DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 6-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the paper Superconducting Digital Electronics for Controlling Quantum Computing Systems by Yoshikawa, Nobuyuki, hereinafter referred to as Yoshikawa.
Referring to claim 1, Yoshikawa discloses an arrangement for reading out states of a plurality of qubits in a quantum computing system, wherein each of said qubits is capable of exhibiting a coherent superposition of two quantum states, and wherein reading out the state of any of said qubits collapses the respective superposition into one of said two quantum states (pg. 217, 1. Introduction; pg. 218, Fig. 1; pg. 221, Fig. 4(b)), wherein the arrangement comprises: a plurality of threshold detectors, each of said threshold detectors having an input and an output, of which said input is controllably couplable to a respective one of said plurality of qubits (pg. 219, Fig. 2; pg. 222, left col., 1st para, AQFP sensors detect microwave or DC signal from qubit with high sensitivity), a superconductive parallel to serial converter having a plurality of parallel inputs and a serial output, of which each of said parallel inputs is coupled to the output of a respective one of said threshold detectors (pg. 219, Fig. 2; pg. 221, Fig. 4(a); pg. 222, left col., last para., an AQFP multiplexer for a hybrid quantum computing system. This multiplexer makes a parallel-to-serial conversion so that many qubit states can be read out from a single output port), and a transmitter coupled to said serial output of the superconductive parallel to the serial converter, said transmitter being configured to transmit a signal obtained at said serial output across a boundary of a cryogenically cooled environment in which said qubits, said threshold detectors, said superconductive parallel to serial converter, and said transmitter are located (pg. 222; An AQFP multiplexer selects one of the qubit signals and sends it to the AQFP controller…connections between the room-temperature and cryogenic environments can be significantly reduced, and the scalability of the quantum computing system can be improved…used for the interface to decrease the number of wires between the room-temperature and cryogenic circuits).
As to claim 6, Yoshikawa discloses there are as many of said threshold detectors as there are said qubits (pg. 219, Fig. 2).
As to claim 7, Yoshikawa discloses for at least one of said threshold detectors, there is a group of N of said qubits, where N is an integer, and the arrangement comprises readout control means configured to controllably couple such that at least one of said threshold detectors with a selected one of the group of N of said qubits (pg. 219, Fig. 2).
As to claim 8, Yoshikawa discloses N is equal to or smaller than 5 (pg. 219, Fig. 2).
As to claim 9, Yoshikawa discloses said superconductive parallel to serial converter comprises single flux quantum (later SFQ) based classical logic (pg. 218, 2.1 SFQ Circuits, Fig. 1; pg. 222).
As to claim 10, Yoshikawa discloses said superconductive parallel to serial converter comprises a chain of logic cells coupled in series, each logic cell in said chain of logic cells being configured to temporarily store a piece of digital information obtained from a respective one of said plurality of threshold detectors (pg. 221, Fig. 4(a)).
Referring to claim 15, Yoshikawa discloses a method for reading out states of a plurality of qubits in a quantum computing system, wherein said reading out involves collapsing a coherent superposition of two quantum states exhibited by the respective qubit into one of said two quantum states (pg. 217, 1. Introduction; pg. 218, Fig. 1; pg. 221, Fig. 4(b)), the method comprising: controllably establishing readout couplings between said plurality of qubits and a plurality of threshold detectors simultaneously (pg. 219, Fig. 2; pg. 222, left col., 1st para, AQFP sensors detect microwave or DC signal from qubit with high sensitivity), thus making each of said plurality of threshold detectors assume one of two possible output values indicative of whether reading out the respective qubit made it collapse into a first one or a second one of said two quantum states, and subsequently transferring the values assumed by said plurality of threshold detectors out of said plurality of threshold detectors as a digital string (pg. 219, Fig. 2; pg. 221, Fig. 4(a); pg. 222, left col., last para., an AQFP multiplexer for a hybrid quantum computing system. This multiplexer makes a parallel-to-serial conversion so that many qubit states can be read out from a single output port), and transmitting said digital string out of the cryogenically cooled environment that contains said qubits and said threshold detectors (pg. 222; An AQFP multiplexer selects one of the qubit signals and sends it to the AQFP controller…connections between the room-temperature and cryogenic environments can be significantly reduced, and the scalability of the quantum computing system can be improved…used for the interface to decrease the number of wires between the room-temperature and cryogenic circuits).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of McDermott et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0156620), hereinafter referred to as McDermott.
As to claim 2, Yoshikawa discloses said qubits are transmon qubits, the states of which are represented by the momentary amounts of energy stored in the respective transmon qubit (reading the qubit state using single-flux-quantum (SFQ) circuits[7] have been performed up to now[8]–[12]. Recently, the control of a superconducting transom qubit; pg. 217, 1. Introduction; NOTE: “transom” appears to be a typographical error of transmon because “transom qubit” is not a term of art); and while Yoshikawa discloses said threshold detectors are a plurality of pulsed microwave components configured to give one of two possible values at their output, indicative of whether the respective transmon qubit was in its ground state or first excited state (pg. 220-222, 3. Quantum Computing System Controlled by Superconducting Electronics) and teaches the use of Josephson junctions, which can used as a microwave photon counter, Yoshikawa does not appear to explicitly teach pulsed microwave photon counters.
However, McDermott discloses the use of microwave photon counters ([0004]).
Yoshikawa and McDermott are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, quantum computing architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa and McDermott before him or her, to substitute the readout circuitry of Yoshikawa with the microwave photon counter of McDermott because Yoshikawa contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a read out component with another (i.e., microwave photon counter), McDermott demonstrated that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable read out architecture.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshikawa and McDermott to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 3, the combination of Yoshikawa in view of McDermott discloses said plurality of pulsed microwave photon counters are Josephson junction based single photon detectors (Josephson photomultiplier (JPM) circuit, [0004]). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
As to claim 5, while Yoshikawa discloses of said plurality of pulsed microwave components comprises a control input for receiving a control signal, and each of said plurality of pulsed microwave components is responsive to a control signal received through its control input by enabling the controllable coupling between it and the respective one of the plurality of qubits (pg. 218-19, Fig. 1, Fig. 2; pg. 220-222, 3. Quantum Computing System Controlled by Superconducting Electronics), Yoshikawa does not appear to explicitly teach pulsed microwave photon counters. However, McDermott discloses the use of microwave photon counters ([0004]). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
As to claim 16, the combination of Yoshikawa in view of McDermott discloses establishing of readout couplings is performed by controllably setting each of a plurality of pulsed microwave photon counters into resonance with a respective one of said plurality of qubits (Yoshikawa: pg. 218-19, Fig. 1, Fig. 2; pg. 220-222, 3. Quantum Computing System Controlled by Superconducting Electronics; McDermott: [0004-0008]). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of McDermott, as applied to claims above, further in view of the article Graphene-based Josephson junction microwave bolometer by Gil-Ho Lee et al., hereinafter referred to as Lee.
As to claim 4, while Yoshikawa in view of McDermott discloses said plurality of pulsed microwave photon counters, the combination does not appear to explicitly disclose them as bolometers.
However, Lee discloses bolometers (pg. 42).
Yoshikawa, McDermott, and Lee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, quantum computing architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa, McDermott, and Lee before him or her, to substitute the readout circuitry of Yoshikawa in view of McDermott with the bolometer technology of Lee because Yoshikawa in view of McDermott contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device with the substitution of a bolometer, Lee demonstrated that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable read out architecture.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshikawa, McDermott, and Lee to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of McDermott, further in view of the All About Circuits textbook Chapter 12 Shift Registers: Parallel-in, Serial-out (PISO) Conversion, hereinafter referred to as All About Circuits.
As to claim 11, while Yoshikawa discloses said threshold detectors are a plurality of pulsed microwave components (pg. 220-222, 3. Quantum Computing System Controlled by Superconducting Electronics) and teaches the use of Josephson junctions, which can used as a microwave photon counter, Yoshikawa does not appear to explicitly teach pulsed microwave photon counters.
Additionally, while Yoshikawa discloses each logic cell in said chain of logic cells comprises: a data input coupled to the output of a respective one of said plurality of pulsed microwave components (pg. 221, Fig. 4(a), respective D1-D4 outputs to inputs), a transfer input and a transfer output, a register element coupled to said data input, said transfer input, and said transfer output (Fig. 4(a), gates in chain have two inputs and an output), , and wherein each logic cell in said chain of logic cells is configured to temporarily store in said register element a value obtained either from said data input or from said transfer input (fig. 4(a) and 4(b)), Yoshikawa does not appear to explicitly teach the chain of logic cells controlled by a control input and control value received at said control input.
However, McDermott discloses the use of microwave photon counters ([0004]).
