DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 6 July 2026. Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-24 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 Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 1 and 2 (duplicate) have been renumbered 3 and 4.
New claims 3, 4, 12 and 13 have been renumbered 21-24.
Misnumbered claims 5-11 have been renumbered to their original numberings 7-13.
Misnumbered claims 14-17 have been renumbered to their original numberings 16-19.
Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 were cancelled in prior amendments, and remain cancelled.
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 2, “isolated at least in part the qubit” should be “isolated at least in part from the qubit”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 8-11, 13, 17, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronn (US 2020/0250565) in view of Vodrahalli (US 10,525,809) and Intel (“AN 672: Transceiver Link Design Guidelines for High-Gbps Data Rate Transmission”).
Regarding claim 1, Bronn discloses a qubit system, comprising: a qubit located on a first substrate; a readout resonator coupled to the qubit and located on the first substrate having a first attenuation constant (Fig. 3; ¶¶10, 15); and a first Purcell filter having a first pole coupled to the readout resonator and located on a second substrate that is separate from the first substrate wherein the first attenuation constant is lower than a second attenuation constant of the second substrate (Fig. 3; ¶¶10, 11, 38); Purcell filter outside of qubit package on, e.g., PCB), wherein the qubit and the readout resonator are located on the first substrate and the first Purcell filter is located on the second substrate such that the first Purcell filter is separated from the substrate on which the qubit is located, and wherein the second substrate is of lower-quality than the first substrate with respect to signal loss (Fig. 3; ¶¶10, 15, 38, 39). Specifically, Bronn discloses a qubit circuit having a qubit and a readout resonator, and a separate Purcell filter that can be located on, e.g., lossy materials or a PCB, and PCBs have higher attenuation constants than qubit substrates.
If Bronn is found to be unclear regarding the qubit and readout resonator being on a first substrate having a first attenuation constant lower than that of the second substrate, the second substrate being of lower quality than the first substrate with respect to signal loss, Vodrahalli teaches the qubit and readout resonator on a first low-loss substrate having an attenuation constant lower than that of the second substrate (Abstract; col. 3, lines 28-32 and lines 38-50; col. 6, lines 22-25; col. 8, lines 10-13) and Intel teaches that the second, higher-loss substrate taught by Bronn has attenuation constants >0.1 (Fig. 2). 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 Bronn, Vodrahalli, and Intel, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of using low-loss substrates for qubits. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Bronn discloses a quantum device including a qubit coupled to a resonator, and a Purcell filter implemented off-chip, such as on PCBs, using lossy materials. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that PCBs have attenuation constants >0.1, as taught by Intel, which are higher than that of chip substrates used for qubits. Vodrahalli teaches that the qubit circuit, comprising the qubit and readout resonator, is implemented on a low-loss substrate having attenuation constants <=1x10-5, which are advantageous for quantum processing, separate from a higher-loss substrate. The teachings of Intel and Vodrahalli are directly applicable to Bronn in the same way, so that Bronn would similarly use lower-loss substrates for qubits to improve qubit implementation.
Regarding claim 4, Bronn does not appear to explicitly disclose that the attenuation constant of the second substrate is at least 100 times more than that of the first substrate. However, as discussed above regarding claim 1, Intel teaches that the second, higher-loss substrate taught by Bronn has attenuation constants >0.1 (Fig. 2), and Vodrahalli teaches that the first low-loss substrate has an attenuation constant no greater than 1x10-5 (Abstract). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Bronn discloses that the first Purcell filter is implemented in stripline (¶38).
Regarding claim 9, Bronn discloses that the second substrate is on a chip that is separate from that of the first substrate (¶38).
Regarding claim 10, Bronn discloses that the second substrate is on a printed circuit board (PCB) that is separate from that of the first substrate (¶38).
Regarding claim 11, Bronn discloses a method of interacting with a qubit, comprising: providing a qubit on a first substrate; coupling a readout resonator to the qubit and providing the readout resonator on the first substrate, the first substrate having a first attenuation constant (Fig. 3; ¶¶10, 15); coupling a first Purcell filter having a first pole to the readout resonator and providing the first Purcell filter on a second substrate that is separate from the first substrate the second substrate having a second attenuation constant, and selecting the first substrate and the second substrate such that the first attenuation constant is lower than the second attenuation constant (Fig. 3; ¶¶10, 11, 38; Purcell filter outside of qubit package on, e.g., PCB), wherein the qubit and the readout resonator are provided on the first substrate and the first Purcell filter is provided on the second substrate such that the first Purcell filter is separated from the substrate on which the qubit is provided, and wherein the second substrate is of lower-quality than the first substrate with respect to signal loss (Fig. 3; ¶¶10, 15, 38, 39). Specifically, Bronn discloses a qubit circuit having a qubit and a readout resonator, and a separate Purcell filter that can be located on, e.g., lossy materials and/or a PCB, and PCBs have higher attenuation constants than qubit substrates.
If Bronn is found to be unclear regarding the qubit and readout resonator being on a first substrate having a first attenuation constant lower than that of the second substrate, the second substrate being of lower quality than the first substrate with respect to signal loss, Vodrahalli teaches the qubit and readout resonator on a first low-loss substrate having an attenuation constant lower than that of the second substrate (Abstract; col. 3, lines 28-32 and 38-50; col. 6, lines 22-25; col. 8, lines 10-13) and Intel teaches that the second, higher-loss substrate taught by Bronn has attenuation constants >0.1 (Fig. 2). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Bronn does not appear to explicitly disclose that the second substrate has an attenuation constant that is at least 100 times more than that of the first substrate. However, as discussed above regarding claim 1, Intel teaches that the second, higher-loss substrate taught by Bronn has attenuation constants >0.1 (Fig. 2), and Vodrahalli teaches that the first low-loss substrate has an attenuation constant no greater than 1x10-5 (Abstract). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Bronn discloses housing the qubit, the readout resonator, and the first Purcell filter in a cryogenic environment (Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Bronn discloses that the first substrate supports the qubit and the readout resonator as more sensitive components (¶¶31, 32, 34, 35), and the second substrate supports the first Purcell filter as a component that is not performance critical (¶¶38, 39). If Bronn is found to be unclear regarding the first substrate supporting the qubit and readout resonator as more sensitive components, Vodrahalli also discloses the same (col. 3, lines 28-32 and 38-50). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1. Furthermore, these limitations merely state properties of the qubit, readout resonator, and Purcell filter already disclosed by Bronn and Vodrahalli. In other words, Applicant is attempting to claim Applicant’s recognition of qubits and readout resonators being more sensitive and Purcell filters being less critical (see Specification ¶64); the qubits, readout resonators, and Purcell filters used in Applicant’s architecture (e.g. Josephson junctions, transmission lines, Purcell filters, etc.) are conventional. Thus, although Bronn and Vodrahalli clearly disclose these properties, even assuming, arguendo, that the prior art did not explicitly state or otherwise recognize these properties, the claims would still be unpatentable over the prior art because the discovery/recognition of a new property does not distinguish the claims from the prior art. See MPEP § 2112.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronn in view of Vodrahalli, Intel, and Abraham (US 2016/0112031).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Bronn discloses that the first Purcell filter is isolated at least in part from the qubit by the readout resonator (Fig. 3), but does not appear to explicitly disclose a second Purcell filter having a second pole coupled to an output of the first Purcell filter and located on the second substrate. Abraham discloses a second Purcell filter having a second pole coupled to an output of the first Purcell filter and located on the second substrate (Figs. 6-8; ¶¶40, 63, 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 Bronn, Vodrahalli, Intel, and Abraham, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of improving bandwidth and/or tuning of Purcell filters. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395-1396. Bronn teaches a Purcell filter coupled to a qubit circuit. Abraham teaches using multiple Purcell filters to improve bandwidth and/or tuning. The teachings of Abraham are directly applicable to Bronn in the same way, so that Bronn would similarly use multiple Purcell filters to improve bandwidth and/or tuning.
Regarding claim 3, Bronn discloses a measurement and control module coupled to an output of the first Purcell filter (Fig. 3). Abraham also discloses the same (Fig. 1). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 2.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronn in view of Vodrahalli, Intel, Abraham, and Zheng (US 2023/0138353).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Bronn does not appear to explicitly disclose a second Purcell filter, configured to provide an additional pole, coupled between the readout resonator and the first Purcell filter, wherein the second Purcell filter is located on a substrate having an attenuation constant that is the same as the attenuation constant of the first substrate. Abraham discloses a second Purcell filter, configured to provide an additional pole, coupled between the readout resonator and the first Purcell filter (Figs. 6-8). Zheng teaches that the second Purcell filter is on a substrate having an attenuation constant the same as the first substrate (¶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 Bronn, Vodrahalli, Intel, Abraham, and Zheng, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of incorporating additional filters on-chip to further reduce Purcell effect losses. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Bronn discloses a quantum device including a qubit coupled to a resonator and filter. Abraham teaches that multiple Purcell filters can be coupled to reduce Purcell effect losses. Zheng teaches that the Purcell filter can be implemented on-chip. The teachings of Abraham and Zheng are directly applicable to Bronn in the same way, so that Bronn would similarly include additional Purcell filters on-chip to further reduce Purcell effect losses.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Abraham, Bronn, Intel, and Vodrahalli.
Regarding claim 18, Zheng discloses a qubit device, comprising: a qubit located on a first substrate; a readout resonator coupled to the qubit and located on the first substrate, the first substrate having a first attenuation constant (Figs. 1 and 2A-C, ¶39); a first filter configured to provide a first pole coupled to the readout resonator and located on the first substrate (Fig. 2A-B); wherein the qubit, the readout resonator, and the first Purcell filter are located on the first substrate (Figs. 1 and 2A-C, ¶39). Zheng does not appear to explicitly disclose that the filter is a Purcell filter; a second Purcell filter coupled to an output of the first Purcell filter and located on a second substrate that is separate from the first substrate, the second substrate having a second attenuation constant, wherein the first attenuation constant is lower than the second attenuation constant, wherein the second Purcell filter is located on the second substrate such that the second Purcell filter is separated from the substrate on which the qubit is located; and wherein the second substrate is of lower quality than the first substrate with respect to signal loss.
Abraham discloses a qubit device, comprising: a qubit located on a first substrate (Fig. 1, qubit 150); a readout resonator coupled to the qubit and located on the first substrate (Fig. 1, readout resonator 160); a first Purcell filter configured to provide a first pole coupled to the readout resonator and located on the first substrate (Fig. 1, notch filter 110; ¶27); and a second Purcell filter coupled to an output of the first Purcell filter (Figs. 6-8).
Bronn teaches that the second Purcell filter is located on a second substrate that is separate from the first substrate, the second substrate having a second attenuation constant, wherein the first attenuation constant is lower than the second attenuation constant (¶¶38, 39), wherein the qubit and the readout resonator are located on the first substrate and the second Purcell filter is located on the second substrate such that the second Purcell filter is separated from the substrate on which the qubit is located, and wherein the second substrate is of lower quality than the first substrate with respect to signal loss (Fig. 3; ¶¶10, 11, 15, 38, 39). Specifically, Bronn discloses a qubit circuit having a qubit and a readout resonator, and a separate Purcell filter that can be located on, e.g., lossy materials and/or a PCB, and PCBs have higher attenuation constants than qubit substrates.
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 Zheng, Abraham, and Bronn, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of incorporating additional filters off-chip to further reduce Purcell effect losses. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Zheng discloses a quantum device including a qubit coupled to a resonator and filter. Abraham teaches that the filter is a Purcell filter and that multiple Purcell filters can be coupled to reduce Purcell effect losses. Bronn further teaches a Purcell filter implemented off-chip, such as on a separate chip or PCBs, using lossy materials. The teachings of Abraham and Bronn are directly applicable to Zheng in the same way, so that Zheng would similarly include additional Purcell filters off-chip to further reduce Purcell effect losses.
If Bronn is found to be unclear regarding the qubit and readout resonator being on a first substrate having a first attenuation constant lower than that of the second substrate, the second substrate being of lower quality than the first substrate with respect to signal loss, Vodrahalli teaches the qubit and readout resonator on a first low-loss substrate having an attenuation constant lower than that of the second substrate (Abstract; col. 3, lines 28-32 and lines 38-50; col. 6, lines 22-25; col. 8, lines 10-13) and Intel teaches that the second, higher-loss substrate taught by Bronn has attenuation constants >0.1 (Fig. 2).
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 Zheng, Abraham, Bronn, Vodrahalli, and Intel, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of using low-loss substrates for qubits. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Zheng discloses a quantum device including a qubit coupled to a resonator and filter, while Abraham teaches multiple Purcell filters, as discussed above. Bronn further teaches a Purcell filter implemented off-chip, such as on PCBs, using lossy materials. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that PCBs have attenuation constants >0.1, as taught by Intel, which are higher than that of chip substrates used for qubits. Vodrahalli teaches that the qubit circuit, comprising the qubit and readout resonator, is implemented on a low-loss substrate having attenuation constants <=1x10-5, which are advantageous for quantum processing, separate from a higher-loss substrate. The teachings of Intel and Vodrahalli are directly applicable to Zheng, Abraham, and Bronn in the same way, so that Zheng would similarly use lower-loss substrates for qubits to improve qubit implementation.
Regarding claim 19, Zheng does not appear to explicitly disclose that the attenuation constant of the second substrate is at least 100 times more than that of the first substrate. However, as discussed above regarding claim 18, Intel teaches that the second, higher-loss substrate taught by Bronn has attenuation constants >0.1 (Fig. 2), and Vodrahalli teaches that the first low-loss substrate has an attenuation constant no greater than 1x10-5 (Abstract). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, Zheng does not appear to explicitly disclose that the second substrate is a printed circuit board (PCB) that is separate from the first substrate; Bronn discloses these limitations (¶38). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 18.
Claim(s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronn in view of Vodrahalli, Intel, Abraham, Zheng, and Oruc (US 2024/0370756).
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Bronn discloses maintaining readout integrity (¶¶32, 37), but does not appear to explicitly disclose that locating the first Purcell filter on the second substrate reduces density limitations. However, this is simply a direct consequence of moving elements off of the first substrate – the first substrate will have more space – and is thus inherent in Bronn. Nevertheless, Oruc also provides explicit disclosure of the same (¶19). 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 Bronn, Vodrahalli, Intel, Abraham, Zheng, and Oruc, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of increasing space on the qubit substrate. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395-1396. Bronn teaches a qubit coupled to a readout resonator and Purcell filter, where the Purcell filter is located off-chip on a separate substrate, PCB, etc. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that moving elements off of the qubit substrate necessarily reduces density limitations since there would be more space on the qubit substrate; Oruc provides explicit evidence of the same. The teachings of Oruc are directly applicable to Bronn in the same way, so that Bronn would similarly have reduced density limitations by locating the Purcell filter on a separate substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that “the rejection never explains why a person of ordinary skill would have combined those teachings to intentionally place the qubit and readout resonator on a lower-loss substrate while placing the first Purcell filter on a separate higher-loss substrate selected according to attenuation, as expressly required by claim 1 and illustrated in FIG. 2.” Remarks 8. The examiner disagrees. The rejections clearly set forth the motivation to combine prior art teachings. Furthermore, Bronn alone already teaches “placing the qubit and readout resonator on a lower-loss substrate while placing the first Purcell filter on a separate higher-loss substrate”, because Bronn teaches placing Purcell filters on separate lossy substrates, e.g. PCBs, which have higher attenuation constants than the substrates used for qubits. Vodrahalli and Intel provide evidence that the qubit substrate has a lower attenuation constant than the Purcell filter substrate, but the architecture is already fully taught by Bronn.
As discussed in the interview, Applicant is attempting to claim their recognition that the Purcell filter is inherently low-quality and thus can be located on a higher-loss substrate (see Specification ¶64). Applicant’s fundamental criticism of the prior art is that the prior art did not make the same recognition that Applicant did, and thus even though the prior art places the Purcell filter on a separate, higher-loss substrate, the prior art does not do so for the same reason that Applicant does, and does not intentionally take advantage of Purcell filters’ high-loss property to locate them on higher-loss substrates. Instead, Applicant asserts that Bronn “merely identifies optional physical implementations” and “treats implementation on-chip, on a substrate, on a PCB, or on a separate die as interchangeable implementation options without attributing electrical significance to those choices”. Remarks 9. Applicant also cites the disclosed simulation results that show how Purcell-limited relaxation time remains high even with high substrate attenuation. Remarks 10.
But the discovery of new properties or advantages does not render the claimed invention patentable over the prior art, and the prior art does not need to use the same motivations or reasons that Applicant does. See MPEP §§ 2112, 2144.IV, 2145.II (“Something which is old does not become patentable upon the discovery of a new property … Inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time”; “It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.”; “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.”). Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that Applicant was completely correct that the prior art had no recognition of the advantages and rationales disclosed by Applicant for using separate, higher-loss substrates for Purcell filters, the claimed invention would still be unpatentable. The prior art has no need to show Applicant’s simulation results, and does not need to recognize that Purcell filters could be located on substrates with high attenuation constants while maintaining relaxation times.
It is also not the case that the prior art had no recognition of the loss properties of qubits and filters. Bronn explicitly states at ¶39 that the Purcell filter can use lossy materials. And it is telling that Bronn provides so many disparate options for where to locate the Purcell filter; the options themselves, including PCBs, indicate that Bronn recognized that Purcell filters had less stringent requirements than qubits. Vodrahalli teaches that qubits benefit from low-loss substrates, which is well-known to persons having ordinary skill in the art. Thus, it is clear from the prior art that: it was known that qubits should be located on low-loss substrates (Vodrahalli); it was known that Purcell filters could be located on a separate substrate (Bronn); and it was known that the Purcell filter could use higher-loss substrates of different kinds, including separate dies or PCBs (Bronn). There is little, if any, daylight between Applicant’s stated advantages and what was recognized by the prior art.
Applicant asserts that the examiner relies on improper hindsight, “particularly in view of the specific, quantified attenuation ranges and unexpected Tl insensitivity demonstrated in the present application”. Remarks 10. The examiner disagrees. As discussed above, Bronn alone already teaches the architecture having a Purcell filter on a separate, higher-loss substrate; Vodrahalli and Intel are merely relied upon to provide evidence of the attenuation constants of Bronn’s substrates. The same argument applies for claim 4: Applicant asserts “none of Bronn, Vodrahalli, or Intel teaches, suggests, or provides any reason to select substrate materials satisfying this expressly recited quantitative relationship within a qubit/readout/Purcell architecture”. Remarks 11. But Bronn already teaches the substrate materials; Bronn does not need to provide any reason for using them. As discussed above, newly-recognized properties, advantages, reasons, etc. do not render the claimed invention patentable over the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 8-10, 11, 19, and 20 similarly rely on assertions that the prior art does not teach Applicant’s reasons for using separate substrates with different attenuation constants, which are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to disclose a readout resonator and Purcell filter on a substrate having the same attenuation constant as the first substrate, and another Purcell filter on a second substrate having a higher attenuation constant than the first substrate. Remarks 13. The examiner disagrees. Abraham teaches multiple connected Purcell filters. Both Bronn and Zheng explicitly disclose the readout resonator on the first substrate, and Zheng further explicitly discloses a filter on the first substrate, while Bronn explicitly discloses a filter on the second substrate (which, as discussed above, has a higher attenuation constant than the first substrate). Thus, the prior art clearly discloses the claimed architecture.
Applicant asserts that the examiner has provided no evidence that “one of ordinary skill would have modified the cited references to relocate one Purcell filter stage to a substrate having the same attenuation constant as the qubit substrate while simultaneously relocating another Purcell filter stage to a separate substrate having a higher attenuation constant”. Remarks 14. The examiner disagrees. Again, Zheng explicitly teaches a filter on the first substrate, and Bronn explicitly teaches a filter on the second, higher-attenuation substrate, so no ‘relocation’ is needed. Applicant’s assertion also ignores the nature of the limitation at issue and Applicant’s disclosed improvement. The Specification makes clear at ¶¶59-68 that the targeted improvement is moving Purcell filters off the first substrate to free space, and leaving a filter on the first substrate is not preferred, nor is there any criticality to having filters on both substrates. Fig. 2 and ¶¶63-64 disclose both filters on the second substrate, while ¶65 states, “Even if a portion, and not the entirety, of the layout of the Purcell filter is located on a substrate that is separate from that of the qubit, substantial real estate can be saved” and ¶68 states, “Similar to the architecture 200 of Fig. 2, placing at least one of the Purcell filters (e.g., 326) on a separate substrate can alleviate the density limitations on the number of qubits that can be placed on a common substrate …”. In other words, the disclosed invention is moving filters off the first substrate to alleviate density, and having filters on both substrates is merely an obvious variant where the improvement is applied to fewer than all of the filters. There is nothing inventive about not applying an improvement in every instance, and the prior art already discloses filters on both the first substrate and the second substrate, as discussed above. Applicant presents similar arguments for claims 16 and 18, which are unpersuasive for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
4 September 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights