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 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The current 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis is threefold. First determine that the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Second identify whether an abstract idea is claimed, if so, then third determine whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-15 pertain to statutory classes.
Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites “a method for determining crosstalk of qubits, comprising: performing a Ramsey experiment on a first qubit, wherein, between two X/2 quantum logic gates in the Ramsey experiment, a first electrical signal with an amplitude of a first voltage is applied to the first qubit so that the first qubit is at a magnetic flux modulation sensitive point, and a second electrical signal with an amplitude of a second voltage is applied to a second qubit so that the second electrical signal causes a crosstalk effect on the first qubit; acquiring a target operating frequency of the first qubit based on the Ramsey experiment, and determining a voltage of the first electrical signal corresponding to the target operating frequency as a third voltage; and determining a crosstalk coefficient of the second qubit to the first qubit based on the second voltage and the third voltage”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above. The remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The above abstract ideas are similar to the court-identified abstract ideas such as “Idea of Itself”, for example, comparing information regarding a sample or test subject to a control or target data (Ambry/Myriad CAFC), obtaining and comparing intangible data (CyberSource), organizing information through mathematical correlations (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); or as "mathematical relationships/formulas" as in a formula for computing an alarm limit (see Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)), as indicated in the June 2017 Update: Interim Eligibility Guidance Quick Reference Sheet.
The additional elements or combination of elements in the claim other than the abstract idea, viewed as a whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Particularly, the additional features of “first electrical signal with an amplitude of a first voltage is applied to the first qubit so that the first qubit is at a magnetic flux modulation sensitive point, and a second electrical signal with an amplitude of a second voltage is applied to a second qubit so that the second electrical signal causes a crosstalk effect on the first qubit” does not provide a meaningful limitation, thus does not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 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).
Dependent claims 2-14 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they do not make improvements to another technology or technical field or improve the functioning of the computer itself or apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine or effect a transformation of reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application or add other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-17 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.
Claim 1 recites “X/2 quantum logic gates” in lines 2-3. The meaning of the recitation is unclear. The specification of the instant application does not provide a meaning for the claimed “X/2”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-15 are rejected since they inherit the lack of meaning from claim 1, which they are dependent from.
Claim 16 recites “X/2 quantum logic gates” in lines 2-3. The meaning of the recitation is unclear. The specification of the instant application does not provide a meaning for the claimed “X/2”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 17 recites “X/2 quantum logic gates” in lines 2-3. The meaning of the recitation is unclear. The specification of the instant application does not provide a meaning for the claimed “X/2”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding to claims 16-17, the claimed limitations “an experimental module, an operating frequency acquisition module, and a crosstalk determination module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Neither the drawings not the specification of the instant application provides structural details for the claimed “modules”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US-11748648-B2, US-20190007051-A1, US-20200185120-A1, US-20180260732-A1, US-10282675-B2, and US-20210099201-A1, are cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. The references fail to disclose the combination of limitation including “”an operating frequency acquisition module configured to acquire a target operating frequency of the first qubit based on the Ramsey experiment, and determine a voltage of the first electrical signal corresponding to the target operating frequency as a third voltage; and a crosstalk determination module configured to determine a crosstalk coefficient of the second qubit to the first qubit based on the second voltage and the third voltage.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU A VU whose telephone number is (571)270-7467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/VU A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897