DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Specifically, the claim(s) recite(s):
“A method for determining a conversion factor between a voltage applied to a plurality of gates of a system and a potential difference between a first quantum dot and a second quantum dot of a pair of quantum dots, the system comprising a pair of quantum dots containing two charged particles and including a first quantum dot and a second quantum dot, a tunnel coupling existing between the first quantum dot and the second quantum dot, the potential difference between the first quantum dot and the second quantum dot being modulated using the plurality of gates, a set of voltages applied to said gates of the plurality of gates defining an operating point of the system, the pair of quantum dots being in one charge state selected from a charge state {2,0}, a charge state {1,1} and a charge state {0,2}, and both charged particles adopting either a spin state selected from (i)a product spin state "ud or a "du" with u representing an "up" spin state and d representing a "down" spin state, (ii) a singlet spin state S in a ground state or a plurality of excited states, (iii) a triplet spin state T0 and (iv) a triplet spin state T+/T-, the method comprising:
a step of initialising the system in a reading operating point associated with the fully isolated regime and the charge state {2,0} and the singlet spin state S;
a step of modifying the operating point so as to reach an additional operating point to be characterised, said modifying being non-adiabatically carried out so as to cause a coherent oscillation of the spin state of the charged particles as a function of the tunnel coupling between both quantum dots at the additional operating point to be characterised;
a step of waiting, under microwave excitation, at the additional operating point to be characterised for a randomly chosen duration in the interval
1
f
R
a
b
ⅈ
m
a
x
,
1
f
R
a
b
ⅈ
m
i
n
so as to let the spin state of the charged particles freely oscillate in a coherent manner, where
f
R
a
b
ⅈ
m
a
x
is the maximum oscillation speed between the singlet spin state S and the triplet spin state T0 and/or the triplet spin state T+/T- and
f
R
a
b
ⅈ
m
i
n
is the minimum oscillation speed between the singlet spin state S and the triplet spin state T0 and/or the triplet spin state T+/T- ;
a spin/charge conversion step using a conversion operating point; and
a step of determining a converted charge state resulting from the spin/charge conversion step using the reading operating point in a fully isolated regime in which, for a reference duration, no exchange of charged particles is possible between the quantum dots of the pair of quantum dots;
said steps being repeated for a plurality of additional operating points to be characterised and a plurality of times for each of these additional operating points so as to determine, for each of these additional operating points, the probability of measuring a singlet state S;
the method then comprising:
a step of identifying at least one line of excited states in a stability diagram of the pair of quantum dots;
the preceding steps being repeated for a plurality of operating points located on a same line perpendicular to the line of excited states and passing through said line of excited states and for a plurality of frequencies of the microwave excitation so as to characterise the line of excited states due to the microwave excitation and its course as a function of the frequency of the microwave excitation applied to the system;
the method then comprising:
a step of determining, from this course, the conversion factor between the voltage applied to the plurality of gates of the system and the potential difference ε between both quantum dots of the pair of quantum dots.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Portions of claim 1 italicized above
Yes. The claim recites the limitations for determining a conversion factor between values of a potential difference between two quantum dots and the voltage applied to undefined gates in a system. First the system is “initialized” to be in a {2,0} and singlet state and then various modulations are performed through coherent microwave excited oscillations of the charge and spin states for indeterminate amounts of time. The final charge and spin state of the charged particles in the system are then read using a reading operation after the modulations are complete. Values recorded from these measurements are used to determine a conversion factor between the potential difference between both quantum dots and the undefined gate voltage.
The claims do not require any specific physical hardware. There is no recitation of a physical system such as the structure of the quantum dots, how they relate to the undefined gates nor how the microwave excitation occurs. The breadth of the claimed quantum dots, charged particles, gates even covers well known simulations of the two quantum dot system.
Furthermore, the method steps such as modulating the system by applying voltages to undefined gates and oscillating the spin and charge states using microwave excitation can merely be simulations not the physical application of voltages to an unclaimed physical structure.
The limitations covering the steps of waiting, identifying excited states from a charge stability diagram and determining the conversion factor, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Additionally, the entirety of the method would be mathematical calculations as performed by a computer. For example the quantum dots are merely quantum wells having a tunneling barrier between them whose barrier height can be modulated using voltage applied to gates of the system.
These are merely mathematical relationships and calculations of quantum states of a two particle system and can either be observed in a physical system or be a product of a simulated mathematical system.
Thus, the claim recites judicial exceptions of mathematical concepts/calculations and mental processes.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
Additional elements underlined in claim 1 above
No. The claim recites initializing, modulating and reading the states of the system. These additional elements are no more than applying voltages to gates in the system to initialize, modulate and read out charge and spin states.
These limitations generally apply to the abstract idea without limiting how the voltages are applied, where the gates are, how the applied voltage affects the system, etc. The initializing, modulation and reading operations are described at such a high level that it amounts to merely a recitation of the outcomes without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
The additional limitations merely amount to necessary data gathering and outputting and nothing is done with the output. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
2.The method according to claim 1, wherein charge energy is a parameter of the system, the method comprising, after the step of determining the conversion factor, a step of determining, from this conversion factor, the charge energy of the system and charge energies associated with the excited states.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Portions of claim 2 italicized above
Yes. The claim recites the limitations for determining charge energy in the system.
The claimed step of determining the charge energy is a mathematical calculation or mental activity such as observing a mathematical calculated output.
Thus, the claim recites judicial exceptions of mathematical concepts/calculations and mental processes.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim merely recites that charge energy is a parameter of the system and requires a step of determining the charge energies in the system with no further elaboration.
The additional limitations merely amount to necessary data gathering and outputting and nothing is done with the output. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
3. A method for determining the conversion factor between a voltage applied to the plurality of gates of a system and a tunnel coupling ΓQD between both quantum dots of a pair of quantum dots, the system comprising a pair of quantum dots containing two charged particles and including a first quantum dot and a second quantum dot, and the tunnel coupling ΓQD between both quantum dots of the pair of quantum dots being modulated using the plurality of gates, a set of voltages applied to said gates of the plurality of gates defining an operating point of the system, the pair of quantum dots being in one charge state selected from a first charge state {2,0} in which both charged particles are in the first quantum dot, a second charge state {1,1} in which one charged particle is in each quantum dot, and a third charge state {0,2} in which both charged particles are in the second quantum dot, and both charged particles adopting either a singlet spin state S or a triplet spin state T+/T-, the method comprising:
a step of initialising the system in a reading operating point associated with a fully isolated regime, the first charge state {2,0} and the singlet spin state S;
a step of modifying the operating point so as to reach an additional operating point to be characterised, said modifying being non-adiabatically carried out so as to cause a coherent oscillation from the singlet spin state S to the triplet spin state T+/T- ;
a step of waiting at the additional operating point to be characterised for a randomly selected duration in the range
1
f
R
a
b
ⅈ
m
a
x
,
1
f
R
a
b
ⅈ
m
i
n
so as to let the spin state freely oscillate in a coherent manner, where
f
R
a
b
ⅈ
m
a
x
is the maximum oscillation speed between the singlet spin state S and the triplet spin state T+/T- and
f
R
a
b
ⅈ
m
i
n
is the minimum oscillation speed between the singlet spin state S and the triplet spin state T+/T- ;
a spin/charge conversion step using a conversion operating point;
a step of determining a converted charge state resulting from the spin/charge conversion step using the reading operating point in the fully isolated regime in which, for a reference duration, no exchange of charged particles is possible between the quantum dots of the pair of quantum dots;
said steps being repeated for a plurality of additional operating points to be characterised and a plurality of times for each of these additional operating points so as to determine, for each of these additional operating points, the probability of measuring a singlet state S;
the method then comprising:
a step of identifying a crossing line of the singlet spin state S and the triplet spin state T+/T- in a stability diagram of the pair of quantum dots;
the preceding steps being repeated for a plurality of additional operating point located on a same line perpendicular to the crossing line and for which the potential difference between both quantum dots of the pair of quantum dots is zero and passing through said crossing line, and for a plurality of magnetic fields so as to characterise the course of a crossing position as a function of the magnetic field;
the method then comprising:
a step of determining, from this course, the conversion factor between the voltage applied to the plurality of gates of the system and the tunnel coupling ΓQD between both quantum dots of the pair of quantum dots.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Portions of claim 3 italicized above
Yes. The claim recites the limitations for determining a conversion factor between values of a tunnel coupling between two quantum dots and the voltage applied to undefined gates in a system. First the system is “initialized” to be in a {2,0} and singlet state and then various modulations are performed through coherent microwave excited oscillations of the charge and spin states for indeterminate amounts of time. The final charge and spin state of the charged particles in the system are then read using a reading operation after the modulations are complete. Values recorded from these measurements are used to determine a conversion factor between the tunnel coupling between both quantum dots and the undefined gate voltage.
The claims do not require any specific physical hardware. There is no recitation of a physical system such as the structure of the quantum dots, how they relate to the undefined gates nor how the microwave excitation occurs. The breadth of the claimed quantum dots, charged particles, gates even covers well known simulations of the two quantum dot system.
Furthermore, the method steps such as modulating the system by applying voltages to undefined gates and oscillating the spin and charge states using microwave excitation can merely be simulations not the physical application of voltages to an unclaimed physical structure.
The limitations covering the steps of waiting, identifying excited states from a charge stability diagram and determining the conversion factor, are processes that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Additionally, the entirety of the method would be mathematical calculations as performed by a computer. For example the quantum dots are merely quantum wells having a tunneling barrier between them whose barrier height can be modulated using voltage applied to gates of the system.
These are merely mathematical relationships and calculations of quantum states of a two particle system and can either be observed in a physical system or be a product of a simulated mathematical system.
Thus, the claim recites judicial exceptions of mathematical concepts/calculations and mental processes.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
Additional elements underlined in claim 3 above
No. The claim recites initializing, modulating and reading the states of the system. These additional elements are no more than applying voltages to gates in the system to initialize, modulate and read out charge and spin states.
These limitations generally apply to the abstract idea without limiting how the voltages are applied, where the gates are, how the applied voltage affects the system, etc. The initializing, modulation and reading operations are described at such a high level that it amounts to merely a recitation of the outcomes without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
The additional limitations merely amount to necessary data gathering and outputting and nothing is done with the output. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
Claims 4 and 6 require the limitations of claim 1 and inherit the deficiencies of the independent claim.
A system comprising a first subsystem and a second subsystem, the first subsystem and/or the second subsystem configured to contain zero, one or more charged particles, a tunnel coupling existing between the first subsystem and the second subsystem, said coupling allowing exchange of one or more charged particles between the first subsystem and the second subsystem and being modulated by a gate voltage applied to one or more gates configured to form a potential barrier between the first subsystem and the second subsystem, the system also comprising a charge-state detector comprising an electrometer configured to measure a charge state of the first subsystem and/or the second subsystem, the system also comprising a controller comprising one or more processors and memory storing instructions that cause the controller to execute the steps of the method according to claim 1.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a system with means for measuring which is disclosed to involve an electrometer and, therefore, is a product.
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Portions of claim 4 italicized above
Yes. The claim requires the means to execute the steps of the method of claim 1 which is deemed ineligible above.
Thus, the claim recites judicial exceptions of mathematical concepts/calculations and mental processes.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
Portions of claim 4 underlined above
No. The claim recites the constituents of the system which are also found in the method of claim 1. Specifically, the double quantum dot system.
The claim also requires measuring the charge state of the first or second subsystem with an electrometer. And wherein the controller comprises a computer having a processor and memory.
However, the mere recitation of the use of an electrometer to perform only the charge state measuring step is not sufficient to integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application. The electrometer is disclosed at such a high level of generality that it does not provide significantly more that the claimed judicial exceptions. Additionally, the remainder of the judicial exceptions are not tied to the electrometer at all. MPEP 2106.05(b),
The mere recitation of the controller being a computer is not sufficient to integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application. The computer is disclosed at such a high level of generality that it does not provide significantly more that the claimed judicial exceptions. Additionally, the remainder of the judicial exceptions are not tied to the electrometer at all.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
6. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a processor, perform the method according to claim 1.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium and therefore, is a product.
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Portions of claim 6 italicized above
Yes. The claim requires the instructions to execute the steps of the method of claim 1 which is deemed ineligible above.
Thus, the claim recites judicial exceptions of mathematical concepts/calculations and mental processes.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
Portions of claim 6 underlined above
No. The claim recites the execution of the process of claim 1 by a processor using the instructions of the non-transitory computer-readable medium.
However, the mere recitation of the execution of the judicial exceptions using a processor is insufficient to integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application. The processor and memory storing medium are disclosed at such a high level of generality that they do not provide significantly more that the claimed judicial exceptions. MPEP 2106.05(b)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim is ineligible.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In determining that the claims do not satisfy the enablement requirement, the examiner has considered each of the factors specified in In re Wands. (858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).)
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
A. The breadth of the claims. The scope of the claims cover the any physical structure or a computer simulation of a double quantum dot system. Neither the disclosure nor the claims describe with any specificity the physical construction of the double quantum dot system. There is no disclosure of whether the DQDs are molecules, quantum wells, point defects, charge traps, etc. Additionally, the mere recitation of “a plurality of gates” offers no information about whether there are gates controlling the local potential of each QD or if the gates merely control the potential between the QDs or whether these are wholly different gates. The claims and disclosure are so broad that it is even unclear if a physical DQD device exists at all or if this is the description of a well-known computer simulation of a minimal DQD system. (QDSim DQD simulation 2024 https://qdsim.readthedocs.io/en/stable/tutorials/tutorialsmd/example1_double_quantum_dot.html)
Furthermore, the claimed and disclosed process steps do not provide any detail regarding what the modulation of the states entails. There is no disclosure of where the gates are or what they control or even if they are physical hardware or not. The disclosure does not elaborate beyond the statement that the initializing, modulation and reading of the states is accomplished by applying voltages to gates.
B: The nature of the invention, and C: The state of the prior art
DQD systems can be physically realized or simulated using a variety of differing features such as color centers, shallow dopants, gate patterned quantum dots such as SOI accumulation mode and GaAs depletion mode devices and topological devices. (Chatterjee, A., Stevenson, P., De Franceschi, S. et al. Semiconductor qubits in practice. Nat Rev Phys 3, 157–177 (2021).)
F: The amount of direction provided by the inventor, and G: The existence of working examples
The instant specification does not provide any detail regarding working examples nor any mention of what the system physically is or how it operates. Even if the system is a simulation the disclosure is silent with regards to any detail about the simulation. The same broad statements from the claims are never elaborated upon in the specification.
Enablement conclusion:
The examiner has considered the factors above and found that the claim limitations relating to the system, gates, quantum dots and even the initializing, modulating, reading and measuring steps are not supported by the specification so as to provide the public with any descriptions of how to make and use the invention. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4 and 6 are rejected for lack of enablement. This rejection applies equally to independent claims, as well as to dependent claims.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In determining that the claims do not satisfy the enablement requirement, the examiner has considered each of the factors specified in In re Wands. (858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).)
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
A. The breadth of the claims. The scope of the claims cover the any physical structure or a computer simulation of a double quantum dot system. Neither the disclosure nor the claims describe with any specificity the physical construction of the double quantum dot system. There is no disclosure of whether the DQDs are molecules, quantum wells, point defects, charge traps, etc. Additionally, the mere recitation of “a plurality of gates” offers no information about whether there are gates controlling the local potential of each QD or if the gates merely control the potential between the QDs or whether these are wholly different gates. The claims and disclosure are so broad that it is even unclear if a physical DQD device exists at all or if this is the description of a well-known computer simulation of a minimal DQD system.
Furthermore, the claimed and disclosed process steps do not provide any detail regarding what the modulation of the states entails. There is no disclosure of where the gates are or what they control or even if they are physical hardware or not. The disclosure does not elaborate beyond the statement that the initializing, modulation and reading of the states is accomplished by applying voltages to gates.
B: The nature of the invention, and C: The state of the prior art
DQD systems can be physically realized or simulated using a variety of differing features such as color centers, shallow dopants, gate patterned quantum dots such as SOI accumulation mode and GaAs depletion mode devices and topological devices. (Chatterjee, A., Stevenson, P., De Franceschi, S. et al. Semiconductor qubits in practice. Nat Rev Phys 3, 157–177 (2021).)
F: The amount of direction provided by the inventor, and G: The existence of working examples
The instant specification does not provide any detail regarding working examples nor any mention of what the system physically is or how it operates. Even if the system is a simulation the disclosure is silent with regards to any detail about the simulation. The same broad statements from the claims are never elaborated upon in the specification.
Enablement conclusion:
The examiner has considered the factors above and found that the claim limitations relating to the system, gates, quantum dots and even the initializing, modulating, reading and measuring steps are not supported by the specification so as to provide the public with any descriptions of how to make and use the invention. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected for lack of enablement. This rejection applies equally to independent claims, as well as to dependent claims.
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 and 6 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 “the pair of quantum dots being in one charge state selected from a charge state {2,0}, a charge state {1,1} and a charge state {0,2}, and both charged particles adopting either a spin state selected from (i) a product spin state "ud or a "du" with u representing an "up" spin state and d representing a "down" spin state, (ii) a singlet spin state S in a ground state or a plurality of excited states, (iii) a triplet spin state T0 and (iv) a triplet spin state T+/T-”. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because it is unclear if the two charge particles in the “ud” or “du” states are meant to require that the two charged particles have separable states
u
>
,
d
>
in charge state {1,1} or if this is referring to the inner product of the up and down state spin vectors < u │d > = <ud> or <d │u> = <d│u>, the outer product of the separable spin states │u> < d│= │ud│, │d> < u│= │du│ or the tensor product of the up and down spin state vectors │u>│d> = │ud>, │d>│u> = │du> or if applicant is trying to refer to the final readout state of measured spins of the two charged particles in any charge state where the final state for each particle can only be only one of either up or down. Therefore, the claims are rejected 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception stating that claim 1 is rooted in physical quantum hardware and requires physical operations. This is not found to be persuasive because there is no recitation in claim 1 that any physical hardware exists at all. The scope of the claims cover any physical structure or a computer simulation of a double quantum dot system. Neither the disclosure nor the claims describe with any specificity the physical construction of the double quantum dot system. There is no disclosure of whether the DQDs are molecules, quantum wells, point defects, charge traps, etc. Additionally, the mere recitation of “a plurality of gates” offers no information about whether there are gates controlling the local potential of each QD or if the gates merely control the potential between the QDs or whether these are wholly different gates. The claims and disclosure are so broad that it is even unclear if a physical DQD device exists at all or if this is the description of a well-known computer simulation of a minimal DQD system.
Applicant further argues that the claimed system is physical hardware because the recited steps are laboratory control and measurement steps which produce physical stability diagrams/probability maps. However, QDSim (Simulating charge stability diagrams for a double quantum dot — QDsim 1.0.0 documentation) alone has a wholly computer based DQD simulation wherein the DQD system is defined mathematically, an initial state is set for the quantum dots, various gates, sensors and noise parameters are applied and plotting the resulting stability diagrams. These diagrams can be analyzed to determine myriad relationships, characteristics and parameters.
PNG
media_image1.png
703
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
622
739
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The office maintains that absent any recitation of physical hardware in claim 1 the claimed method does not amount to more than the abstract ideas which is mathematical computation to determine a conversion factor.
Applicant further argues that the claim does not recite any mental processes and the determining step requires physical measurement to generate the data from which the determining is conducted. Applicant argues that the calculation is tied to a physical calibration procedure. The office maintains that the entire method of determining a conversion factor is determining a mathematical relationship and wherein the method claims steps which are wholly mental processes such as the waiting step. The argument that the determining a conversion factor method is intimately tied to physical measurement of tangible physical systems in a lab is not persuasive as the office has demonstrated that a computer simulation of a DQD system will generate the same data and plots.
Applicant further argues that the mathematical relationship/calculation is integrated into a practical application of calibration, characterization, control, excitation, and readout. This is not found to be persuasive because again there is nothing in the claim that requires physical hardware and the entirety of the stated “practical application” can be performed with a commercially available computer simulation.
Applicant further argues that the output of the conversion factor improves the ability to set operating points and interpret device behaviour. However, none of these uses of the output are claimed. Claiming a practical use of the output would likely overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant further argues that he claimed method is an improvement to the calibration and characterization of quantum computing hardware such as operation in an isolated regime to stabilize charge occupancy, a defined microwave excitation regimen, extraction of excited state features from a probability map/stability diagram and frequency dependent characterization to determine the voltage to potential conversion. This is not found to be persuasive as there is no recitation about how the operation stabilizes the charge occupancy of the quantum dots. There is no recitation of any detail to define the microwave excitation regimen such as frequency values, how the system is excited, timings etc. The “extraction” of excited state features is merely a plot of data and there is no detail claimed about how the data is received or analyzed. Furthermore, determining voltage to potential conversion, which is apparently the technological improvement of the entire method, is not recited with any specificity beyond its occurrence. If the entirety of the method is an improvement of the operation and analysis of a physical quantum hardware systems where are these concrete improvements? What even is the quantum dot system formed of? The claim has no detail to support any finding that the method is itself an improvement to quantum hardware operation.
Applicant argues that a similar case was allowed. This argument has no bearing on the rejections in this application.
Applicant argues that the recitation of characteristics like crosstalk, gate voltages etc. supports a finding that this method is performed on a tangible physical system. This is not found to be persuasive as crosstalk strength is a parameter in the DQD simulation.
PNG
media_image3.png
894
771
media_image3.png
Greyscale
These rejections can be overcome by claiming either the details of the physical system or claiming the use of the conversion factor in some tangible way.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIGITTE A PATERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
BRIGITTE A. PATERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/BRIGITTE A PATERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896