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. 17981322 filed on 11/4/2022.
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 with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 10/1/2025 is acknowledged.
The applicant argues that there is no search burden between the device and method claims. The traversal is unpersuasive since the device can be formed by different processes as noted in the restriction requirement and would therefore require separate distinct search strategies for the device and method claims. Additionally, the device and method require different classification searches as noted in the restriction requirement. Accordingly, the restriction requirement is maintained.
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, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le Guevel et al. (US 2021/0184673).
Regarding independent claim 1, Le Guevel et al. teach a qudit (Fig. 2, element 100, paragraph 0058), comprising:
a nonlinear capacitor (Fig. 2 element 116.0, paragraph 0084) comprising nonlinear dielectric material; and
an inductance (Fig. 2 element 104, paragraph 0059) coupled to the nonlinear capacitor to form a nonlinear resonator that enables unequal spacing between quantized energy levels when cooled (The recitation of claim 1 “to form a nonlinear resonator that enables unequal spacing between quantized energy levels when cooled” 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).
Regarding claim 10, Le Guevel et al. teach wherein the inductance coupled to the nonlinear capacitive material is a non-superconducting metal inductor (paragraph 0059).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Guevel et al. (US 2021/0184673) in view of Taki (US 2011/0058305).
Regarding claim 2, Le Guevel et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Le Guevel et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the nonlinear dielectric material comprises a material that forms charge density waves, a material that forms spin density waves, a ferroelectric material, an incipient ferroelectric material, or a quantum paraelectric material.
Before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a known non-linear dielectric material comprising SrTiO.sub.3 as shown by Taki in paragraph 0002, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, Le Guevel et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Le Guevel et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the nonlinear dielectric material comprises (TaSe.sub.4).sub.2I, K.sub.0.3MoO.sub.3, TaS.sub.3, BaTiO.sub.3, Ba.sub.0.5Sr.sub.0.5TiO.sub.3, SrTiO.sub.3, NbS.sub.3, 1T-TaS.sub.2, and KTaO.sub.3.
Before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a known non-linear dielectric material comprising SrTiO.sub.3 as shown by Taki in paragraph 0002, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Guevel et al. (US 2021/0184673) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
Regarding claim 4, Le Guevel et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Le Guevel et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the inductance coupled to the nonlinear capacitor comprises an array of Josephson junctions in series.
Applicant Admitted Prior Art in Fig. 1 discloses a capacitor coupled to an array of Josephson junctions in series.
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 Le Guevel et al. with the teachings of Applicant Admitted Prior Art with the motivation to form a transmon.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Guevel et al. (US 2021/0184673) in view of Swenson et al. (US 2025/0040454).
Regarding claim 5, Le Guevel et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Le Guevel et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the inductance coupled to the nonlinear capacitor comprises a superconductive film patterned on a substrate to form a loop.
Swenson et al. teach a quantum device comprising wherein the inductance coupled to the nonlinear capacitor comprises a superconductive film patterned on a substrate to form a loop (paragraph 0019).
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 Le Guevel et al. with the teachings of Swenson et al. with the motivation to form qubits using a kinetic inductance material in an integrated circuit (paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 6, Le Guevel et al. modified by Swenson et al. teach wherein the substrate comprises the nonlinear dielectric material and the nonlinear capacitor is formed by an electric field coupling portions of the superconductive film through the nonlinear dielectric substrate (This is a product-by-process claim. 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 7, Le Guevel et al. modified by Swenson et al. teach wherein the nonlinear capacitor is formed by patterning the nonlinear dielectric material to form a nonlinear dielectric overlayer over portions of the superconductive film (This is a product-by-process claim. 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, Le Guevel et al. modified by Swenson et al. teach wherein the nonlinear capacitor is formed by sandwiching the nonlinear dielectric material between two portions of the superconductive film (This is a product-by-process claim. 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 9, Le Guevel et al. modified by Swenson et al. teach wherein the inductance coupled to the nonlinear capacitor is an intrinsic kinetic inductance of the nonlinear dielectric material (paragraph 0001 of Swenson).
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