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 .
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.
In addressing the rejection ground, each claim may not have been separately discussed to the extent the claimed features are the same as or similar to the previously-discussed features; the previous discussion is construed to apply for the other claims in the same or similar way.
In the office action, “/” should be read as and/or as generally understood. For example, “A/B” means A and B, or A or B.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of electing Species II (fig. 4) in the reply filed on 07/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant indicated claims 1 and 3-5 read on the elected Species II. Upon further review, it has been determined claims 6-13 also read on the elected Species. Accordingly, claims 2 and 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/14/2026.
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 and 3-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “couplable” in lines 5-6, and 10-13, respectively. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the invention, whether it refers to a capability can be achieved by modifying the system, whether it refers to a system capability that is a possibility that is not required, or something else.
Similarly, each of claims 3-5 has the same “couplable” issue.
Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naaman (US 9,438,246).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Naaman discloses an electronic circuit [e.g. figs. 1-2/6], comprising: a first qubit [e.g. Qubit #1 (or #2/#3, see the corresponding elements)]; a second qubit [e.g. Qubit #2 (or #3/#4, see the corresponding elements)]; a first coupler [e.g. the corresponding 16s, 18s] including a first resonator [e.g. RES #1/coupler #1 (TL1)] and a second resonator [e.g. RES #2/coupler #2 (TL2)], the first resonator being couplable with the first qubit, the second resonator being couplable with the second qubit; a first readout conductive member [e.g. READout 26]; and a first filter [e.g. BP filter #1, #2, C2 (i.e. C28 fig. 2)/C3 (i.e. C31 fig. 2)] including a first filter portion [e.g. BP filter #1], a first other-filter portion [e.g. BP filter #2], and a first readout portion [e.g. C3 (C31 fig. 2) or the left/right terminal of C3 (C31 fig. 2)], the first filter portion being couplable with the first resonator, the first other-filter portion being couplable with the second resonator, the first readout portion being couplable with the first readout conductive member.
Regarding claim 3 (as best understood), Naaman discloses the electronic circuit according to claim 1, wherein the first filter includes: a first conductive member including a first conductive portion [e.g. the conductive line connected directly between L7 and L15 fig. 2] and a first other-conductive portion [e.g. the conductive line connected directly to the upper terminal of C22/L7 fig. 2]; a second conductive member [e.g. the conductive line connected directly between L11 and L18 fig. 2]; and at least one third conductive member [e.g. the conductive line connected directly to the upper terminal of C29/L11] located between the first conductive member and the second conductive member, the third conductive member is couplable with the first and second conductive members, the first conductive portion is couplable with the first resonator, the second conductive member is couplable with the second resonator, and the first other-conductive portion is couplable with the first readout conductive member.
Regarding claim 4 (as best understood), Naaman discloses the electronic circuit according to claim 1, wherein the first filter includes: a first conductive member [e.g. the conductive line connected directly between L7 and L15 fig. 2] couplable with the first resonator; a second conductive member [e.g. the conductive line connected directly between L11 and L18 fig. 2] couplable with the second resonator; and a third conductive member [e.g. the conductive line connected directly to the upper terminal of C29/L11] couplable with the first readout conductive member, and at least a portion of the third conductive member is located between the first conductive member and the second conductive member.
Regarding claim 5 (as best understood), Naaman discloses the electronic circuit according to claim 4, wherein the first filter [while comprise BP filter #1 and #2 corresponding to qubit #1, the second filter comprises BP filter #3 corresponding to qubit #3] further includes: a first conductive member Josephson junction [e.g. J13 fig. 2] couplable with the first conductive member; a second conductive member Josephson junction [e.g. J17] couplable with the second conductive member; and a third conductive member Josephson junction [e.g. J21] couplable with the third conductive member [note: the recited relationship between the first qubit and the first resonator is couplable; the recited relationship between the first filter portion and the first resonator is couplable; the recited relationship between the second qubit and the first other-filter portion is couplable; and the recited relationship between the second filter portion and the second resonator is couplable;]
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.
