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 § 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.
Claim 2, 14, and 17 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.
As to claim 2, It is unclear what structure is capable of providing a sensing range of 300 nm beyond a SLQD. Applicant recites the SLQD in terms of how it is to function specifically the sensor range See MPEP 2173.05g about functional recitation. Contrary to the Applicant’s assertion there is no structure provided that would allow one to understand what structure allows for 300 nm. Range Applicant does not give a unique structure of the SLQD charge sensor (see e.g. paragraph 52) which seems to imply the overall configuration of all the dots would allow for sensing range of 300 nm but gives no specificity into a structure of just the SLQD charge sensor. Likewise, paragraph 58 gives no structure to what provides a 300 nm sensing range for the SLQD. Claim 2 recites wherein the sensing range of the SLQD charge sensor is 300 nanometers or less not the system including all the dots senses a range of 300 nm. Thus, it is unclear what structure of the SLQD provides a sensing range of 300 nm
As to claim 14 and 17 it is unclear hot precision hydrogen resist lithography is being used to fabricate the device. As written the claim covers all possible uses of hydrogen resist lithography. For example, the hydrogen resist lithography could be used in forming the device that manufactures the silicon substrate.
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) 1-4,9-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broome in view of House cited on Ids in view of Simmons (Towards atomic scale fabrication of silicon based solid state quantum computer) .
As to claim 1,13-17 Broome teaches A quantum processing system (figure 1), comprising: a plurality of qubits positioned in a semiconductor substrate (figure 1b the donor sites), each qubit being based on a spin state of a quantum dot embedded in the semiconductor substrate and each quantum dot consisting of one or more donor atoms (see 1st paragraph further this is intended use of the device since the qubit could be used for spin regardless Broome teaches spin qubits); a charge sensor fabricated in the semiconductor substrate (SET figure 1b); and a plurality of control gates configured to control the corresponding plurality of qubits (figure 1a); wherein the charge sensor is configured to sense two or more qubits which are positioned within a sensing range of the charge sensor (figure 1b and description). Contrary to the assertion that Broome does not teach a plurality of dots Brom in describing Figure 1 states : The (1,1)↔(2,0) charge transition in a double donor dot.
Broome considers the system to have two separate confinement dot regions. The claim does not require each dot correspond to a separate individual atom.
Each dot could be used as a qubit. Even though Broome use them as a single qubit, a spin in each dot, the structure is not limited the use provided by Broome (see MPEP 2111.01) .
Thus, since each quantum dot can act as an individual qubit Broome sufficiently reads on the claimed. A quantum dot can act as qubit thus applicant should not recite the intended structure. Instead, applicant should clarify the structure.
Broome does not teach a SLQD or hydrogen 31P using hydrogen resist lithography
House teaches replacing a rf SET with a single lead quantum dot due to the decrease in foot print. House further teaches forming the device by providing a hydrogen mask (section 2) and using Phosphorous atoms in silicon.
Further 31P naturally occurring Phosphorous stable and used for qubits at the time of filing (see Simmons).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art at the time of filing to replace the SET with smaller footprint SLQD and using silicon implanted through a hydrogen mask with 31P to form the qubits.
One would have been so motivated to reduce the footprint of the charge sensor an allow for more qubits in a device as suggested by House.
As to claim 2, Since the device is Broome in view of House in view of Simmons is structurally the same as claim 1 the sensor must be able to detect up to 300 nm. The claim does not require the detection take place merely the device is capable of performing the operation if needed.
As to claim 3 and 18, Broome teaches the separation distance between the quantum dots is 16 nm.
As to claim 4, Broome teaches wherein each of the plurality of control gates is positioned in a plane that is same as a plane in which the corresponding plurality of qubits and the SLQD charge sensor are positioned (see e.g. figure 1 specifically 1a and 5th paragraph).
As to claim 9 The claim does not require 200 qubits only that the device could detect up to 200 qubits. Since the device is the same as in claim 8 it meets the functional language of claim 9.
As to claim 10 Claim 10 recites an intended use of the device and does not limit the structure.
As to claim 11, Applicant is setting forth an outcome without providing any additional defining structure. Since the structure is the same as claim 1 it must meet the outcome of claim 11 or applicant has not provided enough defining structure to obtain the outcome of claim 11.
As to claim 12, claim 12 set forth how the device is supposed to function and does not affect the structure. The SLQD could sequentially readout the spin states.
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broome in view of House in view of Chanrion (cited on IDs).
As to claims 8 and 20 Applicant has not set forth the array structure linear arrays are subsets of 2 dimensional arrays a linear array can exist in two dimensions thus are still a 2-dimensional array. Thus, Broome is interpreted as teaching wherein the plurality of qubits is are arranged in a two-dimensional arrangement and the SLQD charge sensor is placed in the vicinity of substantially at a center of the two-dimensional arrangement (it is equidistant from either qubit in the 2d array).
Further Chanrion teaches a 2-d array of quantum dots 2X4 (figure 1) and one of the quantum dots maybe used a SLQD sensor (figure 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for 2D arrays of quantum dots to place the SLQD at distance optimized equidistance for the qubits (the center).
One would have been so motivated to optimize the charge detection and footprint of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 112b to claim 2 the claim does not state the system provide a sensing range of 300 nm instead it states the SLQD charge sensor can sense up to 300 nm. Applicant gives no structure for new improved SLQD charge sensor and based on the disclosure it appears it is the configuration of the dots that allows for increased range not the SLQD by itself.
As to claims 14 and 17 the use of the term use without defining how it is to be used is indefinite mpep 2173.05q :
Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For example, a claim which read: "[a] process for using monoclonal antibodies of claim 4 to isolate and purify human fibroblast interferon" was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986).
"Use" claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 709, 129 USPQ 227, 228 (CCPA 1961)("one cannot claim a new use per se, because it is not among the categories of patentable inventions specified in 35 U.S.C. § 101 "). In Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967), the Board held the following claim to be an improper definition of a process: "The use of a high carbon austenitic iron alloy having a proportion of free carbon as a vehicle brake part subject to stress by sliding friction." In Clinical Products Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966), the district court held the following claim was definite, but that it was not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101: "The use of a sustained release therapeutic agent in the body of ephedrine absorbed upon polystyrene sulfonic acid."
Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim.
The issue is that use covers all possible uses and does not have to directly related to the device for example if the device that implanter that implanter 31P was formed using atomic precision hydrogen lithography then that is covered in the use. If atomic precision hydrogen lithography was used to form a computer that provides financial support for the program, then atomic precision hydrogen lithography was used. The use term is unclear the scope what uses are encompassed and which ones are not. Applicant is cautioned since claiming all uses to invoke 112 written description rejection.
With respect to the 103, Applicant argues that Broome teaches that while there are two quantum dots this is not two qubits. A qubit is not a physical structure instead what it represented by is quantum dots can each act as qubits. Applicant is not claiming a method of use instead applicant is claiming a structure. A Double qubit thus sufficient to define two qubits through tuning gates. How Broome actually uses the device does not limit structure to only that use. Thus, the rejection is deemed proper and maintained.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 pm 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, William F. Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights