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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samkharadze (WO 2022/173301) in view of Capelluto et al. (US 2022/0188182).
Regarding to claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-16:
Samkharadze discloses a method for improving discernment between qubit states in superconducting quantum computers, the method comprising:
shifting a phase of a signal and using said phase shifted signal to measure a state of a first qubit (Abstract: The first electrical signal (E1) is shifted in phase to generate the second microwave signal (W2) to measure the state of the second qubit to compensate crosstalk noise).
Samkharadze however does not teach wherein the phase shifting and the use of the phase shifted signal to measure the state of the first qubit are in response to a kernel response not meeting criteria. In other words, Samkharadze does not teach whether performing the phase shifting is based on the crosstalk noise, wherein such crosstalk noise (considered as the kernel response) does not meet criteria, and wherein continuing to adjust said phase of said phase shifted signal until said kernel response meets said criteria.
Capelluto et al. discloses a quantum system comprising a noise monitoring unit (FIG. 6, element 150) for monitoring noise in the qubit devices of the system and a noise-mitigation unit (FIG. 6, element 128) to carry the noise mitigation when the noise condition satisfies a noise rule (FIG. 10, steps 1020-1030), wherein the satisfaction of the noise condition reads on the kernel response not meeting criteria, and such test for satisfaction of the noise condition is continuing until the noise condition is not met (FIG. 10, step 1020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to modify Samkharadze’s method to include Capelluto’s noise monitoring for monitoring the noise condition in order to perform the phase shift only when the noise condition indicates a need of compensation.
Regarding to claims 3, 10, 17: calibrating each of a plurality of channels used for communicating a measured state of qubits (FIG. 1A: All channels G1-G6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 11-14, 18-20 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.
Regarding to claims 4, 11, 18: The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claim is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that reading a plurality of responses of a second qubit set to a first quantum state for a first channel of said plurality of channels as a result of a dynamic circuit performing quantum operations on said second qubit set to said first quantum state; and reading a plurality of responses of said second qubit set to a second quantum state for said first channel of said plurality of channels as a result of said dynamic circuit performing quantum operations on said second qubit set to said second quantum state is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are allowed because they depend directly/indirectly on claim 4, 11, or 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s Remarks, the Examiner notices that since the claim language does not specially define “kernel response” and “criteria”, the term “kernel response” can be thus broadly interpreted as mutual crosstalk between adjacent qubits (as addressed in Samkharadze) and a noise condition of a qubit (as addressed in Capelluto et al.), and the term “criteria” can be broadly interpreted as a noise-mitigation rule (as addressed in Capelluto et al.); As a result, the combination of Samkaharadza and Capelluto et al. reads on shifting a phase of a signal to measure a state of a qubit in response to whether the noise/crosstalk condition (kernel response) satisfies the noise-mitigation rule (criteria).
Furthermore, in the Remarks dated 4/22/2026, the Applicant asserts that “Criteria” in the prior art does not refer as “the difference between kernel response calculations being less than a threshold value, which may be user-defined” (as defined in the Specification), and “kernel” in the prior art does not refer as “a time domain filter calibrated to a specific task. A real-time convolution of incoming signals (e.g., microwave radio frequency signals) with the kernel is then performed generating an integrated result (also referred to as the “kernel response”) which is compared to a threshold to determine the quantum state of the qubit (e.g., transom qubit)” (as defined in the Specification).
The Examiner, in response, cites that limitations are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their broadest reasonable interpretation (MPEP 2111.01), but “Reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitation explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from “reading limitations of the specification into a claim, to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim” (MPEP 2111). As a result, the Examiner suggests the Applicant that to add the language of “Criteria” and “kernel” defined in the Specification into the claims. Such language surely distincts the interpretation of “Criteria” and “kernel” from that in the cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights