DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 28 August 2025. Claims 1-24 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-14, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US 2020/0012961) in view of Jones (US 2021/0350270), Li (US 2020/0250564), Huang (US 2021/0280765), and Karalekas (US 2021/0357797).
Regarding claim 1, Kelly discloses a system capable of information processing based at least in part on quantum computing using quantum states of quantum bits (¶2), comprising:
a cryostat system (¶¶35, 87);
a quantum computing module enclosed by the cryostat system at the low cryogenic temperature (¶87), the quantum computing module comprising a first integrated chip structured to support a plurality of quantum bit circuits, wherein each quantum bit circuit is structured as a superconducting circuit at the low cryogenic temperature to exhibit different quantum states as a quantum-mechanical system and to quantum-mechanically interact with other quantum bit circuits via quantum entanglement to cause superposition or correlation of different quantum states of the quantum bit circuits (¶¶2, 35-36, 85);
a quantum bit management circuit module enclosed by the cryostat system, located adjacent to the quantum computing module and coupled to be maintained at a cryogenic temperature, quantum bit control circuits supported by a second integrated chip and structured to direct control signals to the quantum bit circuits to control the quantum bit circuits, respectively, and quantum bit readout circuits supported by the second integrated chip and structured to output readout signals from the quantum bit circuits, respectively, the readout signals representing quantum states of the quantum bit circuits, respectively, the quantum bit control circuits and quantum bit readout circuits structured to include superconducting circuits at the low cryogenic temperature and operable to operate with the control signals and readout signals based on digital processing by the quantum bit management circuit module at the low cryogenic temperature and in a non-quantum classical manner, and wherein the second integrated chip is engaged to the first integrated chip to form a multichip module to transfer control signals and readout signals therebetween, wherein the control signals are generated based in part on qubit readout information from the quantum bit management circuit module operated at the low cryogenic temperature (Figs. 1A-2A, ¶¶40, 42 86, 87); and
electrically conductive bumps formed to engage the first and second integrated chips to each other (Fig. 1A; ¶37).
Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose that the cryostat is structured to include different cryogenic stages operable to provide a low cryogenic temperature and higher cryogenic temperatures; circuit modules enclosed by the cryostat system at the higher cryogenic temperatures and structured to communicate with the quantum bit management circuit module in connection with the control signals and readout signals; and electrically conductive wires coupled between the quantum bit management circuit module and at least one of the circuit modules situated at higher temperature stages of the cryostat system to provide communications and transfer signals therebetween. Jones discloses these limitations (Fig. 1A; ¶¶22, 30).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly and Jones, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of reducing external connections and increasing signal bandwidth. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Kelly discloses a quantum computing system including a quantum computing chip in a cryostat. Jones teaches that the quantum computing system should include additional circuitry located in the cryostat and external to the cryostat in order to reduce external connections and increase signal bandwidth. The teachings of Jones are directly applicable to Kelly in the same way, so that Kelly’s quantum computing system would similarly include additional circuitry located in the cryostat and external to the cryostat in order to reduce external connections and increase signal bandwidth.
If Kelly is found to be unclear regarding digital processing by the quantum bit management circuit module at the low cryogenic temperature and in a non-quantum classical manner, wherein the control signals are generated based in part on qubit readout information from the quantum bit management circuit module operated at the low cryogenic temperature Li (Fig. 1A, ¶27) and Karalekas (¶62) also disclose these limitations. It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Li, and Karalekas because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of correctly executing quantum operations while reducing the computational burden of qubit control. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kelly discloses a quantum computing system including a first (qubit) die bonded to a second die having additional circuitry such a control and readout elements. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in quantum processing systems such as Kelly’s, the control and readout elements perform digital processing in a non-quantum classical manner at cryogenic temperatures to correctly control quantum operations based on the readout signals, as disclosed by Li and Karalekas. The teachings of Li and Karalekas are directly applicable to Kelly in the same way, so that Kelly’s control elements on the second die would similarly operate in a non-quantum classical manner, in order to correctly execute quantum operations while reducing computational burden of qubit control.
Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one flexible superconducting cable comprising electrically conductive cable segments, each of the electrically conductive cable segments configured to provide the communications and transfer the signals according to different temperature ranges corresponding to the different cryogenic stages, the electrically conductive cable segments coupled between the quantum bit management circuit module and the at least one of the circuit modules via at least some of the electrically conductive bumps. Huang discloses these limitations (Figs. 1, 2B, 2C; ¶29). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Li, and Huang, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of providing improved interconnects between elements of a quantum computing system. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Kelly discloses a quantum computing system including a quantum computing chip in a cryostat. Jones teaches that the quantum computing system should include additional circuitry located in the cryostat and external to the cryostat. Huang teaches that the quantum computing chip and additional circuitry should be connected by superconducting cables. The teachings of Huang are directly applicable to Kelly and Jones in the same way, so that Kelly’s quantum computing system would similarly use superconducting cables as improved interconnects between various elements of the system.
Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose communication links to facilitate the information processing at different speeds during operation of the system, the communication links including one or more of first communication links formed between the quantum computing module and the quantum bit management circuit module where each of the one or more of first communication links is configured to provide communications with a first communication latency, one or more of second communication links formed between quantum computing module and at least one of the circuit modules where each of the one or more of second communication links is configured to provide communications with a second communication latency longer than the first communication latency, and one or more of third communication links formed between the quantum computing module, the quantum bit management circuit module, and one or more processors at room temperature and located external to the cryostat system where each of the one or more of third communication links is configured to provide communications with a third communication latency longer than the second communication latency. Karalekas discloses these limitations (Fig. 9, communications links at stage 970 stage having lower latency than those at stage 960, which in turn have lower latency that those at stages 910-950; ¶¶16, 76, 104, 105). Jones (Figs. 1A, 3A, connections 155, 165, 175, 185, 195) and Huang (Figs. 1 and 2C; ¶29) also disclose the claimed first, second, and third communication links. Furthermore, persons having ordinary skill in the art would know that communication latencies increase with distance and/or temperature due to physics. It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Li, Huang, and Karalekas, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of allowing communications between various elements of a quantum computing system. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Kelly discloses a quantum computing system including a quantum computing chip and quantum bit management module in a cryostat. Jones teaches that the quantum computing system should include additional circuitry located in the cryostat and external to the cryostat. Karalekas, Jones, and Huang teach that the quantum computing chip is connected to the management module and circuits in and external to the cryostat using communication links of increasing latencies. The teachings of Karalekas, Jones, and Huang are directly applicable to Kelly and Jones in the same way, so that the elements of the Kelly’s quantum computing system can communicate with each other.
Regarding claim 2, Kelly discloses that the electrically conductive bumps are to provide mechanical engagement between the first and second integrated chips and are not electrically connected to a circuit in either the first integrated chip or the second integrated chip; and the quantum computing module and quantum bit management circuit module are coupled to each other to exchange information via conductive or inductive coupling (¶¶37, 44).
Regarding claim 3, Kelly discloses that the electrically conductive bumps are connected so that at least part the electrically conductive bumps form electrical conductive paths between the quantum bit management circuit module and quantum computing module for transfer of part of the control signals and readout signals without using other wiring between the quantum bit management circuit module and quantum computing module (¶37; Figs. 1A and 3B).
Regarding claim 5, Kelly discloses that the quantum computing module includes electrically conductive isolation bumps located to form isolation fences separating the quantum bit circuits to reduce crosstalk therebetween and to decrease decoherence of the quantum bit circuits (Fig. 2A; ¶44).
Regarding claim 8, Kelly discloses that the quantum bit management circuit module and quantum computing module are structured to include capacitive coupling circuitry to enable capacitive coupling between the quantum bit management circuit module and quantum computing module to provide signaling separate from the electrical conductive paths formed by electrically conductive bumps (¶44).
Regarding claim 9, Kelly discloses that the quantum bit management circuit module and quantum computing module are structured to include magnetic coupling circuitry to enable magnetic induction coupling between the quantum bit management circuit module and quantum computing module to provide signaling separate from the electrical conductive paths formed by electrically conductive bumps (¶44).
Regarding claim 10, Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose a flexible non-conductive material on which the electrically conductive wires are formed and separated from one another so that the flexible non-conductive material and the electrically conductive wires form a flexible ribbon that connects at least one of the circuit modules and the quantum bit management circuit module. Huang also discloses these limitations (Figs. 1 and 4A; ¶¶29, 34). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Kelly discloses that each quantum bit circuit includes a superconducting Josephson junction circuit at the low cryogenic temperature (¶¶79, 87). Jones also discloses the same (¶¶22, 131). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Kelly discloses that the quantum bit management circuit module includes a superconducting switching circuit that is different from a Josephson junction circuit (¶80). Li also discloses these limitations (¶38). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose that the quantum bit management circuit module includes a Josephson junction circuit. Li discloses these limitations (¶¶38-39). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose that the quantum bit management circuit module includes a single flux quantum (SFQ) logic circuit. Li discloses these limitations (¶27). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose optical transmitter and receiver devices to enable transmission and reception of optical signals between the cryogenic stages situated at the highest temperature of the cryostat system and the room temperature electronics to provide communications therebetween. Jones discloses these limitations (¶¶10, 15). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Kelly discloses that the quantum bit management circuit module and the quantum computing module are maintained at the same low cryogenic temperature (¶¶44, 87). If Kelly is found to be unclear regarding this limitation, Li discloses the same (¶27). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Kunkee (US 9,761,547).
Regarding claim 4, Kelly discloses that the electrically conductive bumps include electrically conductive isolation bumps located to form isolation fences to reduce crosstalk (Fig. 2A; ¶44), but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the isolation fences separate the electrically conductive wires to reduce crosstalk between the electrically conductive wires, which is disclosed by Kunkee (Fig. 5 and related text, especially col. 6, lines 61-64; col. 3, lines 46-51). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Kunkee, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of optimizing designs by minimizing electromagnetic (EM) interactions between circuit elements, such as transmission lines. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kelly discloses a circuit having conductive isolation bumps. Kunkee teaches that the bumps should form isolation fences between circuit elements such as transmission lines, in order to reduce EM interactions between those elements. The teachings of Kunkee are directly applicable to Kelly in the same way, so that Kelly’s conductive bumps would similarly form isolation fences around circuit elements such as transmission lines, in order to optimize the design by reducing EM interactions between those circuit elements.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Wilder (US 2020/0395651).
Regarding claim 6, Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose electrically conductive isolation walls located to form isolation walls separating the electrically conductive wires to reduce crosstalk between the electrically conductive wires. However, Kelly discloses electrically conductive isolation fences to reduce crosstalk (Fig. 2; ¶44), and Wilder discloses electrically conductive isolation walls separating electrically conductive wires to reduce crosstalk between the electrically conductive wires (¶39). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Wilder, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of reducing interactions between transmission lines. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kelly discloses a circuit having isolation features. Wilder teaches circuit elements such as transmission lines should be separated by isolation walls to reduce interactions between the elements. The teachings of Wilder are directly applicable to Kelly in the same way, so that Kelly would similarly separate circuit elements such as transmission lines using isolation walls, in order to reducing interactions between those circuit elements.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Oliver (US 2017/0133336).
Regarding claim 7, Kelly discloses that the quantum computing module includes electrically conductive isolation structures separating the quantum bit circuits to reduce crosstalk therebetween and to decrease decoherence of the quantum bit circuits (Fig. 2; ¶44), but does not appear to explicitly discloses that the isolation structures are walls, which is taught by Oliver (¶¶30, 311). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Oliver, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, or the routine substitution of an element with a known alternative, to achieve the predictable results of reducing interactions between circuit elements. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kelly discloses a circuit having isolation features. Oliver teaches that the isolation features are conductive isolation walls for reducing interactions between circuit elements. The teachings of Oliver are directly applicable to Kelly in the same way, so that Kelly would similarly use conductive isolation walls to reduce interactions between circuit elements.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Sank (US 2023/0010205).
Regarding claim 15, Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose that the quantum bit management circuit module includes a quantum flux parametron circuit. Sank discloses these limitations (¶124). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Sank, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of determining qubit states. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Kelly discloses a quantum circuit including readout circuitry coupled to qubits. Sank teaches that the readout circuitry includes a quantum flux parametron (QFP) circuit coupled to the qubit to determine the state of the qubit. The teachings of Sank are directly applicable to Kelly in the same way, so that Kelly would similarly use a QFP circuit to readout qubit states.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Mukhanov (US 9,520,180).
Regarding claim 16, Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose that the quantum bit management circuit module includes a nanowire switch. Mukhanov discloses these limitations (col. 11, lines 57-64). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Mukhanov, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of allowing superconducting circuits to store information. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Kelly discloses a superconducting circuit. Mukhanov teaches that the circuit includes a nanowire switch to allow information storage and retrieval. The teachings of Mukhanov are directly applicable to Kelly in the same way, so that Kelly would similarly use a circuit including a nanowire switch for information storage and retrieval.
Regarding claim 17, Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose that the quantum bit management circuit module includes a superconducting ferromagnetic transistor. Mukhanov discloses these limitations (col. 21, lines 11-14). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Mukhanov, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of allowing superconducting circuits to store information. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Kelly discloses a superconducting circuit. Mukhanov teaches that the circuit includes a superconducting ferromagnetic transistor to allow information storage and retrieval. The teachings of Mukhanov are directly applicable to Kelly in the same way, so that Kelly would similarly use a circuit including a superconducting ferromagnetic transistor for information storage and retrieval.
Regarding claim 18, Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose that the quantum bit management circuit module includes a superconducting spintronic device. Mukhanov discloses these limitations (col. 11, lines 27-44). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Mukhanov, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of allowing superconducting circuits to store information. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Kelly discloses a superconducting circuit. Mukhanov teaches that the circuit includes a superconducting spintronic device to allow information storage and retrieval. The teachings of Mukhanov are directly applicable to Kelly in the same way, so that Kelly would similarly use a circuit including a superconducting spintronic device for information storage and retrieval.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Yoon (US 11,525,878).
Regarding claim 19, Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose that the quantum bit management circuit module includes a field-effect superconducting device. Yoon discloses these limitations (col. 1, lines 15-18). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Yoon, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of implementing a circuit with improved cryogenic devices. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Kelly discloses a superconducting circuit in a cryostat. Yoon teaches a superconducting field-effect transistor, which is an improved cryogenic circuit element. The teachings of Yoon are directly applicable to Kelly in the same way, so that Kelly’s superconducting circuit would similarly utilize a superconducting field-effect transistor as an improved cryogenic circuit element.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, Bronn (US 10,692,831) and Abdo (US 2018/0285760).
Regarding claim 22, Kelly discloses that the quantum computing module further comprises a plurality of readout resonators structured to interact with the plurality of quantum bit circuits, respectively, to produce quantum bit circuit readout signals; and the quantum bit readout circuits supported by the second integrated chip and structured to interact with the plurality of readout resonators supported by the first integrated chip, respectively, to receive the quantum bit circuit readout signals, respectively, and output the readout signals, respectively (¶45).
Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose that the readout resonators are supported by the first integrated chip, which is disclosed by Bronn (col. 3, lines 25-26). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Bronn, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of integrating qubits with readout elements. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kelly discloses a circuit having qubits coupled with resonators. Bronn teaches that the resonators can be integrated with the qubits on the same chip. The teachings of Bronn are directly applicable to Kelly in the same way, so that Kelly’s resonators would similarly be supported on the same chip as the qubits, to allow integration of the qubits with the resonators.
If Kelly is found to be unclear regarding the readout circuits, Abdo also discloses the same (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, Bronn, and Abdo, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of outputting measured qubit states. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Kelly discloses qubits coupled to readout circuits including resonators. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that readout circuits would include elements of the readout circuits that receive and output readout signals, as taught by Abdo. The teachings of Abdo are directly applicable to Kelly in the same way, so that Kelly’s readout circuits would similarly include additional elements to output received readout signals from the resonators.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly, Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Abdo.
Regarding claim 23, Kelly discloses that the quantum bit readout circuits supported by the second integrated chip are structured to include a plurality of readout resonators supported by the second integrated chip and structured to interact with the plurality of quantum bit circuits supported by the first integrated chip, respectively, to produce quantum bit circuit readout signals; and the quantum bit readout circuits supported by the second integrated chip are structured to interact with the plurality of readout resonators, respectively, to receive the quantum bit circuit readout signals, respectively, and output the readout signals, respectively (¶45). If Kelly is found to be unclear regarding the readout circuits, Abdo also discloses the same (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Li, Huang, Karalekas, and Abdo, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of outputting measured qubit states. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Kelly discloses qubits coupled to readout circuits including resonators. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that readout circuits would include elements of the readout circuits that receive and output readout signals, as taught by Abdo. The teachings of Abdo are directly applicable to Kelly in the same way, so that Kelly’s readout circuits would similarly include additional elements to output received readout signals from the resonators.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Jones, Yang (US 2023/0225225), Huang, Li, and Karalekas.
Regarding claim 24, Kelly discloses a method for processing information processing based at least in part on quantum computing using quantum states of quantum bits (¶¶2, 35-36), comprising: operating a quantum computing module comprising a plurality of quantum bit circuits operable to exhibit different quantum states as a quantum-mechanical system to cause to quantum-mechanically interactions amongst the quantum bit circuits to cause superposition or correlation of different quantum states of the quantum bit circuits (¶¶2, 35-36, 85);
causing quantum bit control circuits to direct control signals to the quantum bit circuits to control the quantum bit circuits, respectively (¶53); and
operating quantum bit readout circuits to output readout signals from the quantum bit circuits, respectively, the readout signals representing quantum states of the quantum bit circuits, respectively (¶73),
thermally coupling the quantum bit circuits, the quantum bit control circuits and quantum bit readout circuits to a common cryogenic stage (¶¶44, 87);
coupling the quantum bit circuits, the quantum bit control circuits and quantum bit readout circuits via capacitive coupling or inductive coupling to apply the control signals from the quantum bit control circuits to the quantum bit circuits, respectively (¶44);
wherein the quantum bit control circuits and quantum bit readout circuits are structured to include superconducting circuits at a low cryogenic temperature and operable to operate with the control signals and readout signals based on digital processing by the quantum bit management circuit module at the low cryogenic temperature, wherein the control signals are generated based in part on qubit readout information from the quantum bit management circuit module operated at the low cryogenic temperature (Figs. 1A-2A, ¶¶40, 42 86, 87).
Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose using electrically conductive wires coupled between the quantum bit management circuit module and one or more circuit modules at one or more higher temperatures than a temperature of the common cryogenic stage coupled to the quantum bit circuits, the quantum bit control circuits and quantum bit readout circuits to transmit information in connection with operating the quantum bit circuits, the quantum bit control circuits and quantum bit readout circuits (Fig. 1A; ¶¶22, 30). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
If Kelly is found to be unclear regarding thermally coupling the quantum bit circuits, the quantum bit control circuits and quantum bit readout circuits to a common cryogenic stage, Yang also discloses these limitations (Fig. 1; ¶69). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, and Yang, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of allowing higher computing speeds and capacity. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kelly discloses a quantum computing system in which a first qubit die is bonded to a second die having control and readout elements. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the bonded dies would be thermally coupled to a common cryogenic stage, as taught by Yang. The teachings of Yang are directly applicable to Kelly in the same way, so that Kelly would similarly thermally couple qubit dies and second die having control and readout elements to the same cryogenic stage, to allow higher computing speeds and capacity.
Kelly does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one flexible superconducting cable comprising electrically conductive cable segments, used for the claimed transmission of information, each of the electrically conductive cable segments configured to transmit the information according to different temperature ranges. Huang discloses these limitations (Figs. 1 and 2C; ¶29). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Yang, and Huang, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of providing improved interconnects between elements of a quantum computing system. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Kelly discloses a quantum computing system including a quantum computing chip in a cryostat. Jones teaches that the quantum computing system should include additional circuitry located in the cryostat and external to the cryostat. Huang teaches that the quantum computing chip and additional circuitry should be connected by superconducting cables. The teachings of Huang are directly applicable to Kelly and Jones in the same way, so that Kelly’s quantum computing system would similarly use superconducting cables as improved interconnects between various elements of the system.
If Kelly is found to be unclear regarding the quantum bit control circuits and quantum bit readout circuits are structured to include superconducting circuits at a low cryogenic temperature and operable to operate with the control signals and readout signals based on digital processing by the quantum bit management circuit module at the low cryogenic temperature, wherein the control signals are generated based in part on qubit readout information from the quantum bit management circuit module operated at the low cryogenic temperature, Li (Fig. 1A, ¶27) and Karalekas (¶62) also disclose these limitations. It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Kelly, Jones, Yang, Huang, Li, and Karalekas because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of correctly executing quantum operations while reducing the computational burden of qubit control. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Kelly discloses a quantum computing system including a first (qubit) die bonded to a second die having additional circuitry such a control and readout elements. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in quantum processing systems such as Kelly’s, the control and readout elements perform digital processing at cryogenic temperatures to correctly control quantum operations based on the readout signals, as disclosed by Li and Karalekas. The teachings of Li and Karalekas are directly applicable to Kelly in the same way, so that Kelly’s control elements on the second die would similarly operate in a non-quantum classical manner, in order to correctly execute quantum operations while reducing computational burden of qubit control.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Kelly fails to disclose the new limitations of “digital processing by the quantum bit management circuit module at the low cryogenic temperature” and “the control signals are generated based in part on qubit readout information from the quantum bit management circuit module at the low cryogenic temperature”, because Kelly’s structure 100 is “a passive wire-spreading interposer incapable of performing digital processing or generating control signals”. Remarks 12-13. The examiner disagrees. Applicant is simply ignoring Kelly’s explicit statements; ¶42 explicitly states:
The second chip 104 includes additional quantum computing circuit elements such as, e.g., qubit control elements and qubit readout elements. The second chip 104 also may include wiring. Examples of qubit control elements include a qubit Z-control element for tuning a frequency of a qubit, and a qubit XY-control element for exciting a qubit. Each control element may be operable to couple (e.g., capacitively couple) to a qubit on the first chip 102. A qubit readout element may include, e.g., a resonator operable to couple (e.g., inductively couple) to a qubit of the first chip 102. The control elements, readout elements and wiring on the second chip 104 may be formed from superconductor material on a substrate of the second chip.
(emphasis added). Kelly explicitly states that the second chip includes not only wiring, but also qubit control elements and qubit readout elements, which refutes Applicant’s assertions. Kelly also does not describe chip 104 as “passive” or as an interposer, so Applicant’s characterization is without support or justification. Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, Applicant’s assertions were correct, Li also explicitly discloses the quantum bit management circuit operating at the low cryogenic temperature and comprising the same SFQ control logic used by Applicant (Fig. 1A; ¶27), so the claims would still be unpatentable over the prior art.
Applicant asserts that Karalekas fails to disclose the claimed first, second, and third communication links with differing amounts of latency, and instead discloses a single low-latency communication link. Remarks 14. The examiner disagrees. Karalekas is directed to a processing system/architecture that includes user devices communicating with QPUs through classical servers and quantum computing systems comprising the control systems and QPUs (Figs. 1 and 2). Applicant seems to interpret cited ¶16 of Karalekas as teaching a communication link that directly connects the external computing devices to the QPU while somehow bypassing all of the intermediate elements in the system. Instead, Karalekas explicitly states at ¶16, “low-latency channels can be provided at various stages of communication from the QMI to the QPU and vice versa”, and at ¶75, “the physical connections between the host server 220 and the engine 240, between the engine 240 and the rack 250, and between the rack 250 and the QPU 260 form a low-latency communication pathway between the QMI 222 and the QPU 260”. Fig. 9 and related text ¶¶104-105 explicitly disclose the transmission latencies at levels of the system. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, Karalekas clearly teaches the claimed first, second, and third communication links with differing latencies.
Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, Karalekas failed to disclose the claimed first, second, and third communication links, Jones (Figs. 1A, 3A, connections 155, 165, 175, 185, 195) and Huang (Figs. 1 and 2C; ¶29) also disclose the same. The latencies between these connections would be different because they connect different elements at different stages of the system, and thus have differing lengths and operating temperatures, which impacts communication latency as a matter of physics. Thus, although Karalekas clearly teaches the claimed first, second, and third communication links with differing latencies as discussed above, the limitations at issue would still fail to distinguish over the prior art even absent Karalekas’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIC LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:30-17:00 ET.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
28 September 2025
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851