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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a manipulation source…” in claim 13. This “manipulation source” is interpreted to be a laser in accordance with the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims were amended to recite that the ground plane is arranged at a distance “at least four times a height of atomic objects to be confined.” The specification notes, “the spacing between the ground plane and the atomic object confinement apparatus must be much (at least four times) greater than the ion height,” but this is entirely inadequate support for the above noted limitation since it only describes the height with respect to the atomic object species of ions. The failure of the disclosure to describe this limitation with respect to any other types of “atomic object” precludes the disclosure from reasonably conveying to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
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 1-19 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 1 and 12 recite:
…the plurality of RF rail electrodes generate a pseudopotential in the form of an array of trapping regions configured to contain at least one atomic object within a respective trapping region of the array of trapping regions; and
the plurality of electrodes further comprising a plurality of RF interior electrodes, each of the plurality of interior electrodes disposed within a respective one of the confinement segments, wherein the plurality of RF interior electrodes are configured such that, when the oscillating voltage signal is applied thereto, the plurality of RF interior electrodes cause a periodicity of the array of trapping regions to increase.
Notably, the “RF interior electrodes cause a periodicity of the array of trapping regions to increase.” Claims 3, 8, and 15 recite further limitations with respect to increasing periodicity of the array of trapping regions. These array trapping regions are claimed as follows, “plurality of RF rail electrodes generate a pseudopotential in the form of an array of trapping regions configured to contain at least one atomic object within a respective trapping region of the array of trapping regions.” Specifically, each trapping region is defined by the containment of at least one atomic object. The phrase “atomic objects” is highly unusual in the art, but any number of particles and aggregations thereof could be considered “atomic objects” by one of ordinary skill in the art, including subatomic particles like protons and neutrons, but also including atoms, ion, and molecules. The specification describes an atomic object as “an ion, atom, multi-ion or multi-atom group or crystal, neutral or ionic molecules, and/or the like.” It is unknown what other particles are included in “the like,” but it is notable that the given examples include both neutral and charged atoms and molecules, as well as crystals.
Charged particles, neutral particles, and crystals all behave differently in a pseudopotential well, such as the one provided by the above noted RF rail electrodes. As such, the “array of trapping regions” for these different prescribed “atomic objects” would inherently be different. This is turn means that it would be impossible for one to tell whether “a periodicity of the array of trapping regions” is increasing, since what may indicate an increase in periodicity for one type of atomic object would indicate a decrease in periodicity for another. A similar problem arises with respect to the “periodicity” limitations in claims 3, 8, and 15. As such, one cannot reasonably determine the metes and bounds of these limitations in the claims. Accordingly, the claims are rejected as indefinite.
Claims 1-20 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 1, 12, and 20 recite, “generate a pseudopotential in the form of an array of trapping regions configured to contain at least one atomic object.” As noted above, the disclosure offers a wide variety of possible particles as “atomic objects,” and one of ordinary skill in the art could add a number more. A given pseudopotential would contain one “atomic object”, while failing to do so for another. Further, by defining the trapping regions by their ability to trap “atomic objects” and simultaneously defining “atomic objects” to include “the like,” one of ordinary skill in entirely incapable of understanding the scope of the traps claimed, because it is unclear what is or is not included in “the like.” As such, it is impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether or not an array of trapping regions is formed. Accordingly, the claims are rejected as indefinite.
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 (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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0290995 A1 [Kumph].
Regarding Claim 1:
Kumph teaches an atomic object confinement apparatus (abstract) comprising:
a plurality of electrodes comprising a plurality of radio frequency (RF) rail electrodes, the plurality of RF rail electrodes arranged to define, at least in part, a periodic array of confinement segments, wherein the plurality of RF rail electrodes are configured such that, when an oscillating voltage signal is applied thereto, the plurality of RF rail electrodes generate a pseudopotential in the form of an array of trapping regions configured to contain at least one atomic object within a respective trapping region of the array of trapping regions (Fig. 8 (211, 212, 223, 224, 214, 213, 222, 221) define the confinement segments of Fig. 8, paras 31, 47); and
the plurality of electrodes further comprising a plurality of RF interior electrodes, each of the plurality of interior electrodes disposed within a respective one of the confinement segments, wherein the plurality of RF interior electrodes are configured such that, when the oscillating voltage signal is applied thereto, the plurality of RF interior electrodes cause a periodicity of the array of trapping regions to increase (Fig. 8 (251, 250, 252, 253), para 47).
Regarding Claim 2:
Kumph teaches the atomic object confinement apparatus of claim 1, wherein a quantity of the RF interior electrodes equals a quantity of the confinement segments such that every confinement segment has a respective one of the RF interior electrodes disposed within. Fig. 8 shows such an equal quantities.
Regarding Claim 3:
Kumph teaches the atomic object confinement apparatus of claim 1, wherein a size of each of the plurality of RF interior electrodes is selected to cause the periodicity of the array of trapping regions to increase. This appears to be the case in Figs. 8-10.
Regarding Claim 5:
Kumph teaches the atomic object confinement apparatus of claim 1, wherein (a) all of the plurality of interior electrodes are centered within their respective confinement segments, (b) all of the plurality of interior electrodes are off-center within their respective confinement segments, or (c) some of the plurality of interior electrodes are centered within their respective one of the confinement segments and some of the plurality of interior electrodes are off-center within their respective confinement segments. As shown in Fig. 8.
Regarding Claim 6:
Kumph teaches the object confinement apparatus of claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of RF interior electrodes is electrically connected to one or more of the rail electrodes which are arranged to define, at least in part, the confinement segment in which the respective RF interior electrode is disposed. Para 35, all of the RF electrodes are connected to an RF voltage source, and thus at least to each other therethrough.
Regarding Claim 12:
Kumph teaches a quantum computer comprising:
an atomic object confinement apparatus (abstract) comprising:
a plurality of electrodes comprising a plurality of radio frequency (RF) rail electrodes, the plurality of RF rail electrodes arranged to define, at least in part, a periodic array of confinement segments, wherein the plurality of RF rail electrodes are configured such that, when an oscillating voltage signal is applied thereto, the plurality of RF rail electrodes generate a pseudopotential in the form of an array of trapping regions configured to contain at least one atomic object within a respective trapping region of the array of trapping regions (Fig. 8 (211, 212, 223, 224, 214, 213, 222, 221) define the confinement segments of Fig. 8, paras 31, 47); and
the plurality of electrodes further comprising a plurality of RF interior electrodes, each of the plurality of interior electrodes disposed within a respective one of the confinement segments, wherein the plurality of RF interior electrodes are configured such that, when the oscillating voltage signal is applied thereto, the plurality of RF interior electrodes cause a periodicity of the array of trapping regions to increase (Fig. 8 (251, 250, 252, 253), para 47).
Regarding Claim 13:
Kumph teaches the quantum computer of claim 12, further comprising:
a controller (para 13);
a voltage source, wherein the controller is configured to cause the voltage source to generate the oscillating voltage signal (Figs. 14-15);
a manipulation source (paras 32, 66, 73); and
one or more optical elements configured to guide a manipulation signal generated by the manipulation source such that the manipulation signal is incident on two or more positions within the substantially periodic array of trapping regions, the two or more positions being at respective same points in the period of the substantially periodic array of trapping regions;
wherein the atomic object confinement apparatus is configured to confine two or more atomic objects (para 73); and
wherein the manipulation signal is configured to perform an operation on at least two of the two or more atomic objects, each of the at least two atomic objects located at a respective one of the two or more positions when the manipulation signal is incident on the two or more positions (para 32, 66, 73).
Regarding Claim 14:
Kumph teaches the quantum computer of claim 12, wherein a quantity of the RF interior electrodes equals a quantity of the confinement segments such that every confinement segment has a respective one of the RF interior electrodes disposed within. Fig. 8 shows such an equal quantities.
Regarding Claim 15:
Kumph teaches the computer of claim 12, wherein a size of each of the plurality of RF interior electrodes is selected to cause the periodicity of the array of trapping regions to increase. As shown in Figs. 8-10.
Regarding Claim 16:
Kumph teaches the quantum computer of claim 15, wherein the size of at least some of the plurality of RF interior electrodes disposed in confinement segments closer to a center of the array of confinement segments is smaller than the size of at least some of the plurality of RF interior electrodes disposed in confinement segments closer to a perimeter of the array of confinement segments. As shown in Figs. 8-10.
Regarding Claim 17:
Kumph teaches the quantum computer of claim 12, wherein (a) all of the plurality of interior electrodes are centered within their respective confinement segments, (b) all of the plurality of interior electrodes are off-center within their respective confinement segments, or (c) some of the plurality of interior electrodes are centered within their respective one of the confinement segments and some of the plurality of interior electrodes are off-center within their respective confinement segments. As shown in Fig. 8 (250-253).
Regarding Claim 18:
Kumph teaches the quantum computer of claim 12, wherein one or more of the plurality of RF interior electrodes is electrically connected to one or more of the rail electrodes which are arranged to define, at least in part, the confinement segment in which the respective RF interior electrode is disposed. Para 35, all of the RF electrodes are connected to an RF voltage source, and thus at least to each other therethrough.
Regarding Claim 19:
Kumph teaches the quantum computer of claim 12, further comprising a ground plane arranged substantially parallel to the atomic object confinement apparatus at a distance from the atomic object confinement apparatus of no more than ten times a width of a confinement segment. Para 35 – a dedicated DC electrode is kept at ground. The DC electrodes, e.g., 111, are both parallel to the atomic object confinement apparatus and at a distance from the atomic object confinement apparatus that is less than a width of the confinement segment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 1, 12, and 20 are definite because the scope of the claim includes “any embodiment configured to contain at least one type of atomic object.” Applicant further notes that, “As long as the generated pseudopotential contains at least one type of atomic object for which there is an increase in periodicity, such an apparatus would be clearly understood by one of ordinary skill int eh art to be covered by these claims. This is not persuasive. The specification has defined “atomic object” as “an ion, atom, multi-ion or multi-atom group or crystal, neutral or ionic molecules, and/or the like.” Instant PgPub para 8. The term “the like” covers an ill-defined and indeterminate variety of atomic particles, atomic sub-particles, molecules, crystals, quasiparticles, and any number of other unspecified species. Applicant’s proposal that any embodiment configured to contain at least one of such a variety of atomic objects creates an inordinately complicated burden on one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what atomic objects are even considered. Further, per applicant, any trap capable of holding any of them should be considered the claimed trap. However, one of skill in the art is incapable of determining the scope of such a variety of traps where, as here, the item to be trapped is insufficiently described. Thus, the scope of such a claim is indefinite.
Applicant notes that the fashion in which Kumph anticipates the claimed RF rail electrodes is “not completely clear,” but asserts that RF electrodes (250-253) are not disposed within DC electrodes (111, 112, 121, 122), and thus cannot be considered RF interior electrodes. This is not persuasive. Nowhere in the claims is there any recitation of DC electrodes, let alone DC electrodes defining the location of interior RF electrodes. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the claims require that the RF trapping electrodes and RF control electrodes receive the same voltage, and that Kumph fails to teach such a feature. This is not persuasive. With respect to either electrode type, the claims recite that the electrodes are “configured such that, when [an/the] oscillating voltage signal is applied thereto.” This limitation is not a positive recitation of a voltage. Rather, it is a conditional functional limitation describing what the electrodes are configured to do when addressed with any oscillating voltage. Applicant’s arguments that a same RF voltage be applied to each group of electrodes is simply not a claimed feature of the invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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