Claims 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naaman (US 9,438,246) in view of Srinivasna et al. (US 2022/0058508).
Regarding claim 6 (as best understood), Naaman discloses the electronic circuit according to claim 1, except wherein a resonant frequency of the first resonator is greater than a resonant frequency of the first qubit, a resonant frequency of the second resonator is greater than a resonant frequency of the second qubit, an absolute value of a difference between the resonant frequency of the first resonator and the resonant frequency of the first qubit is greater than an absolute value of a difference between the resonant frequency of the first resonator and the resonant frequency of the second resonator, and an absolute value of a difference between the resonant frequency of the second resonator and the resonant frequency of the second qubit is greater than the absolute value of the difference between the resonant frequency of the first resonator and the resonant frequency of the second resonator. However, Srinivasna discloses a resonant frequency of the first resonator [e.g. approximate 7.5 GHz] is greater than a resonant frequency of the first qubit [e.g. 4.5 GHz], a resonant frequency of the second resonator [e.g. approximate 7.5 GHz] is greater than a resonant frequency of the second qubit [e.g. approximate 5 GHz], an absolute value [e.g. approximate 3 GHz] of a difference between the resonant frequency of the first resonator and the resonant frequency of the first qubit is greater than an absolute value of a difference [e.g. approximate 0.5 GHz] between the resonant frequency of the first resonator and the resonant frequency of the second resonator, and an absolute value of a difference [e.g. approximate 2.5 GHz] between the resonant frequency of the second resonator and the resonant frequency of the second qubit is greater than the absolute value of the difference between the resonant frequency of the first resonator and the resonant frequency of the second resonator [see at least para. 0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Naaman in accordance with the teaching of Srinivasna regarding frequency in order to provide a frequency relationship between a qubit and a resonator [para. 0056].
Regarding claim 7 (as best understood), Naaman discloses the electronic circuit according to claim 6, wherein an absolute value of a difference [e.g. 0.5 GHz; see at least para. 0056] between the resonant frequency of the first qubit and the resonant frequency of the second qubit is less than the absolute value of the difference between the resonant frequency of the first resonator and the resonant frequency of the first qubit and less than the absolute value of the difference between the resonant frequency of the second resonator and the resonant frequency of the second qubit.
Claims 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naaman (US 9,438,246) in view of Abraham et al. (US 2016/0112031).
Regarding claim 8 (as best understood), Naaman discloses the electronic circuit according to claim 1, wherein the first coupler further includes a first coupler Josephson junction [e.g. J13]. Naaman does not disclose the first/second resonator includes a first inductor/second and a first/second capacitor. However, it’s well known to utilize a resonator includes an inductor and a capacitor, the capacitor is connected in parallel with the inductor. For example, Abraham discloses a resonator includes an inductor [e.g. 30] and a capacitor [e.g. 35], the capacitor is connected in parallel with the inductor, such that the combination discloses wherein the first resonator includes a first inductor and a first capacitor [e.g. 30, 35 Abraham], the first capacitor is connected in parallel with the first inductor, the second resonator includes a second inductor and a second capacitor [e.g. 30, 35 Abraham], the second capacitor is connected in parallel with the second inductor, the first coupler further includes a first coupler Josephson junction [e.g. J13], one end of the first coupler Josephson junction is connected with one end of the first inductor and one end of the first capacitor, and another end of the first coupler Josephson junction is connected [e.g. via BP filter #1, BP filter #2, see figures of Naaman] with one end of the second inductor and one end of the second capacitor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Naaman in accordance with the teaching of Abraham regarding the resonator in order to reduce the energy relaxation time for the qubit [para. 0025].
Regarding claim 9 (as best understood), Naaman discloses the electronic circuit according to claim 8, wherein the first inductor includes at least one first resonator Josephson junction, and the second inductor includes at least one second resonator Josephson junction [see J13, J17 Naaman].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 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 and rewritten to overcome 112(b) rejection by changing “couplable with” to “coupled to”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7207. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Flexible 8:00-16:00.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/PATRICK C CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights