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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second isolating amplifier” and “amplifier chain” claimed in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 11, and 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, “the first and second TWPAs” should correctly be “the first and second superconducting TWPAs”.
Regarding claim 3, “the first and second TWPAs” should correctly be “the first and second superconducting TWPAs”.
Regarding claim 11, line 6, “the chain” should correctly be “the amplifier chain”.
Regarding claim 11, line 8, “the chain” should correctly be “the amplifier chain”.
Regarding claim 15, line 2, “(102, 104)” should be deleted.
Regarding claim 16, lines 5 and 6, “(104c)” and “(104d)” should be deleted.
Regarding claim 16, line 3, “a pump tone” should correctly be “the pump tone”, see claim 1, line 10.
Regarding claim 17, line 3, “the pump tones” should be “the pump tone”.
Regarding claim 18, line 1, “(102, 104)” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-8, and 11-17 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.
Regarding claim 1, discloses first and second ports. However, it is not clear which port an input signal is fed to the amplifier and a port which amplified output signal of the isolating amplifier apparatus is connected.
Regarding claim 4, also rejected due to its dependency on rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, line 3, discloses “a pump tone source”. However, it is not clear if this “pump tone source” is the same as “a pump tone” claimed in claim 1, line 10. Note, they are both coupled to the second input port. Clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 6, line 3, discloses “a pump tone source”. However, it is not clear if this “pump tone source” is the same as “a pump tone” claimed in claim 1, line 10. Note, they are both coupled to the first input port. Clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 7, which discloses “a first pump tone source” and “a second pump tone source”. However, it is not clear if these “first and second pump tone sources” is derived from “a pump tone” claimed in claim 1, line 10, or additional pump tone sources, which submitted drawings fail to show. Clarification is needed. Clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “wherein the signal source comprises a cryogenic qubit, with or without additional isolators or filters in between” is not clear because the specification does not disclose claimed subject matters and the drawing(s) does not show isolators and filters claimed. Clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “at least one second isolating amplifier apparatus according to claim 1” is unclear. Note, claim 1 does not disclose “at least one second isolating amplifier apparatus” claimed. Furthermore, it is not clear if the second isolating amplifier apparatus is identical to the isolating amplifier apparatus of claim 1 to form an amplifier chain. Clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “wherein the isolating amplifier apparatus and the at least one second isolating amplifier apparatus form an amplifier chain, wherein in the amplifier chain a signal output of each isolating amplifier apparatus except the last one is coupled to a signal input of an immediately succeeding isolating amplifier apparatus and wherein each isolating amplifier apparatus in the amplifier chain is coupled with at most one immediately preceding and at most one immediately succeeding isolating amplifier apparatus in the amplifier chain”. Note, the underlining parts of the claim are neither disclosed in the specification nor supported by the submitted drawings. Clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 12, which discloses “a pump tone source” and “a second pump tone source”. However, it is not clear if these pump tone sources are derived from “a pump tone” claimed in claim 1, line 10, or additional pump tone sources, which submitted drawings fail to show. Clarification is needed.
Regarding claims 13-15, also rejected due to their dependency on rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, which is a method claim “comprising … an isolating amplifier apparatus according to claim 1”. However, the body of the claim appear to disclose repeated methods that apparatus of claim 1 is already disclosed. Therefore, it is suggested claim 16 should be rewritten independently such that similar claimed subject matters are not repeated.
Regarding claim 17, recited “wherein the pump tone is fed to the first and to the second input ports of the first 2x2 hybrid coupler”. Either the specification is not clear or error made in the claim, because the drawing(s) does not show the pump tone fed to both first and second input ports as claimed. Does applicant mean “a pump tone” comprises first and second pump tones, wherein they are respectively fed to first and second input ports?
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN DER REEP THA et al. (from applicant submitted IDS), hereafter called DER REEP, in view of WESTIG MP et al. (from applicant submitted IDS), hereafter called WESTIG.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, DER REEP discloses claimed invention except a pump tone having the connections as claimed. DER REEP (Fig. 1) discloses an amplifier circuit comprising: a first 2x2 hybrid coupler and a second 2x2 hybrid coupler, each 2x2 hybrid coupler having a first input port, a second input port, a first output port and a second output port. Note, the two 2x2 four port hybrid couplers at the input and the output of the amplifier; a first superconducting travelling wave parametric amplifier, TWPA, comprising an input connected to the first output port of the first 2x2 hybrid coupler and an output connected to the first input port of the second 2x2 hybrid coupler, and a second superconducting travelling wave parametric amplifier, TWPA, comprising an input connected to the second output port of the first 2x2 hybrid coupler and an output connected to the second input port of the second 2x2 hybrid coupler, see both TWPAs in the parallel arms of the balanced amplifier as shown in Figure 1 and their interconnections with the input and output hybrid couplers, wherein in that the isolating amplifier apparatus is configured to convey an idler tone to the first output port of the second 2x2 hybrid coupler, considering that the idler tone is the output of the balanced amplifier, it is conveyed/output to the detector A shown in Figure 1, and to dissipate an input frequency signal from the second output port of the second 2x2 hybrid coupler, the term "dissipating an amplified signal from the second output port" as found in claims 1 and 16 is interpreted in a broad sense as a dissipation of signal (energy) in a further apparatus connected to the port. This apparatus does not necessarily have to be a resistor where the energy is wasted, but can be, e.g. a resistive input impedance of the second of the two detectors, namely "Detector B" as shown in Figure 1.
WESTIG (Fig. 1) discloses missing element, wherein the pump frequency is fed into the system at the input port of the beam-splitter coupler.
DE REEP and WESTIG are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely parametric amplifier. Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the reference, taken as a whole, to have modified the circuit of DE REEP to have included a pump tone, as taught by WESTIG. Therefore, it would have been obvious to utilize such pump tone for the circuit of DE REEP, as WESTIG has disclosed their use in a similar context. Furthermore, it appears pump tone that is fed to the parametric amplifiers is considered a design engineering and thus it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 9, wherein 3 and 4-wave mixing TWPAs are well-known in TWPA design/configuration and thus would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, wherein DE REEP (Fig. 1) also discloses signal source that is coupler to port (1).
Regarding claim 10, built on a single integrated chip is a well-known construction, since it has become standard in the art and would have been an obvious modification in the absence of unexpected results. The integration of an amplifier a single integrated chip helps to enhance its performance, reduce the module size and its overall cost.
Regarding claims 15 and 18, wherein DE REEP coupler is a 90 degree hybrid coupler.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional reference(s) cited in PTO-892 show further analogous prior art circuitry.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Khanh V. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1767. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, LINDGREN BALTZELL ANDREA can be reached on (571) 272-5918. The fax phone numbers 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 lnformation 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.
/KHANH V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights