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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims dated 7/22/2025 have overcome the previously applied rejection under 35 USC 112(b) and the previously applied written description rejection under 35 USC 112(a), and therefore those rejections are hereby withdrawn. However, the previous enablement rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is maintained below:
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 10-29 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The Wands Factors:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
With respect to Majorana zero modes (MZM) states:
Aghaee et al. describes simulation and does not physically show the Majorana states exist in such device
In relation to Aghaee the APS editorial board submitted the following statements:
While Physical Review readers are well aware that the many minutiæ of procedures, computations, and synthesis may be omitted in any particular dispatch, in this publication the intellectual property of the authors’ employer has prevented the release of some parameters of the studied devices that may be needed in order to reproduce them. As a reflection of the traditional values of the scholarly community, this is not in accordance with the usual norms of the Physical Review journals. Nonetheless, through the rigors of the review process, the published version of this paper reveals much more information than originally had been provided and the authors have agreed to release the remaining device parameters by the end of 2024. Therefore, it is our belief that any delay in publishing the current manuscript does not serve the community.
In a reply Richard Hess and Henry Legg, raised concerns that method used in Aghaee could even detect the phase stating: “our findings raise considerable questions about the reliability of the TGP to detect a topological superconducting phase”.
Zack Savitsky indicates that there is no clear evidence of the Majorana states.
Specifically, “Fiona Burnell, a theoretical physicist at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, credits Microsoft’s investments with helping lure her into the field, but says the company’s secrecy complicates replication efforts. “It’s a double-edged sword,” she says. Microsoft’s latest Majorana publication in June, for example, omits recipes for fabricating nanowires, which the company regards as trade secrets. “Of course, I wish that they would maintain more openness with the academic community,” Alicea says. “But maybe it’s impossible.””
The office cannot find specific method of fabrication of the devices to make MZM.
Further in general every other paper that support MZMs has been retracted.
See Sergey Frolov “Quantum computing’s reproducibility crisis: Majorana fermions”
See Zhang et al Quantized Majorana Conductance (retracted).
See He et al “Chiral Majorana fermion modes in a quantum anomalous Hall insulator–superconductor structure”
See Vaitiekenas et al “Flux-induced topological superconductivity in full-shell nanowires”
B) The nature of the invention and C) The state of the prior art: These Papers Show that there is a long held desired to find and use the Majorana Zero modes. Further the art at the time of filling has not shown physically observable MZM.
They also show D) The level of one of ordinary skill is great and great care a need to be provided to prevent impurities from giving false values. Further there at the time this still was not obtainable.
Further The level of predictability in the art the art shows that the result while may be believed to show evidence can be attributed to thing like impurities and the like
F) The amount of direction provided by the Applicant gives no specifics about how to fabricate these devices further the methods of forming the elements are critical to the device functionality.
G) The existence of working examples applicant gives things that can be simulated but are not working physical models.
Due to the lack of physical evidence of the existence of MZM and the specificity of material capable of supporting such modes not being disclosed in the specification the claims lack enablement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that two submitted papers show evidence of Majorana Bound states, and that therefore the invention is enabled. However, it is noted that the two cited papers do not show that majorana bound states exist, but merely show measurements and data consistent with their existence. The current state of the art remains as it was: Majorana Fermions and Majorana Bound States have not been conclusively shown to be possible, and, given the tremendous weight of that current state of the art, Applicant’s arguments and other submitted evidence do not provide a sufficient offset to show enablement. The Examiner additionally cites a recent paper from April 2025 in Nature (Garisto) which notes that “there’s no convincing, even mildly convincing, evidence for Majoranas”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Prior art fails to teach or suggest tuning the first gates to dispose a first pair of Majorana fermions comprising a first Majorana fermion and a second Majorana fermion in a first region; and tuning the first gates to dispose the first Majorana fermion in the first region and to dispose the second Majorana fermion in a third region.
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 William Kraig whose telephone number is (571)272-8660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 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.
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.
/WILLIAM F KRAIG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2896