Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application No. 17546491 filed on 12/9/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8, 21-22 in the reply filed on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gill et al. (US 2021/0399192).
Regarding independent claim 1, Gill et al. teach a qubit array comprising
at least two qubits (Fig. 8, elements Qubit 1, Qubit 2, Qubit 3, paragraph 0053-0054) on or in a surface of a crystalline substrate (Fig. 8, paragraph 0053),
the crystalline substrate having a plurality of engineered defects (Fig 8, elements 800, paragraph 0054) in its crystal structure,
wherein the engineered defects suppress correlated errors in the qubits of the qubit arrays (This is an intended use recitation. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claim 2, Gill et al. teach wherein the at least two qubits are superconducting qubits (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 5, Gill et al. teach wherein the engineered defects are radiation-induced defects (Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP §2113).
Regarding claim 6, Gill et al. teach wherein the radiation-induced defects are proton irradiation induced defects (Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP §2113).
Regarding claim 8, Gill et al. teach wherein the at least two qubits are superconducting qubits (Fig. 8, paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 21, Gill et al. teach wherein the crystalline substrate has plurality of geometric features (Fig 8, the defects are trenches 800, paragraph 0054) defined therein, wherein the geometric features suppress correlated errors in the qubits of the qubit arrays (This is an intended use recitation. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963)) and further wherein the plurality of engineered defects are present at a crystalline substrate/vacuum interface (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 22, Gill et al. teach wherein the geometric features comprise wells defined in a backside of the crystalline substrate, trenches (Fig 8, trenches 800, paragraph 0054) defined in a backside of the crystalline substrate, constrictions in the crystalline substrate, inclusions in the crystalline substrate, or a combination of two or more of these.
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 of this title, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill et al. (US 2021/0399192) in view of Megrant et al. (WO 2017116442 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Gill et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Gill et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the crystalline substrate is a single-crystal silicon substrate.
Megrant et al. teach a quantum computing system comprising a single-crystal silicon substrate (paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teachings of Gill et al. according to the teachings of Megrant et al. with the motivation to provide high quality interfaces for quantum computing devices (paragraph 0001).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill et al. (US 2021/0399192).
Regarding claim 4, Gill et al. teach wherein the defects are distributed uniformly throughout the crystalline substrate (Fig. 8, paragraph 0054 discloses the capability the control the size and shape of the trenches, accordingly it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to uniformly form the trenches).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill et al. (US 2021/0399192) in view of Braje et al. (US 2021/0263117).
Regarding claim 7, Gill et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Gill et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the crystalline substrate is semi-insulating silicon.
Graje et al. teach a quantum computing system comprising semi-insulating silicon substrate (paragraph 0065).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teachings of Gill et al. according to the teachings of Graje et al. with the motivation to provide solid state spin sensors (paragraph 0065).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHED AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-3477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/SHAHED AHMED/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights