Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/056,829

LONG-RANGE COUPLING QUBITS IN QUANTUM COMPUTING WITH ENERGY LOSS PROTECTION VIA MULTI-MODE AND FLUXONIUM QUBITS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 18, 2022
Examiner
WARTALOWICZ, PAUL A
Art Unit
1735
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
529 granted / 832 resolved
-1.4% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
863
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
24.7%
-15.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 832 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim (s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (“A scalable superconducting quantum simulator with long-range connectivity based on a photonic-bandgap metamaterial”) in view of Goto (“Double-transmon coupler: fast two-qubit gate with no residual coupling for highly detuned superconducting qubits”) . Zhang teaches a first transmon, a second transmon, and a long range coupler (lattice of superconducting transmon qubits coupled to a common metamaterial waveguide (long-range coupler); page 2, left column). Zhang fails to teach that the first and second transmon qubits are couplers. Goto, however, teaches a system wherein transmon qubits coupled to transmon couplers for the purpose of tuning the coupling strength between the computational qubits (page 1, right column). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the transmon qubits of Zhang coupled to transmon couplers in order to tune the coupling strength between the computational qubits as taught by Goto. Regarding the limitation of “transmon coupler capable of selectively coupling a first tunable coupler qubit to a first fluxonium qubit”, it appears that the transmon coupler of the prior art is able to (i.e. capable of ) perform the function of selectively coupling a first tunable coupler qubit to a first fluxonium qubit absent a showing to the contrary. This rationale applies to the second transmon coupler. Regarding the limitation of a “long-range coupler capable of selectively coupling the first fluxonium qubit to the second fluxonium qubit ”, it appears that the waveguide of the prior art is able to (i.e. capable of) performing the function of selectively coupling the first fluxonium qubit to the second fluxonium qubit absent a showing to the contrary. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11-20 allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a method comprising providing a first transmon coupler in electrical connection between a first fluxonium qubit and a first tunable coupler qubit, a second transmon coupler in electrical connection between a second fluxonium qubit and a second tunable coupler qubit , and a long-range coupler in selective electrical connection with the first fluxonium qubit and the second fluxonium qubit in combination with the limitations of claim 11 . Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a device comprising providing a first transmon coupler coupled between a first fluxonium qubit and a first tunable coupler qubit, a second transmon coupler coupled between a second fluxonium qubit and a second tunable coupler qubit, and a long-range coupler coupled with the first fluxonium qubit and the second fluxonium qubit in combination with the limitations of claim 17. Claims 2-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the first transmon coupler coupled to a first B mode of the first tunable coupler qubit and a second transmon coupler coupled to a second B mode of the second tunable coupler qubit in combination with the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PAUL A WARTALOWICZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5957 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Walker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3458 . 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. /PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 18, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 02, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598921
THIN FILM HAVING SINGLE-CRYSTAL-LEVEL CRYSTAL ORIENTATION PROPERTY, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME, AND PRODUCT USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592332
HTS LINKED PARTIAL INSULATION FOR HTS FIELD COILS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589993
METHODS FOR PHOTOCATALYTIC WATER SPLITTING OF PRODUCED WATERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584522
HTS BEARING AND FLYWHEEL SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580109
SUPERCONDUCTING COIL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+18.6%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 832 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month