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
Claims 1-6 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species A, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/8/2026.
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.
Claim 7, 11-17 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.
a. As to claim 7, recitation of resonator bus is unbounded and while applicant has support for a transmon qubit as bus and a waveguide resonator bus and a “multimode” resonator applicant does not show all possible resonators as busses including LCR circuits mems resonator devices the specification does not provide full support for the entire breadth of a resonator bus. At issues a transmon qubit is not typically considered a resonator structure. It appears applicant claim is drawn to any structure that has resonator property that can be couple to the qubits.
b. As to claims 7 and 14, While applicant has shown a superconducting tunable coupling qubit there are also semiconductor and optical tunable qubits. Applicant has not shown any embodiments with a semiconductor tunable qubit or an optical tunable qubit coupled in the specified manner. Claim 17 cures the deficiencies of claim 14.
c. As to claims 11-12, while applicant has support for specific implementation that provide the outcomes cited in claims 11 and 12 applicant has not shown support for all implementation that result in the function of outcomes of claims 11 and 12 MPEP 2173.05g.
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. “Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.”Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002). MPEP 2163.03 V
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.
Claim 7-16 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.
a. As to claim 7 and 14 TCQ has not been set forth in each of the claims. Further it is unclear what structure necessarily defines a tunable coupled qubit. This appears to be setting forth it function MPEP 2173.05 g. This would include all tunable qubits including optical and semiconductor tunable qubits. Applicant set forth in claims 11-12 and 17-20 more specificity to the TCQ thus if claims 11-12 and 17-20 further limit the scope of TCQ in the independent claim is not clear. Claim 17 cures this deficiency.
b. As to claim 7 it is unclear what constitutes ”outer pads” of a TCQ. Likewise, it is unclear what constitutes a middle pad of a TCQ. Applicant set forth in claims 11-12 and 18-20 more specificity to the TCQ thus if claims 11-12 and 18-20 further limit the scope of TCQ in the independent claim is not clear.
c. As to claim 7 the phrase resonator bus is unclear, because beyond the scope of a transmon qubit and a waveguide and multimode resonator it is unclear what else is to be included or excluded.
Further as a is used inconsistently throughout the specification. While paragraphs 3-7 appear to want to set forth the waveguide resonator of figure 4 and the qubit bus. Paragraph 33 makes a distinction between a qubit bus and a resonator bus. The qubit bus is not described as a resonator instead it is a mutually exclusive species to the resonator. Thus, it is unclear what is the scope of a resonator bus. While superconducting qubits maybe thought of as non-linear resonators, this would cause scope problems with the understanding of resonator bus in claim 7 as to what else can be included or excluded as a resonator bus. While claims 8 clarifies specifically the waveguide resonator. Claims 9-10 do not set forth what else is to be included or how a resonator is to be formed from the qubit. Whereas the disclosure set forth that the resonator is a qubit.
D. As to claim 7 each pad of the transmon qubit lacks antecedent basis. Further it is unclear how the pads correspond to the outer pads. It is unclear how to determine which outer pad is corresponding to the pads.
e. As to claims 11-12, applicant is setting forth how the TCQ is supposed to operate but provides no structure it is unclear what is to be included and excluded from the scope of the TCQ interconnect see MPEP 2173.05g
f. As to claim 13 it is unclear what is and is not a multimode resonator in instance of application there is no description of what is considered a multimode resonator.
g. Claims 15-16 it is unclear what is included or excluded from a TCQ interconnect.
h. As to claim 19 resonator bus lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7-13 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are.
A. As to claims 7-13 applicant does not relate how the outer pads of the TCQ interrelate to one another and likewise how the middle pad interrelates to the outer pads.
There is no relationship between the pads and the Josephson junctions later claimed.
Claim 17 fails to relate the pads to the Josephson Junctions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 14-15, and 17-20 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Finck 20210384404.
a. As to claim 14, Finck teaches a device comprising (figure 5 and 9 5 is a subset of 9): a transmon bus comprising a first pad and a second pad (item 502 910 items 512 514, and 516 there is no structure definition of a bus that limits the scope); and a TCQ interconnect (item 506, 904 paragraphs 128 and 129 there is no limit to a interconnect), wherein the first pad of the transmon bus (item 516) is coupled to a middle pad of the TCQ interconnect (item 534).
b. As to claim 15, Finck teaches further comprising: a second TCQ interconnect (item 504 916), wherein the second pad of the transmon bus is coupled to a middle pad of the second TCQ interconnect (item 514 coupled to 524).
c. As to claim 17, Finck teaches further comprising: a transmon qubit coupled to outer pads of the TCQ interconnect (figure 9 item 908), wherein the TCQ interconnect comprises a first Josephson junction and a second Josephson junction (element corresponding to the x see items 508 510 530 and 528).
d. As to claim 18-20 Since the structure of Finck is the same as claimed the outcomes of wherein the TCQ interconnect comprises a first operating mode comprising asymmetric combinations of excitations associated with the first Josephson junction and the second Josephson junction, and a second operating mode comprising symmetric combinations of excitations associated with the first Josephson junction and the second Josephson junction
wherein the first operating mode enables exchange coupling between the transmon qubit and the TCQ interconnect, and wherein the second operating mode enables exchange coupling between the TCQ interconnect and the resonator bus.
wherein the first operating mode comprises a first operating frequency and the second operating mode comprises a second operating frequency, wherein the second operating frequency is greater than the first operating frequency
are inherent to the structure thus Fink inherently teaches the outcomes or applicant has not provided enough associated structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Prior art fails to teach or suggest a first resonator bus coupled to a middle pad of the first TCQ interconnect; and a second resonator bus coupled to a middle pad of the second TCQ interconnect wherein the bus comprises the outer pads and a Josephson junctions couple each of the outer pads to the middle pads in conjunction with other infer structure.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) 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.
As to claim 16 prior art fails to teach and or suggest further comprising: a third TCQ interconnect, wherein the first pad of the transmon bus is coupled to a middle pad of the third TCQ interconnect; and a fourth TCQ interconnect, wherein the second pad of the transmon bus is coupled to a middle pad of the fourth TCQ interconnect. With the associated structure implied by the specification of the TCQ interconnect.
Fink ‘113 teaches using a resonator or a Transmon qubit as a bus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William F. Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights