Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/250,648

Antisite Defect Qubits in Monolayer Transition Metal Dichalcogenides

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 26, 2023
Examiner
DINH, PAUL
Art Unit
2851
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Temple University-Of The Commonwealth System Of Higher Education
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
936 granted / 1047 resolved
+21.4% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
1066
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
§103
8.6%
-31.4% vs TC avg
§102
39.4%
-0.6% vs TC avg
§112
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1047 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . OFFICE ACTION 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 1-21 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 is rejected because the features/elements in claim 1 is not provided with applicable reference signs or applicable reference symbols. Dependent claims 2-16 are rejected because they depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Dependent claims 2-16 are also rejected because the features/elements (if any) in claims 2-16 are not provided with (applicable) reference signs or (applicable) reference symbols. Claims 17-21 are rejected for the same reason. In claim 16 (claim 16 depend on claim 1), the limitation “more than one layer of the solid-state two-dimensional material comprising the neutral anion antisite defect” is rejected because of the inconsistency of defining that multiple layers are used/functioned while claim 1 define that “a solid-state two-dimensional material comprising a neutral anion antisite defect” (only one is used) and the disclosure specify “Monolayer Transition Metal Dichalcogenides” (see title). Therefore claim 16 is unclear and contradicting to not only parent claim1 but also the disclosure. 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 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)(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. Claims 1, 6-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) being anticipated by the prior art of record Tyler J Smart et al: “Intersystem Crossing and Excitation-Defect Coupling of Spin Defect in Hexagonal Boron Nitride” ARXIV.ORG, CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, 201 OLIN LIBRARY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA, NY 14853, 7 September 2020 (2020-09-07), XP081756209, Regarding claim 1 similarly recited claim 17, the prior art discloses: A solid-state spin quantum bit system for performing at least one of a quantum computing operation and a quantum information system operation (abstract: "for spin-state initialization and qubit operation"), the system comprising: a solid-state two-dimensional material (abstract: "two-dimensional (TD) …materials") comprising a neutral anion antisite defect (page 4, second paragraph: "large metal ions plus anion vacancy in AIN and SiC… triplet ground states… Similar defects… in 2D materials"; page 5, second paragraph: "neutral dopant-vacancy defects… the dopant substitution at a divacancy site in h-BN", which is an antisite defect as it is atom substitution); the neutral anion antisite defect being configured to be optically excited (§ Introduction, first paragraph: "Optically addressable defect-based qubits…") from a paramagnetic triplet ground state to an excited triplet state (page 10, second paragraph: "a spin-conserved optical excitation from the triplet ground state… to the triplet excited state", the paramagnetism being a property of the material, in further view of page 27: "Formation of paramagnetic metallacyclobutadienes by reaction of diaminoacetylenes with molyb-denum alkylidyne complexes"), and being configured to undergo nonradiative intersystem crossing processes between different spin-multiplet states (page 10, Figure 4: "radiative and nonradiative recombination… the intersystem crossing"), and being configured to provide two distinguishable luminescence signatures (page 6, second paragraph: "Deep defect levels… as single photon emitters and spin qubits", and page 2, second paragraph: "stable single photon emitters in 2D materials", wherein the photon emission for each qubit/spin level is a luminiscence signature) for two spin sublevels for quantum bit readout (page 5, first paragraph: "spin qubit… a splitting [of the spin]… sublevel"; also, page 16, first paragraph: "zero-field splitting of secondary spin quantum sublevels… enabling possible control of these levels for qubit operation"). (Claim 6) wherein the neutral anion antisite defect is configured to perform spin quantum bit operational processes comprising initialization, manipulation, and readout of the anion antisite defect as a spin quantum qubit ( abstract: "spin- state initialization and qubit operation", qubit operation implicitly teaching qubit readout/measurement). (Claim 7) an optical excitation source configured to excite the neutral anion antisite defect from the paramagnetic triplet ground state to the excited triplet state (page 2, §Introduction, first paragraph: "Optically addressable defect-based qubits", an optical source for addressability is implied). (Claim 8) manipulate sublevels of the neutral anion antisite defect in the triplet ground state (page 5, first paragraph: "spin qubit… a splitting [of the spin]… sublevel"; also, page 16, first paragraph: "zero-field splitting of secondary spin quantum sublevels… enabling possible control of these levels for qubit operation"). (Claim 9) a readout system configured to detect a difference in intensity of luminiscence of different qubit states of the neutral anion antisite (see reasoning for claim 1, in particular the measurement of the photoluminiscence). (Claim 10) wherein the anion antisite defect is configured to operate at room temperature (page 2, second paragraph: "ability to operate with high fidelity under room temperature conditions"). (Claim 11) wherein the system comprises at least one of a single-photon emitter, a quantum sensor, and a quantum register (page 2, second paragraph: "identification of stable single photon emitters in 2D materials"). 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. 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 2-3, 16, 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the main reference Tyler J Smart et al: “Intersystem Crossing and Excitation-Defect Coupling of Spin Defect in Hexagonal Boron Nitride” in view of Kempa (US 2022/0380934) or Dryfe (US 2019/0352190). Regarding claim 2 and similarly recited claim 18, the main reference Tyler J Smart discloses substantially all elements in the claims except transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD). However, TMD is disclosed by Kempa in par 3, 35 or Dryfe in par 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (in the instant application) to TMD because: Kempa, par 3, 35: Two-dimensional (2D) transition-metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) have been the subject of extensive optoelectronic.sup.1, catalytic.sup.2,3, and device studies.sup.4,5, because of their tunable bandgap, surface and edge reactivity, layer-dependent properties, and the potential to create multi-layer architectures… Two-dimensional (2D) transition-metal dichalcogenide (TMD) crystals are a versatile platform for optoelectronic, catalytic, and quantum device; and/or Dryfe, par 4, 7: One such class of materials is the so-called 2D transition metal dichalcogenides, of which molybdenum disulfide is perhaps the most famous and interesting… Consequently… 2D transition metal dichalcogenides are very attractive for a number of electrochemical applications including as a supercapacitor electrodes and as a catalyst for hydrogen evolution and dye-sensitized solar cells… (Claim 3) wherein the solid-state two- dimensional material comprises a 2H phase material (Kempa, par 35, 46, 51 and/or Dryfe par 4-9, 27) (Claim 16) more than one layer of the solid-state two-dimensional material comprising the neutral anion antisite defect (insofar the limitation can be understood, comprising more than one layer of the solid-state two-dimensional material comprising the neutral anion antisite defect is a non-functional modification, since no functional inter-relation with the other claimed features is defined in claim 16) (Claim 20) manipulate sublevels of the neutral anion antisite defect in the triplet ground state (Tyler J Smart et al: page 5, first paragraph: "spin qubit… a splitting [of the spin]… sublevel"; also, page 16, first paragraph: "zero-field splitting of secondary spin quantum sublevels… enabling possible control of these levels for qubit operation".) (Claim 21) manipulate sublevels of the neutral anion antisite defect in the triplet ground state qubit ( Tyler J Smart et al: abstract: "spin- state initialization and qubit operation", qubit operation implicitly teaching qubit readout/measurement). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-5, 12-15 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim , but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 4-5, 12-15 and 19 would be allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest: the limitation in claim 4 and similarly recited claim 19; and the limitation in claim 12. Correspondence Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DINH whose telephone number is 571-272-1890. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, Jack Chiang can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax 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. /PAUL DINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 26, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596300
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PERFORMING LOCAL CDU MODELING AND CONTROL IN A VIRTUAL FABRICATION ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581745
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT AND SYSTEM FOR FABRICATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572835
QUANTUM DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566911
MACHINE LEARNING TOOL FOR LAYOUT DESIGN OF PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12562603
ELECTROSTATIC SHIELD FOR WIRELESS SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+3.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1047 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month