Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of the information disclosure statements filed on 10/08/2025, U.S. patents and Foreign Patents have been considered.
Detailed Action
This Office Action responds to the Election of Restriction filed on 7/07/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 14 – 20 in the reply filed on 7/02/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 – 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/07/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites "setting a first tunable microwave resonator bus to a first frequency to minimize one or more quantum interactions between a first qubit pair from the group of qubits from the fixed grid lattice that are not directly connected in the qubit connectivity sub-lattice", because the term "not directly connected" is indefinite. The specification does not provide clear criteria for distinguishing between direct and indirect connections in the context of qubit connectivity sub-lattices. It is unclear whether this refers to physical proximity, electrical coupling, or logical connectivity. When viewed in conjunction with claim 17, which requires qubits to be "directly connected," the claims create contradictory requirements that render the scope of protection unclear - it is not apparent how the same qubit pairs can be both "not directly connected" for claim 16 purposes yet "directly connected" for claim 17 purposes within the same sub-lattice framework.
Claim 18 recites "defining a second qubit connectivity sub-lattice from the fixed grid lattice of qubits, wherein the second qubit connectivity sub-lattice is composed of a second group of qubits from the fixed grid lattice, and wherein the qubit connectivity sub-lattice is distinct from the second qubit connectivity sub-lattice", because the term "distinct" is indefinite. The specification does not establish clear boundaries or criteria for determining when two qubit connectivity sub-lattices are sufficiently different to be considered distinct. Without clear parameters for distinguishing sub-lattices, it is not apparent what degree of separation, different qubit membership, or operational differences would constitute "distinct" sub-lattices versus overlapping or related sub-lattices.
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the above indefinite limitations by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190164076A1 (Kim) in view of US20180225586A1 (Chow).
In regards to claim 14, (Kim) shows A method, comprising:
Kim teaches defining a qubit connectivity sub-lattice from a fixed grid lattice of qubits; Kim [0030] teaches the QC can control n qubits and load anywhere between 1 and m qubits each time the QC is operated, demonstrating selection of qubit groups from a fixed larger system. Kim [0032] teaches a hardware description language may be used to dynamically configure the software-defined quantum computer such that the size of computations may be adjusted, corresponding to defining sub-lattices from a larger fixed qubit grid. Kim [0033] teaches interactions among qubits can be turned on or enabled by a control unit.
Kim differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose wherein the qubit connectivity sub-lattice is composed of a group of qubits from the fixed grid lattice that are operably coupled by cross-resonance gate operations and tunable microwave resonator buses.
Chow teaches wherein the qubit connectivity sub-lattice is composed of a group of qubits from the fixed grid lattice that are operably coupled by cross-resonance gate operations and tunable microwave resonator buses; Chow [0027] teaches two fixed-frequency transmon qubits coupled through a superconducting coplanar waveguide bus resonator, with cross-resonance gate operations performed between the coupled qubits. Chow [0029] teaches the bus frequency and coupling parameters can be set to specific values, demonstrating tunability of the microwave resonator bus
The motivation to combine Kim and Chow at the effective filing date of the invention is to implement cross-resonance gate operations and tunable microwave resonator bus coupling within a configurable qubit sub-lattice architecture, as it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Chow’s superconducting qubit coupling techniques to Kim’s configurable qubit selection framework to achieve a software-defined quantum architecture with improved gate fidelity and operational flexibility.
In regards to claim 15 (Kim) does not show the method of claim 14: wherein adjacent qubits of the fixed grid lattice are coupled together by the tunable microwave resonator buses.
Chow teaches wherein adjacent qubits of the fixed grid lattice are coupled together by the tunable microwave resonator buses; Chow [0027] teaches two qubits coupled through a bus resonator which is a superconducting coplanar waveguide resonator, demonstrating adjacent qubits coupled by microwave resonator buses. Chow [0029] teaches the bus frequency and coupling parameters can be set to specific values, indicating tunability of the bus coupling system.
The motivation to combine Kim and Chow at the effective filing date of the invention is to implement cross-resonance gate operations within software-defined quantum computer architectures, as it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Chow's specific cross-resonance gate techniques to Kim's configurable quantum computer system to achieve improved gate fidelity and operational flexibility.
In regards to claim 18 (Kim) shows the method of claim 14, further comprising:
defining a second qubit connectivity sub-lattice from the fixed grid lattice of qubits, wherein the second qubit connectivity sub-lattice is composed of a second group of qubits from the fixed grid lattice, and wherein the qubit connectivity sub-lattice is distinct from the second qubit connectivity sub-lattice; Kim [0040] teaches each of the control units can process a subset of programming instructions and can control a distinct set of qubits. Kim [0044] teaches the first control unit is configured to control a first plurality of qubits and the second control unit is configured to control a second plurality of qubits, demonstrating distinct qubit connectivity sub-lattices from the same fixed grid.
The motivation to combine Kim and Chow at the effective filing date of the invention is to implement cross-resonance gate operations and tunable microwave resonator bus coupling within a configurable qubit sub-lattice architecture, as it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Chow’s superconducting qubit coupling techniques to Kim’s configurable qubit selection framework to achieve a software-defined quantum architecture with improved gate fidelity and operational flexibility.
In regards to claim 19 (Kim) shows the method of claim 18:
wherein the qubit connectivity sub-lattice is associated with a first quantum processor, and wherein the second qubit connectivity sub-lattice is associated with a second quantum processor; Kim [0042] teaches each of the control units handles qubits in a different region of the ion trap. Kim [0039] teaches control unit 120a controls x qubits and control unit 120b controls y qubits as separate processing units, demonstrating different quantum processors associated with different qubit sub-lattices.
The motivation to combine Kim and Chow at the effective filing date of the invention is to implement cross-resonance gate operations and tunable microwave resonator bus coupling within a configurable qubit sub-lattice architecture, as it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Chow’s superconducting qubit coupling techniques to Kim’s configurable qubit selection framework to achieve a software-defined quantum architecture with improved gate fidelity and operational flexibility.
Claims 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20190164076A1 (Kim) in view of US20180225586A1 (Chow) as applied in claim 14 above, respectively, and further in view of US20190296211A1 (Magesan).
In regards to claim 16 (Kim and Chow) does not show the method of claim 15, further comprising: setting a first tunable microwave resonator bus to a first frequency to minimize one or more quantum interactions between a first qubit pair from the group of qubits from the fixed grid lattice that are not directly connected in the qubit connectivity sub-lattice.
Magesan teaches setting a first tunable microwave resonator bus to a first frequency to minimize one or more quantum interactions between a first qubit pair from the group of qubits from the fixed grid lattice that are not directly connected in the qubit connectivity sub-lattice; Magesan [0027] teaches reducing the connectivity of an individual qubit to other neighboring qubits by arranging qubits with different lattice geometries thereby lowering the likelihood of frequency collisions between neighboring qubits. Magesan [0043] teaches statistical modeling shows a definite reduction in frequency collisions and empirical inputs include collision windows and statistical distribution of qubit frequencies, demonstrating frequency control to minimize unwanted quantum interactions.
The motivation to combine Kim, Chow, and Magesan at the effective filing date of the invention is to minimize frequency collisions and unwanted quantum interactions in software-defined quantum systems, as it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Magesan's frequency collision reduction techniques to Kim's configurable architecture and Chow's cross-resonance implementation to achieve improved system performance and reduced crosstalk.
In regards to claim 17 (Kim) does not show the method of claim 16, further comprising: setting a second tunable microwave resonator bus to a second frequency that enables a cross-resonance gate operation via a bypass capacitor coupling between a second qubit pair from the qubits from the fixed grid lattice that are directly connected in the qubit connectivity sub-lattice.
Chow teaches setting a second tunable microwave resonator bus to a second frequency that enables a cross-resonance gate operation via a bypass capacitor coupling between a second qubit pair from the qubits from the fixed grid lattice that are directly connected in the qubit connectivity sub-lattice; Chow [0027] teaches a cross-resonance gate comprises two qubits coupled through a bus resonator and cross-resonance gate operations are performed between coupled qubits. Chow [0029] teaches the bus frequency is set to specific values and coupling between qubits is controlled by adjusting system parameters, demonstrating tunable bus frequencies for enabling specific gate operations.
The motivation to combine Kim, Chow, and Magesan at the effective filing date of the invention is to implement optimized cross-resonance gate operations with frequency collision mitigation in software-defined quantum systems, as it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Chow's cross-resonance techniques and Magesan's frequency optimization methods to Kim's configurable architecture to achieve improved gate performance and reduced interference.
In regards to claim 20 (Kim) does not show the method of claim 17: wherein qubits from the fixed grid lattice are fixed frequency superconducting qubits;
Chow teaches wherein qubits from the fixed grid lattice are fixed frequency superconducting qubits; Chow [0027] teaches the system comprised two fixed-frequency transmon qubits coupled by a bus resonator, explicitly describing fixed frequency superconducting qubits. Chow [0029] teaches the qubit frequencies are 4.914 GHz for target qubit and 5.114 GHz for control qubit with anharmonicities of -330 MHz for both, confirming these are fixed-frequency superconducting transmon qubits.
The motivation to combine Kim, Chow, and Magesan at the effective filing date of the invention is to implement fixed-frequency superconducting qubits within software-defined quantum architectures while minimizing frequency collisions, as it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Chow's superconducting qubit implementations and Magesan's collision reduction techniques to Kim's configurable quantum system to achieve stable, high-fidelity quantum operations.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed on December 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. No claims have been amended.
Applicant argues that the § 112 rejections should be withdrawn because claims 16 and 17 refer to different qubit pairs and that "distinct" in claim 18 is supported by the specification. Applicant further argues that Kim fails to teach cross-resonance gate operations and tunable microwave resonator buses, and that Chow and Magesan fail to cure this deficiency.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The indefiniteness of claim 16 is not premised solely on a contradiction between claims 16 and 17 but is independently based on the specification's failure to provide clear criteria for distinguishing "directly connected" from "not directly connected" within a dynamically tunable sub-lattice. With respect to claim 18, the specification provides only a single non-overlapping example of distinct sub-lattices without establishing criteria for what degree of separation constitutes distinctness. The § 112 rejections are therefore maintained.
With respect to the § 103 rejections, the § 102 rejection of claims 14, 18, and 19 has been withdrawn and replaced with a § 103 rejection over the combination of Kim and Chow. Applicant's argument that Kim does not teach cross-resonance gate operations and tunable microwave resonator buses is acknowledged — Kim's gap on this specific limitation has been explicitly identified in the rejection, and Chow [0027] and [0029] expressly supply those missing teachings. Magesan supplies the teaching of minimizing unwanted quantum interactions through frequency management. Applicant has not demonstrated that this combination would have been technically infeasible or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from making it. The rejections of claims 14-20 under § 103 are therefore maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANWER AHMED ALAWDI whose telephone number is (703)756-1018. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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 on (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.
/ANWER AHMED ALAWDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2851 /JACK CHIANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851