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 .
This action is in response to the application and preliminary amendment filed 5/05/2023. In the preliminary amendment, no claims were amended, claims 1-20 were cancelled, and claims 21-24 were added. As such, claims 21-24 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
The examiner acknowledges the priority benefit to the U.S. Applications listed below. The present application is a divisional (DIV) of U.S. Application No. 17/018,988 filed 9/11/2020 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,696,516), which is a DIV of U.S. Application No. 16/680,192 filed 11/11/2019 (now U.S. Patent No. 10,777,605), which is a DIV of 15/636,376 filed 6/28/2017 (now U.S. Patent No. 10,490,600), which claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/376,386 filed 8/17/2016, and claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/378,218 filed 8/23/2016, and claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/382,253 filed 8/31/2016.
The present application is also a continuation-in-part (CIP) of U.S. Application No. 15/634,983 06/27/2017 (now U.S. Patent No. 10,635,988).
Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
As discussed below, the claimed features of the independent claim are not supported by U.S. Provisional Application Nos. 62/376,386 or 62/378,218 (hereinafter, collectively, “the ‘386 and ‘218 provisional applications”), and claimed features of some of the dependent claims are not supported by U.S. Application No. 15/634,983 (hereinafter, “the parent ‘983 application”). Therefore, claims 21-24 do not enjoy the priority benefit of the ‘386 and ‘218 provisional applications and the parent ‘983 application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed parent ‘983 application and the ‘386 and ‘218 provisional applications fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Independent claim 21, which is the sole pending independent claim, recites, inter alia, “providing a network comprising two or more neighboring instances of linear Majorana Hexon qubits”.
For example, the original specifications of the parent ‘983 application and the ‘386 and ‘218 provisional applications and the ‘386 and ‘218 provisional applications are each silent regarding any “linear Majorana Hexon qubits”, any “neighboring instances of linear Majorana Hexon qubits”, any network comprising “neighboring instances of linear Majorana Hexon qubits”, let alone providing any “network comprising two or more neighboring instances of linear Majorana Hexon qubits” as recited in claim 21.
Additionally, for example, the specification of the parent ‘983 application and the ‘386 and ‘218 provisional applications also fail to mention “wherein the two or more neighboring instances of the linear Majorana Hexon qubits are selectively coupled to one another by superconductive reference arms having tunable depletion gates” as recited in dependent claims 22 and 24.
None of the parent ‘983 application, or the ‘386 and ‘218 provisional applications mention, disclose, or describe any “network comprising two or more neighboring instances of linear Majorana Hexon qubits” as recited in claim 21, and these applications also do not mention, disclose, or describe above-noted elements recited in claims 22 and 24. Thus, the as-filed specifications of each of the parent ‘983 application and the ‘386 and ‘218 provisional applications fail to provide adequate support or enablement for at least the above-noted elements of claims 21, 22 and 24.
The specification of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/382,253 (hereinafter “the ‘253 provisional application”) as-filed on 8/31/2016 appears to provide adequate support and enablement for at least the above-noted elements of independent claim 21, and dependent claims 22 and 24. Thus, the ‘253 provisional application appears to support at least independent claim 21, and dependent claims 22 and 24, as currently written. Therefore, the effective filing date for the claims of the instant application is the filing date of the ‘253 provisional application, 8/31/2016.
Each claim will receive benefit of the earliest filing date above for which a continuous chain of support can be established for the entirety of the claim. As discussed above, the effective filing date for the claims of the instant application is the filing date of the ‘253 provisional application, 8/31/2016.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of the information disclosure statements filed 2/26/2024 (2), 4/10/2024 (2), 7/24/2024, 3/19/2025 (2), 4/25/2025 (2), and 10/16/2025 which comply with 37 CFR 1.97. As such, the information disclosure statements have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) because Figures 10-12 and 14-16 include letters which do not measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height (see, e.g., most of the characters in elements 1000, 1100, 1200, 1400, 1500 and 1600 in FIGs. 10-12 and 14-16, including the lowercase characters, the subscript and the exponent/superscript characters). See MPEP 507 (A) and 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3): Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.
The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description:
210, 212 (see, e.g., page 8 describing FIG. 2);
310, 312, 314 (see, e.g., pages 8-9 describing FIG. 3);
410, 412, 414 (see, e.g., pages 9-10 describing FIG. 4);
510, 512, 514, 516 (see, e.g., pages 10-11 describing FIG. 5);
610, 612 (see, e.g., page 11 describing FIG. 6); and
710, 712, 714, 716 (see, e.g., pages 11-12 describing FIG. 7).
The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) because some of the characters in Figures 10, 12 and 14-16 (i.e., text, numbers and mathematical symbols in elements 1000, 1200, 1400, 1500 and 1600 in FIGs. 10, 12 and 14-16) are too light to permit adequate reproduction. See MPEP 507 (A) and 37 CFR 1.84(l): All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the “CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS” section on page 1 of the specification as amended on 5/05/2023, references are made to “U.S. Nonprovisional Application No. 17/018,988, entitled "QUANTUM COMPUTING DEVICES WITH MAJORANA HEXON QUBITS" filed on September 11, 2020, which is a divisional of U.S. Nonprovisional Application No. 16/680,192, entitled "QUANTUM COMPUTING DEVICES WITH MAJORANA HEXON QUBITS" filed on November 11, 2019” and “U.S. Nonprovisional Application No. 16/680,192, entitled "QUANTUM COMPUTING DEVICES WITH MAJORANA HEXON QUBITS" filed on November 11, 2019”.
These applications should be identified by their U.S. Patent Application Publication number(s) and/or U.S. Patent number(s), if they have been published and/or issued. In particular, for example, the above-noted U.S. Patent Application No. 17/018,988 has been issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,696,516 and U.S. Patent Application No. 16/680,192 has been issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,777,605. Appropriate correction is required.
On pages 4-7, 13 and 19 in the “II. OVERVIEW OF DISCLOSED TECHNOLOGY”, “III. EXAMPLE MAJORANA HEXON QUBITS”, “VII. QUANTUM COMPUTING DEVICE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS” and “X. CONCLUDING REMARKS” sections of the specification, several references are referred to. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. It is noted that applicant does not appear to have furnished citations to and copies of the references where appropriate (i.e., for the non-patent literature references “T. Karzig et al., "Scalable Designs for Quasiparticle-Poisoning-Protected Topological Quantum Computation with Majorana Zero Modes," arXiv: 1610.05289 (March 2017) and T. Karzig et al., "Scalable Designs for Quasiparticle-Poisoning-Protected Topological Quantum Computation with Majorana Zero Modes, "Phys. Rev. B 95, 235305 (2017)” referred to on pages 4 and 19, non-patent literature references “Measurement-Only Topological Quantum Computation" and papers Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 010501 (2008) [arXiv:0802.0279] and Annals Phys. 324, 787-826 (2009) [arXiv:0808.1933]”, “Phys. Rev. B 87, 035113 (2013) [arXiv:1210.7929] and Phys. Rev. B 88, 035121 (2013) [arXiv: 1303.4379]”, “Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 050501 (2016) [arXiv: 1509.05345]” and “Phys. Rev. X 6, 31019 (2016) [arXiv:1511.05161]” referred to on pages 5-7, and non-patent literature references “Nature Nanotechnology 10, 232 (2015) [arXiv:1411.6255] and Nature Materials 14, 400 (2015) [arXiv:1411.6254]”, “Nature Physics 7, 412 (2011) [arXiv: 1006.4395]” and “Phys. Rev. B 93, 155402 (2016) [arXiv:1511.01127]” referred to on page 13) in the above-referenced information disclosure statements.
Reference characters 210 and 212 shown in Figure 2 are not described in applicant’s specification (see, e.g., page 8 describing FIG. 2); reference characters 310, 312 and 314 shown in Figure 3 are not described in the specification (see, e.g., pages 8-9 describing FIG. 3); reference characters 410, 412 and 414 shown in Figure 4 are not described in the specification (see, e.g., pages 9-10 describing FIG. 4); reference characters 510, 512, 514 and 516 shown in Figure 5 are not described in the specification (see, e.g., pages 10-11 describing FIG. 5); reference characters 610 and 612 shown in Figure 6 are not described in the specification (see, e.g., page 11 describing FIG. 6); and reference characters 710, 712, 714 and 716 shown in Figure 7 are not described in the specification (see, e.g., pages 11-12 describing FIG. 7). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature Clarke et al. ("A practical phase gate for producing bell violations in majorana wires." Physical Review X 6.2 (April 2016): 021005, hereinafter “Clarke”) in view of non-patent literature Karzig et al. ("Optimal Control of Majorana Zero Modes." arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.5603 v2 (2015), hereinafter “Karzig”).
Based upon the publication date of 5/15/2015 of the Karzig reference, which is more than one year prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, i.e., 8/31/2016, Karzig constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). The examiner further notes that while the applied Karzig reference has one common co-author/inventor, Torsten Karzig, with the instant application, the 35 USC § 102(b)(1)(A) grace period exception does not apply because the reference was co-authored by Armin Rahmani, Felix von Oppen and Gil Refael, who are not named as inventors of the instant application. See MPEP § 2153.01(a): “If ... the application names fewer joint inventors than a publication (e.g., the application names as joint inventors A and B, and the publication names as authors A, B and C), it would not be readily apparent from the publication that it is by the inventor (i.e., the inventive entity) or a joint inventor and the publication would be treated as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).” The examiner further notes that Karzig was not co-authored by joint, named inventors Freedman, Michael; Nayak, Chetan; Lutchyn, Roman and Bonderson, Parsa.
Regarding independent claim 21, Clarke discloses the invention as claimed including a method, comprising:
selecting a Clifford gate operation (see, e.g., page 021005-2, “corrects errors in noisy T gates through the use of Clifford gates … we introduce a method for adiabatically performing the phase gate necessary to complement the existing Clifford operations and allow universal quantum computation with Majorana systems” [i.e., a method including selecting a Clifford gate operation]);
providing … two or more neighboring instances of linear Majorana Hexon qubits1 (see, e.g., FIG. 1 – depicting “six Majorana zero modes arranged in two qubits” and FIG. 9 – depicting “The system consists of several superconducting islands” where “Majorana nanowires are placed among the islands in such a way as to produce six Majorana zero modes” and pages 021005-8 and 021005-9, “In our proposed experiment, each of the islands containing Majorana wires is attached through a series of adjustable Josephson junctions to the larger superconducting region” and “superconducting islands placed … Majorana nanowires are placed among the islands in such a way as to produce six Majorana zero modes, one at each endpoint along the outer edge, and one at each intersection where three wires meet [33]. The top three Majoranas form one qubit, and the bottom three another.” [i.e., neighboring instances of Majorana qubits including six Majorana zero modes (MZMs) on a superconducting island – linear Majorana Hexon qubits]) arranged to perform the selected Clifford gate operation (see, e.g., pages 021005-2-3, “performing the phase gate necessary to complement the existing Clifford operations”, “we require … six Majorana zero modes, the ability to do a pairwise measurement of adjacent Majorana modes, and a phase gate implemented”, 021005-8, “Using the arrangement shown in Fig. 9, we can implement … the CHSH-Bell test” and 021005-10 “Once Bell violations have been demonstrated, … a scalable qubit register in which all necessary gate operations (e.g., Clifford gates and the π=8 phase gate) could be performed.” [i.e., arranged to perform the Clifford gate operation]); and
implementing the Clifford gate operation (see, e.g., pages 021005-3, “a phase gate implemented” and 021005-10 “a scalable qubit register in which all necessary gate operations (e.g., Clifford gates and the π=8 phase gate) could be performed.” [i.e., implementing the Clifford gate operation]).
Although Clarke substantially discloses the claimed invention, Clarke is not relied on to explicitly disclose providing a network comprising two or more neighboring instances of linear Majorana … qubits; and
implementing the … gate operation with the network.
In the same field, analogous art Karzig teaches providing a network comprising two or more neighboring instances of linear Majorana … qubits (see, e.g., pages 1, “Majorana zero modes … realizing these modes in one-dimensional hybrid systems, e.g., semiconducting quantum wires coupled to superconductors. Making a network of such quantum wires can in turn allow for braiding of these Majorana modes” and 3, “the optimization is aimed at conserving the overall parity of the bound states, which ultimately protects the Majorana qubit” [i.e., providing/making a network including neighboring one-dimensional, linear Majorana qubits]); and
implementing the … gate operation with the network (see, e.g., page 1, “Making a network of such quantum wires can in turn allow for braiding of these Majorana modes … These zero modes are bound to domain walls between the topological and nontopological phases, whose position and velocity can be tuned externally, e.g., by means of gate electrodes.” [i.e., making/implementing the gate operation with the network]).
Clarke and Karzig are analogous because they are both related to techniques, methods, platforms and systems for implementing and using quantum computing architectures and devices including Majorana zero modes (MZMs) and qubits (See Clarke, Abstract and page 021005-3, and Karzig, Abstract and pages 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosed method of Clarke to incorporate the teachings of Karzig to provide a network of “semiconducting quantum wires coupled to superconductors” where “a network of such quantum wires [which] can in turn allow for braiding of these Majorana modes” (see, e.g., Karzig, page 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived to combine the method of Clarke with the Karzig’s network of “semiconducting quantum wires” because “Braiding of Majorana zero modes provides a promising platform for quantum information processing, which is topologically protected against errors”, “Majorana zero modes are one of the simplest and most important non-Abelian quasiparticles” and Karzig provides “protocols that can move Majorana zero modes along a quantum wire in finite times, while reducing the associated nonadiabatic errors by orders of magnitude”, as suggested by Karzig (see, e.g., Karzig, pages 1 and 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if amended to address the above-noted rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim (i.e., independent claim 21) and any intervening claims.
For example, with regard to dependent claims 22-24, the prior art of record does not anticipate, nor do they render obvious in any reasonable combination to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants' invention, the combination of recited limitations of claims 22-24, their respective base claim, independent claim 21, and their respective intervening claims (i.e., dependent claim 23 in the case of claim 24).
As discussed above, Clarke in view of Karzig teaches the method of claim 21.
However, the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations “wherein the two or more neighboring instances of the linear Majorana Hexon qubits are selectively coupled to one another by superconductive reference arms having tunable depletion gates configured to provide quantum-dot couplings between the neighboring instances of linear Majorana Hexon qubits, and wherein the two or more neighboring instances of the linear Majorana Hexon qubit are neighboring along a horizontal direction, a vertical direction, or both”, as recited in dependent claims 22 and 24 in combination with limitations of base claim 21.
Also, the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations “wherein each of the two or more neighboring instances of linear Majorana Hexon qubits are defined by a corresponding topological superconducting nanowire partitioned into regions, including three MZM topological superconducting regions, each having a respective first end at which a respective first Majorana zero mode (MZM) resides and a respective second end, opposite the first respective end, where a respective second Majorana zero mode resides”, as recited in dependent claim 23 in combination with limitations of base claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references listed on form PTO-892 are all generally related to techniques, methods and systems for implementing and using quantum computing architectures and devices.
For example, Freedman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2011/0161638 A1, hereinafter “Freedman”) discloses that “pairs of Majorana states with trivial collective charge may be created using the superconducting proximity effects. Controlled ∆-phase jumps across superconducting islands can be arranged to produce a pair of ½-vortices with opposite chirality each populated by a Majorana quasiparticle.” (see, paragraph 20).
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY K BALDWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5222. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached on 571-272-7796. 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.
/RANDALL K. BALDWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
1 Applicant’s specification discloses “a modular unit for a topological qubit comprising six Majorana zero modes (MZMs) on a mesoscopic superconducting island. Such a modular unit is sometimes referred to herein as a "Majorana Hexon qubit."” and “embodiments discussed below focus on six MZMs per superconducting island” (see, pages 3-4 sect. II). Therefore, “Majorana Hexon qubits”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in view of the specification, are any modules or units for/usable as topological qubits including 6 Majorana zero modes (MZMs) on a superconducting island.