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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 2-3, filed January 5, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 12-13 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2 and 9-11 under Double Patenting have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has neither amended the claims nor filed a Terminal Disclaimer, therefore the Examiner maintains the rejection under Double Patenting.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “weak measurement module” in claims 1-3, 9, 11-13 and 18-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/137,755 in view of Septon et al. in U.S. Patent 11,949,463.
Instant Application
Copending Application 18/137,755
1. A quantum device comprising:
a weak measurement module operably coupled with a quantum system, wherein the weak measurement module is configured to:
apply one or more measurements to the quantum system; and
obtain information associated with the quantum system based on the one or more measurements.
1. A quantum device comprising:
a first quantum measurement module operably coupled with a first quantum system, wherein the first quantum measurement module is configured to: apply one or more measurements to the first quantum system; and
obtain first information associated with the first quantum system based on the one or more measurements; and a first quantum memory structure operably coupled with the first quantum measurement module, wherein a coherence time window associated with the first quantum memory structure is greater than a coherence time window time associated with the first quantum system.
11. A distributed quantum system comprising:
a central control unit;
a first quantum device comprising:
a first weak measurement module operably coupled with a quantum system, wherein the first weak measurement module is configured to: apply one or more first measurements to the quantum system;
and obtain information associated with the quantum system based on the one or more first measurements.
18. A quantum system arrangement comprising:
a first quantum device comprising:
a first quantum measurement module operably coupled with a first quantum system, wherein the first quantum measurement module is configured to: apply one or more measurements to the first quantum system;
and obtain first information associated with the first quantum system based on the one or more measurements;
and a first quantum memory structure operably coupled with the first quantum measurement module, wherein a coherence time window associated with the first quantum memory structure is greater than a coherence time window time associated with the first quantum system; and a second quantum device comprising:
a second quantum measurement module operably coupled with a second quantum system, wherein the second quantum measurement module is configured to: apply one or more measurements to the second quantum system; and obtain second information associated with the second quantum system based on the one or more measurements; and a second quantum memory structure operably coupled with the second quantum measurement module, wherein a coherence time window associated with the second quantum memory structure is greater than a coherence time window time associated with the second quantum system.
Claims 1 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/137,755 teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as indicated above, except where the claims have been emphasized.
Septon et al. relate generally to communications and teaches “The method may further include applying one or more measurements to the quantum communication channel where a strength of at least one measurement of the one or more measurements may be based at least in part upon the current noise signal. The method may include obtaining information associated with the one or more qubits based on the one or more measurements. In some embodiments, the one or more measurements may include at least one weak measurement” (column 1 lines 43-52, apply one or more first measurements to the quantum system) and “the eavesdropper device may apply the one or more measurements to the quantum communications channel as described above. The one or more measurements may be a sequence of, for example, variable strength measurements that include at least one “weak” measurement” (column 17 lines 10-20 a weak measurement module operably coupled with a quantum system). Additionally, Septon et al. discloses the use of a central control unit (Fig. 1) and “Through applied effort, ingenuity, and innovation, various deficiencies and problems associated with conventional communication channels have been solved by developing solutions that are configured in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure” (column 1 lines ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Septon et al. with copending Application No. 18/137,755 with a reasonable expectation that it would result in resolving some of the various deficiencies and problems associated with quantum devices and systems.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-2 and 9-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 11 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/137,758 in view of Septon et al. in U.S. Patent 11,949,463.
Instant Application
copending Application No. 18/137,758
A quantum device comprising:
a weak measurement module operably coupled with a quantum system, wherein the weak measurement module is configured to:
apply one or more measurements to the quantum system; and
obtain information associated with the quantum system based on the one or more measurements.
A quantum device comprising:
a first quantum measurement module operably coupled with a first quantum system, wherein the first quantum measurement module is configured to:
apply one or more measurements to the first quantum system; and
obtain information associated with the first quantum system based on the one or more measurements;
and a first data processing unit (DPU) operably coupled with the first quantum measurement module and configured to generate a data packet comprising time-related quantum data based upon at least one of: the one or more measurements by the first quantum measurement module; or the obtained information associated with the first quantum system.
2. The quantum device according to Claim 1, wherein a strength of the one or more measurements by the weak measurement module is configured to prevent a wave function collapse associated with the quantum system.
3. The quantum device according to Claim 1, wherein a strength of the one or more measurements by the first quantum measurement module is configured to prevent a wave function collapse associated with the first quantum system.
9. The quantum device according to Claim 1, wherein the weak measurement module is operably coupled with another quantum device via a quantum communication channel.
11. The quantum device according to Claim 1, further comprising:
a second quantum measurement module operably coupled with the first quantum system,
wherein the second quantum measurement module is configured to: apply one or more measurements to the first quantum system; and obtain information associated with the first quantum system based on the one or more measurements.
another quantum device is understood to be the equivalent of a second measurement module.
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the means for operably coupling a second quantum measurement module with the first quantum system is a quantum communication channel
10. The quantum device according to Claim 9, wherein
the another quantum device is configured to apply one or more measurements to the quantum system.
11. The quantum device according to Claim 1, further comprising:
a second quantum measurement module operably coupled with the first quantum system,
wherein the second quantum measurement module is configured to: apply one or more measurements to the first quantum system;
and obtain information associated with the first quantum system based on the one or more measurements.
another quantum device is understood to be the equivalent of a second measurement module.
11. A distributed quantum system comprising:
a central control unit;
a first quantum device comprising:
a first weak measurement module operably coupled with a quantum system, wherein the first weak measurement module is configured to: apply one or more first measurements to the quantum system;
and obtain information associated with the quantum system based on the one or more first measurements.
14. A quantum system arrangement comprising:
a first quantum device comprising:
a first quantum measurement module operably coupled with a first quantum system, wherein the first quantum measurement module is configured to: apply one or more measurements to the first quantum system;
and obtain information associated with the first quantum system based on the one or more measurements;
and a first data processing unit (DPU) operably coupled with the first quantum measurement module and configured to generate a first data packet comprising time- related quantum data based upon at least one of: the one or more measurements by the first quantum measurement module, or the obtained information associated with the first quantum system; and a second quantum device comprising: a second quantum measurement module operably coupled with a second quantum system, wherein the second quantum measurement module is configured to: apply one or more measurements to the second quantum system; and obtain information associated with the second quantum system based on the one or more measurements; and a second DPU operably coupled with the second quantum measurement module and configured to generate a second data packet comprising time-related quantum data based upon at least one of: the one or more measurements by the second quantum measurement module, or the obtained information associated with the second quantum system.
Claims 1, 3, 11 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/137,758 teach all of the limitations of claims 1-2 and 9-11 as indicated above, except where the claims have been emphasized.
Septon et al. relate generally to communications and teaches “The method may further include applying one or more measurements to the quantum communication channel where a strength of at least one measurement of the one or more measurements may be based at least in part upon the current noise signal. The method may include obtaining information associated with the one or more qubits based on the one or more measurements. In some embodiments, the one or more measurements may include at least one weak measurement” (column 1 lines 43-52, apply one or more first measurements to the quantum system) and “the eavesdropper device may apply the one or more measurements to the quantum communications channel as described above. The one or more measurements may be a sequence of, for example, variable strength measurements that include at least one “weak” measurement” (column 17 lines 10-20 a weak measurement module operably coupled with a quantum system). Additionally, Septon et al. discloses the use of a central control unit (Fig. 1) and “Through applied effort, ingenuity, and innovation, various deficiencies and problems associated with conventional communication channels have been solved by developing solutions that are configured in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure” (column 1 lines ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Septon et al. with copending Application No. 18/137,758 with a reasonable expectation that it would result in resolving some of the various deficiencies and problems associated with quantum devices and systems.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 12-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sorokina in U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0041076 teaches “In quantum theory, a qualitatively similar phenomena is known as the Zeno effect, where continuous measurement of the quantum system and associated von Neumann collapse of wave function prevents the natural dispersion of the wave function and causes the quantum system to remain in the same state” ([0046]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MISCHITA HENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/MI'SCHITA' HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights