DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 5/19/2026.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB No. US 20190377845 A1 by Solgun; Firat.
This action is made Final.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been electronically retrieved in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
(Argument 1) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.10:
PNG
media_image1.png
374
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Response 1) Displaying information received in generic manner is not considered under Step 2A Prong 1. This is considered under Step 2A Prong 2 as mapped in the rejection below.
(Argument 2) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.11-12:
PNG
media_image2.png
357
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Response 1) Under Step 2A Prong 2, & MPEP 2106.05(a), (f)(1) and (g) displaying information gathered in a generic manner is considered as extrasolution activity. Merely displaying information does not improve the functioning of the computer. As stated in MPEP cites below, the current argument relating to displaying or simulating are not an improvement in functioning of a computer or the technical field.
MPEP 2106.05(a)(I):
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:
vi. Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018);
MPEP 2106.05(a)(II):
However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:
iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
MPEP 2106.05(f)(1):
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data."
MPEP 2106.05(g):
Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity:
iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Here even if the argument related to 50-fold speedup is considered, the speedup is in the simulation of algorithm (abstract idea) using conventional processing (mesh based electromagnetic interaction using conventional Green’s function). This would remain an improvement in the abstract idea implemented as mathematical concept, not an improvement in the technical field.
(Argument 3) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.13:
PNG
media_image3.png
332
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
404
650
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Response 3) The claims as mapped show well-understood routine and conventional aspect in US PGPUB No. US 20190377845 A1 by Solgun Figs.2-5 show such interaction. Also see 19. US 20230196160 A1 by Flöther; Frederik Frank et al. Fig.2. as mapped.
No argument are presented for rejection under 35 USC 112(b). The claim amendment is considered and rejection for previously rejected claims 6, 13 and 20 are withdrawn.
(Argument 4) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.15-17:
PNG
media_image5.png
434
644
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Response 4)Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant has not shown how the received instruction lead to determining a plurality of parts comprised in qubit. Contrary to allegation Solgum teaches not only how the qubit structured is received but also assigns input to the qubit (Solgun: [0046] "... Further, the conductor analysis component 112 can apply a unit voltage on each conductor panel separately and/or determine a charge induced on the mesh of conductor panels through a linear system. Although the electric field's surface charge densities diverge on the conductor surfaces, the total charge on a finite area of a conductor panel can be a convergent quantity... The simulation component 108 can then use the determined charges to perform a surface participation analysis in a very simple way since the electric field on conductor surfaces is directly proportional to the surface charge density. Whereas conventional techniques must make indirect assumptions and/or extrapolations regarding electric field surface charge densities, due at least to the problem of their divergence on the conductor surface, the conductor analysis component 112 can advantageous solve directly for the total charge since said total charge can be a convergent quantity in the respective finite areas of the one or more conductor panels.." ; Fig.2, 3A-3B showing plurality of parts that comprise the qubit; e.g. see elements 202, 206, 302; ). Further analysis is performed which parts are relevant based on user input of parts of qubit as mapped. No new arguments are made for the dependent claims.
Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental process without any additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 8 & 15:
Step 1: the claims are drawn to a method and system respectively, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The limitations are bolded for abstract idea/judicial expception identification.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
1.A qubit processing method, comprising:
displaying an import control of a qubit on an interaction interface;
displaying an image of the qubit on the interaction interface in response to an operation on the import control;
receiving an instruction to acquire an electromagnetic parameter of the qubit;
determining, in response to the instruction,a plurality of parts comprised in the qubit;
displaying the plurality of parts comprised in the qubit on the interaction interface;
determining electromagnetic interactions between the plurality of parts by using integral equations, to obtain electromagnetic parameters of surfaces of the plurality of parts,
wherein determining the electromagnetic interactions comprises respectively performing two-dimensional mesh subdivision on the surfaces of the plurality of parts to obtain a plurality of meshes and calculating electromagnetic parameters of the plurality of meshes by using the integral equations
wherein the integral equations respectively use a Green's function to represent the electromagnetic interactions between the plurality of parts;
performing summation on the electromagnetic parameters of the surfaces of the plurality of parts to obtain an electromagnetic parameter of the qubit; and
displaying the electromagnetic parameter of the qubit on the interaction interface.
See Step 2A Prong 2.
See Step 2A Prong 2.
See Step 2A Prong 2.
Abstract Idea/Mental Process:
This is considered a mental step as it identified (evaluation/judgement) plurality of parts based on the observation of qubit implementation. (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)).
See Step 2A Prong 2.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The determining step recites mathematical relationships (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)), mathematical formula/equations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B); statement of Green’s function), mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C), determination of electromagnetic parameters based on computation of equations). The wherein step of calculating electromagnetic parameters is mathematical step.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The performing summation step recites mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C), determination of electromagnetic parameters based on summation of previously computed result).
See Step 2A Prong 2.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Further in view of claims 8 (a system claim) and claim 15 (an article of manufacture claim), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (such as processor and memory). Here, the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, therefore it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Also the mathematical concepts disclosed may also be performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). As per (1) the additional elements are identified as bolded parts of the limitations in column 1 of the table below, and as per (2) the evaluation is shown in the mapping section of the table.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2 & 2B
1.A qubit processing method, comprising:
displaying an import control of a qubit on an interaction interface;
displaying an image of the qubit on the interaction interface in response to an operation on the import control;
receiving an instruction to acquire an electromagnetic parameter of the qubit;
determining, in response to the instruction,a plurality of parts comprised in the qubit;
displaying the plurality of parts comprised in the qubit on the interaction interface;
determining electromagnetic interactions between the plurality of parts by using integral equations, to obtain electromagnetic parameters of surfaces of the plurality of parts,
wherein determining the electromagnetic interactions comprises respectively performing two-dimensional mesh subdivision on the surfaces of the plurality of parts to obtain a plurality of meshes and calculating electromagnetic parameters of the plurality of meshes by using the integral equations wherein the integral equations respectively use a Green's function to represent the electromagnetic interactions between the plurality of parts;
performing summation on the electromagnetic parameters of the surfaces of the plurality of parts to obtain an electromagnetic parameter of the qubit; and
displaying the electromagnetic parameter of the qubit on the interaction interface.
Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) & (g), displaying and gathering information for generically displaying is considered as extra solution activity.
Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) & (g), displaying and gathering information for generically displaying is considered as extra solution activity.
Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) & (g), displaying and gathering information for generically displaying is considered as extra solution activity.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) & (g), displaying and gathering information for generically displaying is considered as extra solution activity.
Further Under step 2B, WRC, US PGPUB No. US 20190377845 A1 by Solgun Figs.2-5 show such interaction. Also see 19. US 20230196160 A1 by Flöther; Frederik Frank et al. Fig.2.
Under step 2B, WRC ,
US PGPUB No. US 20190377845 A1 by Solgun Figs.2-5 show such forming the 2D mesh.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) & (g), displaying and gathering information for generically displaying is considered as extra solution activity.
Further under MPEP 2106.05(h)- this is simply field of use for displaying the calculated information pertaining to qubit.
The claim 1 does not recite any other additional elements.
Claim 8 and 15 disclose additional elements of generic computer components and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer/processor/memory to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer/processing component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims 1, 8 & 15 are therefore considered to be patent ineligible.
Claims 2, 4-7 further recite limitations confined to further defining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (mathematical qubit computation based on simulation) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. MPEP 2106.05(g) & (h). The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claims 9, 11-13 parallel claims 2, 4-6 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 14 parallels claim 7 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 16, 18-20 parallel claims 2, 4-6 and are rejected for the same reason.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 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 1 recites at least the amended limitation:
(Currently Amended) A qubit processing method, comprising:
displaying an import control of a qubit on an interaction interface;
The terms “import control of a qubit” is referred to in specification [0047]-[0054], [0088], [0101] & Fig.3 at least. However none of citations or Fig.3 show what is import control of a qubit, let alone displaying it in an interface. Therefore it is unclear what is displayed in any interface. Claims 8 and 15 also suffer from similar deficiency and are rejected likewise. The respective dependent claims do not cure this deficiency and are rejected likewise.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically exemplary Claim 1 recites:
(Currently Amended) A qubit processing method, comprising:
displaying an import control of a qubit on an interaction interface;
The terms “import control of a qubit” is referred to in specification [0047]-[0054], [0088], [0101] & Fig.3 at least. However none of citations or Fig.3 show what is import control of a qubit, let alone displaying it in an interface. Specification lacks disclosure what is displayed in any interface. Claims 8 and 15 also suffer from similar deficiency and are rejected likewise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPUB No. US 20190377845 A1 by Solgun; Firat.
Regarding Claim 1, 8 & 15 (Updated 7/24/2026)
Solgun teaches (Claim 1) A qubit processing method (Solgun: Abstract "... Techniques regarding an autonomous surface participation analysis of one or more superconducting qubits using the boundary element method are provided. ..."Fig.6-7) ,
(Claim 8) Solgun teaches An apparatus for performing qubit processing (Solgun: Fig.10 [0102]-[0106]) , the apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store instructions (Solgun: Fig.10 element 1016 & [0106]) ; and one or more processors (Solgun : Fig.10 element 1014 & [0113]) configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to perform/comprising:
(Claim 15) A non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by one or more processors of an apparatus to cause the apparatus to initiate a method for performing qubit processing (Solgun: Fig.10 & [0102]-[0113], specifically [0106]-[0107]) , the method comprising:
displaying an import control of a qubit on an interaction interface (Solgun: Fig.2 [0040]-[0041] showing input as interaction interface from the user "... [0040] In one or more embodiments, the simulation component 108 can analyze (e.g., via one or more generated simulations) a surface participation of one or more superconducting qubits using the BEM. The reception component 110 can receive data entered by a user of the system 100 via the one or more input devices 106. The received data can regard one or more physical and/or operational characteristics of a subject superconducting qubit. Example physical and/or operational characteristics of the subject superconducting qubit can include, but are not limited to, the type of superconducting qubit (e.g., a phase transmission line shunted plasma oscillation (“transmon”) qubit, a capacitively-shunted flux qubit (“CSFQ”), a fluxonium qubit, a combination thereof, and/or the like). The reception component 110 can be operatively coupled to the one or more input devices 106 directly (e.g., via an electrical connection) or indirectly (e.g., via the one or more networks 104). Additionally, the reception component 110 can be operatively coupled to one or more components of the server 102 (e.g., one or more components associated with the simulation component 108, system bus 118, processor 120, and/or memory 116) directly (e.g., via an electrical connection) or indirectly (e.g., via the one or more networks 104)...."); [0039] "... Additionally, the one or more input devices 106 can comprise one or more displays that can present one or more outputs generated by the system 100 to a user. For example, the one or more displays can include, but are not limited to: cathode tube display (“CRT”), light-emitting diode display (“LED”), electroluminescent display (“ELD”), plasma display panel (“PDP”), liquid crystal display (“LCD”), organic light-emitting diode display (“OLED”), a combination thereof, and/or the like....");
displaying an image of the qubit on the interaction interface in response to an operation on the import control (Solgun: Fig.2 [0041] at least showing image of physical implementation of qubit "... [0041] FIG. 2 illustrates a diagram of an example, non-limiting superconducting qubit structure 200 that can be meshed, by the system 100 (e.g., via the simulation component 108), to facilitate the BEM. Repetitive description of like elements employed in other embodiments described herein is omitted for sake of brevity. As shown in FIG. 2, the superconducting qubit structure 200 can comprise one or more qubit pads 202, one or more ground planes 204, and/or a dielectric substrate 206....") ;
receiving an instruction to acquire an electromagnetic parameter of the qubit (Solgun: [0046] "... Further, the conductor analysis component 112 can apply a unit voltage on each conductor panel separately and/or determine a charge induced on the mesh of conductor panels through a linear system. Although the electric field's surface charge densities diverge on the conductor surfaces, the total charge on a finite area of a conductor panel can be a convergent quantity... The simulation component 108 can then use the determined charges to perform a surface participation analysis in a very simple way since the electric field on conductor surfaces is directly proportional to the surface charge density. Whereas conventional techniques must make indirect assumptions and/or extrapolations regarding electric field surface charge densities, due at least to the problem of their divergence on the conductor surface, the conductor analysis component 112 can advantageous solve directly for the total charge since said total charge can be a convergent quantity in the respective finite areas of the one or more conductor panels..") ;
determining, in response to the instruction, a plurality of parts comprised in the qubit (Solgun: Fig.2 [0041]-[0046] [0007]-[0010]) ;
displaying the plurality of parts comprised in the qubit on the interaction interface (Solgun: Fig.2, 3A-3B showing plurality of parts that comprise the qubit; e.g. see elements 202, 206, 302);
determining electromagnetic interactions between the plurality of parts (Solgun: [0037] "...The simulation component 108 can further comprise reception component 110, conductor analysis component 112, and/or dielectric analysis component 114. ..." [0045]-[0046]"... the conductor analysis component 112 can discretize the conductor surfaces of the one or more qubit pads 202 into a mesh of one or more conductor panels, for example, comprised within the plurality of meshed panels....") by using integral equations (Solgun: [0057]"... [0057] The dielectric analysis component 114 can relate the energy stored in the one or amorphous regions 302 to the surface polarization charge density at the dielectric-dielectric interface and/or to the electric field on the side surfaces of the one or more qubit pads 202, which can be set to one volt. The dielectric analysis component 114 can utilize Green's first identity with an electric potential that can be characterized by Equation 4 [integral equation] , presented below....") , to obtain electromagnetic parameters of surfaces of the plurality of parts, wherein determining the electromagnetic interactions comprises respectively performing two-dimensional mesh subdivision on the surfaces of the plurality of parts to obtain a plurality of meshes (Solgun: [0034]"... In one or more embodiments, two-dimensional (“2D”) interfaces between conductor and dielectrics and/or between two dielectrics can be meshed using the BEM to provide a more efficient and/or accurate analysis of a surface participation of one or more superconducting qubits..."; [0033]-[0036]; [0041], [0044], [0057]) and calculating electromagnetic parameters of the plurality of meshes by using the integral equations (Solgun: [0046] – plurality of meshes; [0057] integral and summation), wherein the integral equations respectively use a Green's function to represent the electromagnetic interactions between the plurality of parts (Solgun: [0053]-[0057] & Fig.43) ;
performing summation on the electromagnetic parameters of the surfaces of the plurality of parts to obtain an electromagnetic parameter of the qubit (Solgun: [0057]-[0062] showing summation of the over plurality of surfaces; e.g. as in [0057] "... Wherein the sum is over the partitioning of the one or more amorphous regions 302 in the dielectric-dielectric interface into mesh panels by the BEM...."); and
displaying the electromagnetic parameter of the qubit on the interaction interface (Solgun: [0070] "... [0070] An advantage of method 700 can be that various parameters (e.g., energy stored, charge density, and/or electric field) associated with the conductor-dielectric and/or the dielectric-dielectric interfaces can be computed without the use of conventional extrapolations (e.g., such as assuming a constant power exponent for the electric field in one or more regions of the superconducting qubit subject to electric field and/or charge density divergence);..."; [0039] "... Additionally, the one or more input devices 106 can comprise one or more displays that can present one or more outputs generated by the system 100 to a user. For example, the one or more displays can include, but are not limited to: cathode tube display (“CRT”), light-emitting diode display (“LED”), electroluminescent display (“ELD”), plasma display panel (“PDP”), liquid crystal display (“LCD”), organic light-emitting diode display (“OLED”), a combination thereof, and/or the like....") .
Regarding Claims 2, 9 & 16
Solgun teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining electromagnetic interactions between the plurality of parts by using integral equations, to obtain electromagnetic parameters of surfaces of the plurality of parts comprises: calculating the electromagnetic parameters of the surfaces of the plurality of parts by using a Gaussian integration method (Solgun: [0057] shows the Gaussian integration for the Green’s first identity over the volume for electrostatic dielectric analysis1) .
Regarding Claims 3, 10 & 17 (Cancelled)
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 18
Solgun teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein respectively performing two-dimensional mesh subdivision on the surfaces of the plurality of parts to obtain a plurality of meshes comprises: respectively performing two-dimensional mesh subdivision on the surfaces of the plurality of parts by using a mixture of a uniform refinement method (Solgun : [0046] "... As shown in FIG. 2, the mesh of conductor panels can characterize the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers), wherein a portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes an edge of the one or more qubit pads 202 can (e.g., qubit metallization layers) can be finer (e.g., thinner and/or more densely populated) than another portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes a central region [non-boundary regions for uniform refinement method] of the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers)....") and a boundary refinement method, to obtain the plurality of meshes (Solgun: [0046] "... As shown in FIG. 2, the mesh of conductor panels can characterize the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers), wherein a portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes an edge of the one or more qubit pads 202 [boundary regions for boundary refinement with finer meshing]can (e.g., qubit metallization layers) can be finer (e.g., thinner and/or more densely populated) than another portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes a central region of the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers)...."; [0043]-[0046][0053]-[0062]).
Regarding Claims 5, 12 & 19
Solgun teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein respectively performing two-dimensional mesh subdivision on the surfaces of the plurality of parts by using a mixture of a uniform refinement method and a boundary refinement method, to obtain the plurality of meshes comprises: respectively performing two-dimensional mesh subdivision on non-boundary regions of the surfaces of the plurality of parts by using the uniform refinement method (Solgun : Fig.2 [0044]-[0045]; [0046] "... As shown in FIG. 2, the mesh of conductor panels can characterize the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers), wherein a portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes an edge of the one or more qubit pads 202 [boundary regions]can (e.g., qubit metallization layers) can be finer (e.g., thinner and/or more densely populated) than another portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes a central region [non-boundary regions] of the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers)....") and respectively performing two-dimensional mesh subdivision on boundary regions of the surfaces of the plurality of parts by using the boundary refinement method, to obtain the plurality of meshes (Solgun: [0044]; [0045]"... the mesh of panels need not be uniform within each feature of the superconducting qubit structure 200. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, the meshing can be finer at edges and/or corners of the one or more qubit pads 202 and/or the one or more ground planes 204...."; [0046]).
Regarding Claims 6, 13 & 20 (Updated 7/24/26)
Solgun teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the meshes obtained through subdivision are triangular meshes (Solgun: "... [0044] FIG. 2 depicts magnified portions of the superconducting qubit structure 200 to exemplify a mesh that can be created by the simulation component 108 using the BEM. The cross-hatching in FIG. 2 can define one or more panels meshed using the BEM. Although FIG. 2 shows an exemplary meshing into rectangular panels, the architecture is not so limited. For example, the mesh can define panels of any polygonal shape, such as triangular meshing....") , and triangular meshes obtained through subdivision by using the uniform refinement method have a same aspect ratio (Solgun: [0046] "... As shown in FIG. 2, the mesh of conductor panels can characterize the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers), wherein a portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes an edge of the one or more qubit pads 202 can (e.g., qubit metallization layers) can be finer (e.g., thinner and/or more densely populated) than another portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes a central region of the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers)...."; Fig.2 meshing shows different aspect ratios as different hatching) ; and for triangular meshes obtained through subdivision by using the boundary refinement method, a first triangular mesh is smaller than a second triangular mesh, wherein the first triangular mesh is closer to a boundary of the boundary region than the second triangular mesh, the first triangular mesh and the second triangular mesh have different aspect ratios. (Solgun: [0046] "... As shown in FIG. 2, the mesh of conductor panels can characterize the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers), wherein a portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes an edge of the one or more qubit pads 202 can (e.g., qubit metallization layers) can be finer (e.g., thinner and/or more densely populated) than another portion of the mesh of conductor panels that characterizes a central region of the one or more qubit pads 202 (e.g., qubit metallization layers)...." ; Fig.2 meshing shows different aspect ratios as different hatching; Also see Fig.4 & [0054] showing different meshing for substrate area).
Regarding Claims 7 & 14
Solgun teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic parameter comprises at least one of electric field energy (Solgun: [0065]) and an electric field occupation ratio2 (Solgun: [0055] "... As a result of the meshing and/or partitioning depicted in FIG. 4, contributions of the side panels 406 can cancel each other, thereby the only contribution to the surface participation comes from the surface integral of the electric field on the conductor side panels 408. Advantageously, the dielectric analysis component 114 is able to optimize upon said cancellations to simplify and/or reduce computational requirements...." – cancelled components would contribute to loss of electric field).
Relevant Prior Art of Record
US 20230196160 A1 by Flöther; Frederik Frank et al. shows qubit representation device 110 and qubit representation device 120 of apparatus 200 can each comprise a display component 215 and 225 respectively in order to facilitate outputting of a visual indicator of the quantum entanglement between qubit representation device 110 and qubit representation device 120. The control component 220 could be mapped to the newly amended import control of claim 1 and the display component 215/225 can be mapped to the display aspects of the newly amended claim.
PNG
media_image6.png
616
960
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
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, RYAN PITARO can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Friday, July 24, 2026
1 See Wikipedia definition of Green’s function and use of Gaussian integration for electrostatic. See Pg.11 of the attached Wiki for background.
2 See specification ¶[0039] "... an electric field occupation ratio (e.g., a ratio of the electric field energy of the local loss region to the total space energy),..."
Prosecution Insights