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 § 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 1-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a quantum bit having a first and second quantum dot comprising first and second phosphorous donor atom clusters formed in isotropically purified silicon-28, does not reasonably provide enablement for such a system formed in any semiconductor material using any donor material. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice/use/create the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. In determining that the claims do not satisfy the enablement requirement, the examiner has considered each of the factors specified in In re Wands. (858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).)
(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.
The breadth of the claims. The scope of claims 1, 9, 23 covers all quantum bit systems made of any first and second quantum dot of any configuration of clusters of any donor atoms embedded within any semiconductor material wherein the qubit is controlled with the hyperfine interaction between a shared electron between the first and second quantum dot and the individual or collective nuclear spin of the donor atom clusters.
The nature of the invention and (C) state of the prior art. The invention relates to the burgeoning art of quantum computer hardware and require a deep understanding of quantum mechanics to make and use. The only known material systems capable of the claimed hyperfine interaction of shared electron and nuclear spin of donor atoms in a cluster within a semiconductor material phosphorous in isotropically purified silicon-28 (see “Impact of measurement backaction on nuclear spin qubits in silicon” S. Monir, E. N. Osika, S. K. Gorman, I. Thorvaldson, Y.-L. Hsueh, P. Macha, L. Kranz, J. Reiner, M. Y. Simmons et al. Phys. Rev. B 109, 035157 – Published 25 January, 2024; see “A silicon-based nuclear spin quantum computer” B. E. Kane, Nature volume 393, pages133–137 (1998); see “A silicon-based surface code quantum computer” Joe O’Gorman, Naomi H Nickerson, Philipp Ross, John JL Morton & Simon C Benjamin npj Quantum Information volume 2, Article number: 15019 (2016); see “Spin-Lattice Relaxation Times of Single Donors and Donor Clusters in Silicon” Yu-Ling Hsueh, Holger Büch, Yaohua Tan, Yu Wang, Lloyd C. L. Hollenberg, Gerhard Klimeck, Michelle Y. Simmons, and Rajib Rahman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 246406 – Published 11 December, 2014).
Furthermore, spin based electronic qubits in semiconductors are still being researched, as evidenced by (“Hyperfine Dependence of Nuclear-Spin Rabi Frequencies in Silicon Donors” Chunhui Li, Shihang Zhang, Hao Wang, Miao Gao, Yi Deng, Yu-Ning Zhang, Xuesong Bai, Chunming Yin, Huan Shu, Jiaze Liu, Kunrong Wu, Keji Shi, Mingchao Duan, Tianluo Pan, Guanyong Wang, Peihao Huang, Tao Xin, Song Liu, Zhen Tian, Guangchong Hu, Dapeng Yu, and Yu He Nano Letters 2026 26 (6), 2026-2033). This reference suggests that there is active research into semiconductor based quantum bit hardware, but the technology is still in its infancy. These material systems of highly purified silicon having specific ionic species of phosophorous dopants therein are specific to the creation of the claimed qubit and its operation. The claims require using any donor clusters embedded within the crystal lattice structures of any semiconductor material wherein the donor atoms therein create a superposition of at least two quantum states having a non-negligible coherence time and have the ability to entangle multiple qubits to form a quantum annealing system which are the bare minimum requirements for a feature to be considered a qubit. There is no discussion in the disclosure of any system that achieves this besides the isotropically purified silicon-28 having phosphorous as donor atoms.
The level of one of ordinary skill; and (E) The level of predictability in the art. As noted before, the only currently known materials that support the qubits claimed are phosphorous donors in isotropically purified silicon-28 (see evidence above). As to the predictability of other material systems and donor atoms forming similar qubits, the references above indicates that there is a high bar for determining which materials are usable. Thus, not only would one of ordinary skill in the art not know which of the many materials that fall into the category of semiconductor material and donor atom could be used as to form the claimed qubits, but there is also no direction on how one would implement these systems as a qubit. There is large amount of unpredictability and experimentation necessary to determine what can and cannot be a qubit. Per MPEP 2164.03: However, in applications directed to inventions in arts where the results are unpredictable, the disclosure of a single species usually does not provide an adequate basis to support generic claims In cases involving unpredictable factors, such as most chemical reactions and physiological activity, more may be required This is because it is not reasonably predictable from the disclosure of one species, what other species will work. Therefore, it is not reasonably predictable, based on only knowing one semiconductor material having a very specific purity with only one donor atom type as the material basis for the claimed qubits, which other semiconductor materials and donor atoms will work.
The amount of direction provided by the inventor; and (G) The existence of working examples. Paragraphs [0040-0043, 0132-0150] of the instant specification provide the only material example for the semiconductor material of the quantum bit structure, specifically wherein the semiconductor materials is crystalline isotropically purified silicon-28. Further, paragraphs [0042, 0063] of the instant specification provide the only material example for the donor atoms in the quantum bit structure which is phosphorous. There is no guidance regarding how to form a qubit structure having any different materials than this precise combination. As far as working examples, Applicant cites only one wherein phosphorous donor atoms are within isotropically purified silicon-28.
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The art provided above provides evidence that qubit systems which operate in the way claimed using these classes of materials require special techniques, material considerations, materials engineering, operational consideration etc. Thus, determining which semiconductor materials and donor species would be useable to form usable qubits which operate in the claimed way Would require a large amount of knowledge and experimentation, especially given the minimal direction provided by the Applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the disclosure provides sufficient information to enable the entire scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Applicant specifically state that the paragraph [0102] mentions that magnetic noise can be reduced by three orders of magnitude by isotropically purifying silicon or germanium. However, this single sentence does not provide any teaching to establish to the ordinary skilled artisan which isotope of germanium is being referred to nor how this statement translates to a teaching of how this unnamed germanium isotope creates a quantum bit formed of first and second quantum dots each comprising a donor atom cluster, the first and second quantum dots sharing an electron and additionally wherein the system is controlled based on the hyperfine interaction of the electron and nuclear spins in each don’t atom cluster. As pointed out in the rejection under 112(a) above a quantum bit, or qubit, requires at least two isolated states which are capable of being superposed and wherein multiple qubits can have their quantum states entangled at least to an ancilla qubit so that readout does not destroy the quantum state under modification for computation. A mere mention of isotropically purifying germanium without any mention of the coveted isotope in order the reduce magnetic noise does not bridge the chasm to teach that this statement supports the entirety of the claimed invention. Additionally, even if this single sentence was sufficient in teaching the ordinary skilled artisan that germanium is an acceptable material for the quantum bit this would only be two materials, isotropically purified silicon or germanium, and would not support the entire scope of the invention which can cover any known semiconductor material know at time of filing.
Similarly, Applicant further argues that because semiconductor materials such as gallium arsenide, germanium, silicon and dopants such as phosphorous, arsenic and antimony are know in the semiconductor arts then the ordinary skilled artisan would know how to make and/or use the entirety of the claimed scope of any semiconductor material and any dopant material to create the claimed quantum bit. This is similarly unpersuasive. As stated previously the claimed invention is a quantum bit which has requirements which differ greatly from conventional semiconductor technology. The phosphorous, arsenic and antimony dopants mentioned by Applicant as being well known in semiconductors are well known in their use as n-type donor dopants which are used to alter the Fermi level in semiconductors to be closer to the conduction band of the semiconductor host material. This has no correlation to the use of phosphorous in the isotropically purified silicon-28 in the double quantum dot qubit system of the claimed invention which is used to provide the required nuclear and electron spins which are used to provide the characteristics of a functioning qubit. This argument is akin to stating that because helium is used in party balloons, that an ordinary skilled artisan would clearly know how to build a dilution refrigerator with no more information than a mention of helium.
Applicant is attempting to gain legal protection of the entirety of unidentified material systems for a complex and bleeding edge technology type, quantum computer hardware. With only a single fleshed out example it is improper to extrapolate that the Applicant had possession of the entirety of the claimed invention nor has Applicant provided their end of the bargain if a patent were granted which is to have sufficient teachings so that the public can make and/or use the entirety of the claimed invention for which they have sole proprietorship over.
Applicant has provided no evidence supporting a finding that originally filed disclosure supports the entirety of the claimed invention, specifically that the DQD system can be realized with any semiconductor host material and any dopant material configured to be operated using the hyperfine interaction between the nuclear and electron spins of the constituent atoms.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220407213 A1 (Dzurak)
PNG
media_image1.png
298
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
US 10482388 B1 (Jock)
PNG
media_image2.png
594
521
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 BRIGITTE A PATERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-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, William 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.
BRIGITTE A. PATERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/BRIGITTE A PATERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights