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
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention II and species A in the reply filed on 11/10/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to a signal per se.
Claims 9-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas in the forms of data collecting and mathematical concepts without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) three basic steps, and the dependent claims elaborate on these steps. These steps are: 1) the abstract idea of determining a frequency from the gathered data (See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014); 2) the abstract idea of determining a qubit energy relaxation time from the gathered data (See Id.); and 3) microwave coupling “a device to a qubit.” These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the only recitation that is directed to anything other than an abstract idea is the extremely generic coupling step. Such a step cannot be reasonably considered a practical application, because it is not an application of the abstract idea at all. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only other elements in the claims are a “device,” “a system,” “a quantum device” and a machine readable medium, none of which is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359 (2014).
As noted supra, the dependent claims do not obviate this issue. Claims 10-15, 17, and 19-20 elaborate on the mathematical working of the abstract idea without adding significantly more or a practical application. Claims 11, 12, 15, and 20 dictate unspecified structures by inserted into a cryostat. This does not add any element that would make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea, since it is not even clear what is to be inserted into the cryostat. Claims 10, 13, 17, and 19 describe the claimed coupling, but do not explain what is being coupled to what. As such, the contents of claim 10, 13, 17, and 19 are not significantly more than the abstract idea, nor do they offer any practical application of the abstract idea. Finally, claim 14 specifies a distance between two unknown structures. This does not add any element that would make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea, since it is not even clear what is objects the positioning is affecting.
In sum, the claims recite two abstract ideas, both mathematical calculations, and a some sort of ambiguous data collection. Considered as an order combination, claims 9-17 and 19-20 of the instant application are not significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves, and have no recited practical application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,900,998 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite all of the features of the pending claims.
Claims 9-17 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,726,109 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite all of the features of the pending claims.
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 9-17 and 19-20 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.
Claims 9-15 recite all of their steps as being “by [a] system.” There is no explanation as to what the system includes, excludes, or contemplates. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 9 and 16 recite, “microwave coupling of a device to a qubit of a quantum device.” The dependent claims add additional functions to the device. There is no explanation as to what the “device” or the “quantum device” includes, excludes, or contemplates. Rather, these completely ambiguous terms devoid of any structural or functional limitations are used throughout the claims at issue. The boundaries of these claim limitations are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites, “inserting, by the system, multiple devices.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it is unclear how the “multiple devices” are related to the previously claimed “device.”
Claim 20 recites, “inserting, by the processor, multiple devices.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it is unclear how the “multiple devices” are related to the previously claimed “device.”
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.
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.
Claims 9-17 and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0292586 A1 [Rigetti] in view of Klimov, Paul V., et al. "Fluctuations of energy-relaxation times in superconducting qubits." Physical review letters 121.9 (2018): 090502 [hereinafter Klimov].
Regarding Claim 9:
Rigetti teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
establishing, by a system operatively coupled to a processor, a microwave coupling of a device to a qubit of a quantum device (Fig 3a and para 90 describe a system of qubits coupled via microwave frequencies to a readout device).
However, Rigetti fails to teach that the method further includes:
determining, by the system, qubit frequency of the qubit based on the microwave coupling; and
determining, by the system, qubit energy relaxation time of the qubit based on the microwave coupling.
Klimov teaches measuring a state of a qubit, i.e. determining its qubit frequency, based on microwave coupling (pg 090502-2, first paragraph), and determining qubit energy relaxation time of the qubit based on the microwave coupling (qubit energy relaxation time, T1, is resolved by the process described at pg 090502-2, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the qubit relaxation time determining technique of Klimov on the qubits of the system of Rigetti. One would have been motivated to do so since this would provide information about gate fidelity and apparatus scalability. Klimov pg 090502-1, first paragraph.
Regarding Claim 10:
The above modified invention teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising:
determining, by the system, at least one of the qubit frequency or qubit energy relaxation time of the qubit based on a state dependent frequency shift of the microwave resonator of the device. Klimov pg 090502-2, first paragraph.
Regarding Claim 11:
The above modified invention teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising:
inserting, by the system, multiple devices and the quantum device into a cryostat device. Rigetti paras 49, 255.
Regarding Claim 12:
The above modified invention teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising:
establishing, by the system, inside the cryostat device multiple microwave couplings of the multiple devices to multiple qubits of the quantum device. As shown in Rigetti Fig. 23a.
Regarding Claim 13:
The above modified invention teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 12, further comprising:
determining, by the system, at least one of qubit frequencies or qubit energy relaxation times of the multiple qubits based on the multiple microwave couplings. Klimov pg 090502-2, first paragraph.
Regarding Claim 14:
The above modified invention teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising:
positioning, by the system, the device a defined distance from the qubit to establish the microwave coupling of the device to the qubit. As shown in Rigetti Fig. 3a.
Regarding Claim 15:
The above modified invention teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising:
inserting, by the system, the device and the quantum device into a cryostat device (As shown in Rigetti Fig. 23a); and
establishing, by the system, inside the cryostat device the microwave coupling of the device to the qubit to inspect the qubit, thereby facilitating reduced time to extract the qubit frequency (Rigetti paras 49, 255. The appropriate operating conditions don’t just reduce the time required for readout, they allow it to happen at all.).
Regarding Claim 16:
Rigetti teaches a computer program product facilitating a contactless screening of a qubit process, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith (para 414), the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to:
establish by a system operatively coupled to a processor, a microwave coupling of a device to a qubit of a quantum device (Fig 3a and para 90 describe a system of qubits coupled via microwave frequencies to a readout device).
However, Rigetti fails to teach that the method further includes:
determining, by the processor, qubit frequency of the qubit based on the microwave coupling; and
determining, by the processor, qubit energy relaxation time of the qubit based on the microwave coupling.
Klimov teaches measuring a state of a qubit, i.e. determining its qubit frequency, based on microwave coupling (pg 090502-2, first paragraph), and determining qubit energy relaxation time of the qubit based on the microwave coupling (qubit energy relaxation time, T1, is resolved by the process described at pg 090502-2, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the qubit relaxation time determining technique of Klimov on the qubits of the system of Rigetti. One would have been motivated to do so since this would provide information about gate fidelity and apparatus scalability. Klimov pg 090502-1, first paragraph.
Regarding Claim 17:
The above modified invention teaches the computer program product of claim 16, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to:
couple, by the processor, a microwave resonator of the device directly to the qubit using capacitive coupling. Rigetti claim 55.
Regarding Claim 19:
The above modified invention teaches the computer program product of claim 16, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to:
determine, by the processor, at least one of the qubit frequency or qubit energy relaxation time of the qubit based on a state dependent frequency shift of the microwave resonator of the device. Klimov pg 090502-2, first paragraph.
Regarding Claim 20:
The above modified invention teaches the computer program product of claim 16, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to:
insert, by the processor, multiple devices and the quantum device into a cryostat device;
establish, by the processor, inside the cryostat device multiple microwave couplings of the multiple devices to multiple qubits of the quantum device (As shown in Rigetti Fig. 23a); and
determine, by the processor, at least one of qubit frequencies or qubit energy relaxation times of the multiple qubits based on the multiple microwave couplings (Rigetti paras 49, 255. The appropriate operating conditions don’t just reduce the time required for readout, they allow it to happen at all.).
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
Prosecution Insights