DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ response filed 12/9/2025 has been considered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 and 24-26 are pending.
Rejections under 35 USC 112 are maintained in view of amendments and are reformulated herein.
Pertinent prior art has been cited for Applicants’ review. Inlek et al. USPAP 20230289645A1 (i.e., paragraph 0051 and Figures 4, 10 and 12). This prior art maybe applied once the claims are clear.
Application is pending.
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 1-20 and 24-26 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.
For example, claim 1 teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
586
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim states, “…a first manipulation signal configured to, when the one or more atomic objects within the particular region are in a qubit space of a ground state manifold, cause...the one or more atomic objects…to evolve from respective states in qubit space of the ground state to respective states in a shelving manifold and the first manipulation signal configured to, when the one or more atomic objects with the particular region are in one or more leaked states and therefore are not in the qubit space of the ground state manifold, not cause the respective quantum states of the one or more atomic objects within the particular region to evolve to the respective states in the shelving manifold…”
This limitation is partially unclear.
If the first manipulation signal is used to evolve the atomic objects from a ground state to a shelving state, the how is the first manipulation signal able to do anything about those objected that are in a leaked state?
Does the first manipulation signal detect for leaked states?
It is not entirely clear what exactly is the first manipulation signal is meant to do that is different than the second manipulation signal.
There are disconnects between the first manipulation signal and the second manipulation signal.
The claim then states, “…a second manipulation signal…to perform a detection operation on the atomic objects…”
What exactly is being detected?
Is the second manipulation signal used to detect for leak errors?
How is the second manipulation signal related to the first manipulation signal?
Does the first manipulation signal also detect for leaked states or it is just the second manipulation signal?
Essential elements are missing in the claim regarding the exact process of leak detection with regards to the first manipulation signal and the second manipulation signal.
Independent claims 11 and 24 are rejected for similar reasons. Respective dependent claims 2-10, 12-20 and 25-26 are rejected at least based on dependency.
Corrections are requested.
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 MUJTABA M CHAUDRY whose telephone number is (571)272-3817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Albert DeCady can be reached at 571-272-3819. 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.
MUJTABA M. CHAUDRY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/MUJTABA M CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights