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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/23/26.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
All of the numbered equations in the specification are illegible. Legible copies of these equations must replace the illegible equations.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a left-handed metamaterial ring resonator for the microwave frequency domain comprising a plurality of cells, each cell containing a series capacitance with an inductance to ground, it does not reasonably provide enablement for the claimed “ring resonator with left-handed wave dispersion.” The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
In particular, there are any number of frequency domains for which one might construct a ring resonator with left-handed wave dispersion, and any number of metamaterials which might meet such a function, but the applicant only describes one. Thus, the broad breadth of the claims as compared to the narrow and specific direction provided by the inventor makes it clear that significant experimental effort would be required to make and use the full scope of the claims.
Further, the nature of metamaterials and the state of metamaterial optics is such that creating any metamaterial right resonator would require significant research and experimentation. The above is at least equally true with respect to the nature and state of the art of qubits. This is because these fields are extremely new, and practical applications are of insufficient number to alleviate the experimentation necessary to achieve any particular metamaterial invention. Applicant’s IDS citations to Ring-Resonator-Based Coupling Architecture for Enhanced Connectivity in a Superconducting Multiqubit Network illustrates this, as the appendices of this 2021 publication describe in extreme detail the process of making a traditional ring resonator and coupling it to Qubits. In fields like these, where such attention to detail and customization is necessary, one of ordinary skill in the art must be given a reasonable degree of guidance lest inordinate amounts of experimentation become necessary to make and use a given invention.
The totality of the evidence demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to make and use a ring resonator with left-handed wave dispersion commensurate in scope with these 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 2-3 and 18 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 2 recites “the ring resonator is alternately coupled to a first pair of the plurality of qubits comprising the first and second qubits and a second pair of the plurality of qubits comprising the first and third qubits.” Similarly, claim 18 recites, “alternately coupling to a first pair of the plurality of qubits comprising the first and second qubits and a second pair of the plurality of qubits comprising the first and third qubits.” Finally, claim 3 recites, “two-qubit entangling gate that is selectable to alternately entangle the first and second qubits…” In the context of the above claims, it is unclear what is meant by the adverb “alternately.” The dictionary definition of “alternately” generally indicates that it means one thing occurring after another in a repeated fashion. However, it is unclear how such a definition would be applicable to qubit coupling or entanglement in a device claim. As such, the claims are rejected as indefinite.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites, “alternatively entangling the first and second qubits when the ring resonator is coupled to the first pair of qubits without affecting the third qubit.” The term “the third qubit” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The claim will be interpreted as though it depends from claim 18, where antecedent basis can be found.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 6-11, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McBroom, Tianna, et al. "Multimode entangling interactions between transmons coupled through a metamaterial ring-resonator: experiment." APS March Meeting Abstracts. Vol. 2023. 2023 hereinafter McBroom.
Regarding Claim 1:
McBroom discloses a quantum device comprising:
a plurality of qubits including at least a first qubit and a second qubit (“ two superconducting transmon qubits coupled to a left-handed metamaterial ring resonator”); and
a ring resonator with left-handed wave dispersion (“two superconducting transmon qubits coupled to a left-handed metamaterial ring resonator”);
wherein the plurality of qubits is positioned around the ring resonator (id.); and
wherein the ring resonator is coupled to the first and second qubits (id.).
Regarding Claim 6:
McBroom discloses the quantum device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of qubits are transmon qubits. Id.
Regarding Claim 7:
McBroom discloses the quantum device of claim 1, wherein the first and second qubits are coupled at different points around the ring resonator. “Superconducting qubits can be coupled to multiple modes in these left-handed metamaterial ring resonators.”
Regarding Claim 8:
McBroom discloses the quantum device of claim 1, wherein the ring resonator comprises a spectrum of modes in the vicinity of transition frequencies of the first and second qubits. “Superconducting qubits can be coupled to multiple modes in these left-handed metamaterial ring resonators.”
Regarding Claim 9:
McBroom discloses the quantum device of claim 1, wherein the ring resonator comprises a dense multi-mode spectrum near the qubit frequencies, facilitating variations in interaction strengths between the qubits. “We find a broad range of g coupling values between the two qubits and modes that mediate the interaction between qubits. The J coupling between the two qubits exhibits high variability depending on qubit detuning and mode proximity. Similarly, the entangling ZZ interaction can be tuned over a wide range.”
Regarding Claim 10:
McBroom discloses the quantum device of claim 1, wherein the frequency of the first qubit is fixed and the frequency of the second qubit is tuned. “The J coupling between the two qubits exhibits high variability depending on qubit detuning and mode proximity.”
Regarding Claim 11:
McBroom discloses the quantum device of claim 1, wherein the coupling between the first and second qubits may be turned on or off by tuning the ZZ-interaction. “The entangling ZZ interaction can be tuned over a wide range”
Regarding Claim 13:
McBroom discloses the quantum device of claim 1, wherein the ring resonator comprises a plurality of unit cells arranged in a ring, and the first qubit and the second qubit are coupled at different points on the ring separated by at least one unit cell. “Left-handed metamaterial transmission line resonators made with arrays of superconducting lumped circuit elements have unique dispersion relations resulting in densely grouped mode spectra. Forming these transmission lines into a ring allows access to these densely grouped resonances, but with a compact footprint allowing for flexible design.”
Regarding Claim 14:
McBroom discloses the quantum device of claim 1, wherein the ring resonator comprises a superconducting metamaterial. Id.
Regarding Claim 15:
McBroom discloses the quantum device of claim 1, wherein the first and second qubits each have an individual g-coupling energy to each of the ring resonator modes. “We find a broad range of g coupling values between the two qubits and modes that mediate the interaction between qubits.”
Regarding Claim 16:
McBroom discloses a method of providing a two-qubit entangling gate, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a ring resonator with left-handed wave dispersion (“two superconducting transmon qubits coupled to a left-handed metamaterial ring resonator”),
coupling a plurality of qubits to the ring resonator, the plurality of qubits comprising a first qubit and a second qubit (“two superconducting transmon qubits coupled to a left-handed metamaterial ring resonator”).
Regarding Claim 17:
McBroom discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising coupling the first and second qubits at different points around the ring resonator. “Superconducting qubits can be coupled to multiple modes in these left-handed metamaterial ring resonators.”
Regarding Claim 20:
McBroom discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the ring resonator comprises a spectrum of modes in the vicinity of transition frequencies of the first and second qubits. “Superconducting qubits can be coupled to multiple modes in these left-handed metamaterial ring resonators.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McBroom.
Regarding Claim 4:
McBroom teaches the quantum device of claim 1, but fails to teach that the plurality of qubits are evenly spaced about the ring resonator. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to arrange the qubits evenly about the ring resonator, since this would be the arrangement in which the qubits were maximally spaced from each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 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, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881