AND "quantum computing")` OR `"superconducting resonator"` * `("dielectric filler" OR "dielectric material") AND ("resonant cavity" OR "superconducting resonator") AND "quantum computing"` * `"hydrogel" AND "cryogenic"` OR `"ordered liquid" AND "cryogenic"` OR `("high dielectric constant" AND "low loss tangent" AND "cryogenic" AND "quantum computing")` * `"superconducting circuits" AND "3D structure"` * **Control & Readout:** * `("modulated field" OR "control field") AND ("quantum computing" OR "resonant state")` * `"resonant control" AND "quantum system"` * `"non-demolition measurement" AND ("quantum computing" OR "resonant state")` * `"interferometric measurement" AND "quantum state"` OR `"spectral analysis" AND "quantum state readout"` * `"continuous control" AND "quantum system dynamics"` * `"single-qubit gate" OR "two-qubit gate" AND "resonant system"` * **Noise Mitigation:** * `"engineered non-Markovian noise" AND "quantum system"` * `("nanoscale shielding" OR "noise mitigation") AND ("quantum computing" OR "superconducting qubit")` * `"photonic crystal" AND ("quantum computing" OR "superconducting qubit")` * `"phononic crystal" AND ("quantum computing" OR "superconducting qubit" OR "vibrational noise")` * `"quasiparticle trap" AND "superconducting qubit"` * `"multi-modal noise mitigation" quantum` * **Related Concepts & Applications:** * `"Topological Data Analysis" AND ("manufacturing optimization" OR "material characterization" OR "quality control")` * `"TDA" AND ("quantum device" OR "HTS" OR "superconductor")` * `"cryogenic sensor" OR "single-phonon detector" AND "quantum device"` * `"engineered photosynthetic complex" quantum coherence` * `"paraconsistent logic circuit" quantum measurement` * `("quaternion" OR "octonion" OR "hypercomplex number") AND ("quantum dynamics" OR "quantum simulation" OR "hardware accelerator" OR "photonic processor")` * `("neuromorphic circuit" OR "analog simulation") AND ("quantum system" OR "superconducting circuit")` * `"Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics" patent` OR `"Circuit QED" patent` * `"Continuous-Variable Quantum Computing" patent` * `"Superconducting quantum circuit" patent` * **Specific References & Authors:** * `US8642998B2` OR `US 9692423 B2` OR `US6930320B2` OR `CN109376870B` OR `US20180052806A1` OR `WO2019055038A1` OR `US10763974B2` OR `US20170237174A1` OR `CN-116709894-A` * `arXiv 1407.0654` * Author names of key researchers in Cavity QED, Circuit QED, CVQC, superconducting qubits (e.g., Schoelkopf, Devoret, Girvin, Houck, Kimble, Painter, Aspelmeyer, Braunstein, Lloyd, Cao, Seeqc, Lightmatter, Yale) Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) were extensively used to combine concepts. Proximity operators (e.g., ADJ, NEAR) were used in specific databases to find terms appearing close to each other. Classification codes (e.g., G06N10/00 for Quantum Computing, H01L39/22 for Superconducting devices, G06F17/16 for Matrix or vector computation, G06F30/00 for Design automation) were used in patent databases to narrow searches to relevant technological areas. The search included both published patent applications and granted patents, as well as relevant academic papers, conference proceedings, and technical reports to ensure comprehensive coverage of both patentability-relevant disclosures and the state of the art for FTO. Status checks (Active, Expired, Lapsed) were performed for relevant patent documents to inform the FTO analysis. The search strategy was iterative, refined as relevant prior art was discovered. --- **Disclaimer:** This report is generated by an AI model using the provided documents and its knowledge base. It is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor is it a substitute for a professional patent search or legal opinion from a qualified patent attorney. The accuracy and completeness of the information cannot be guaranteed. Always consult with a qualified professional for decisions regarding patentability, freedom to operate, or intellectual property strategy.