Furthermore, the architecture of each logic cell in said chain of logic cells comprises: a data input coupled to the output of a respective one of said plurality of pulsed microwave photon counters, a transfer input and a transfer output, a register element coupled to said data input, said transfer input, and said transfer output, and a control input, and wherein each logic cell in said chain of logic cells is configured to temporarily store in said register element a value obtained either from said data input or from said transfer input, depending on a control value received at said control input is representative of a Parallel-In Serial -Out shift register, which were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as demonstrated by the prior art of the Textbook of All About Circuits.
Yoshikawa, McDermott, and All About Circuits are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, computing architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa, McDermott, and All About Circuits before him or her, to substitute the readout circuitry and serial data circuitry of Yoshikawa with the microwave photon counter of McDermott and the PISO of All About Circuits because Yoshikawa contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a output circuitry with another (i.e., microwave photon counter and PISO), McDermott and All About Circuits demonstrated that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable read out architecture.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshikawa, McDermott, and All About Circuits to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Tarhani et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0256139), hereinafter referred to as Tarhani.
As to claims 12 and 18, Yoshikawa discloses said transmitter comprises a microwave transducer configured to transmit said signal obtained at said serial output (pg. 222).
Yoshikawa does not appear to explicitly disclose a vacuum tube waveguide.
However, Tarhani discloses a vacuum tube waveguide ([0002], [0020]).
Yoshikawa and Tarhani are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, signal detection and transmission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa and Tarhani before him or her, to substitute the readout transmission circuitry of Yoshikawa with the waveguide technology of Lee because Yoshikawa contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device with the substitution of a vacuum tube waveguide, Tarhani demonstrated that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable readout transmission architecture.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshikawa and Tarhani to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of Morf et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0139805), hereinafter referred to as Morf.
As to claims 13 and 19, Yoshikawa discloses said transmitter comprises a transmitter configured to transmit said signal obtained at said serial output into a connection (pg. 222).
Yoshikawa does not appear to explicitly disclose an optical transmitter and optical fibre connection.
However, Morf discloses an optical transmitter and optical fibre connection ([0055], [0097], [0106], [0119-0120] [0175-0176]).
Yoshikawa and Morf are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, quantum computing architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa and Morf before him or her, to substitute the readout transmission circuitry of Yoshikawa with the optical transmission technology of Morf because Yoshikawa contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device with the substitution of optical transmission circuitry, Morf demonstrated that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable readout transmission architecture.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshikawa and Morf to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of the Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art, hereinafter referred to as the AAPA.
As to claim 14, Yoshikawa discloses a quantum computing system, comprising: a cryogenically cooled environment, and an arrangement according to claim 1, located within said cryogenically cooled environment (pg. 217, 1. Introduction; pg. 222).
While Yoshikawa discloses a cryogenically cooled environment, Yoshikawa is silent the specific technology implementing the cryogenically cooled environment and therefore does not appear to explicitly disclose a cryostat.
However, in the Background of the Invention section of the Specification, the AAPA teaches cryostats are known technology employed to maintain a cryogenically cooled environment (pg. 2, lines 25-30).
Yoshikawa and the AAPA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, quantum computing architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa and the AAPA before him or her, to substitute the anticipated a cryogenically cooled environment of Yoshikawa with the cryostat of the AAPA because Yoshikawa contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the employing of a specific cryogenically cooled environment architecture, the AAPA demonstrated that the substituted component and its function was known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable readout transmission architecture.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshikawa and the AAPA to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of the All About Circuits textbook Chapter 12 Shift Registers: Parallel-in, Serial-out (PISO) Conversion, hereinafter referred to as All About Circuits.
As to claim 17, Yoshikawa discloses said transferring out of the values assumed by the plurality of threshold detectors involves reading them out in serial form that constitutes said digital string,
Yoshikawa does not appear to explicitly disclose storing said values into a shift register and reading them out of said shift register in serial form that constitutes said digital string.
However, the Textbook of All About Circuits demonstrates storing said values into a shift register and reading them out of said shift register in serial form that constitutes said digital string.
Yoshikawa and All About Circuits are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, computing architecture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa and All About Circuits before him or her, to substitute the readout circuitry and serial data circuitry of Yoshikawa with the PISO of All About Circuits because Yoshikawa contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a output circuitry with another, All About Circuits demonstrated that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable read out architecture.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yoshikawa and All About Circuits to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to independent claim 1, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Yoshikawa, the Applicant asserts:
“…a POSA would understand that a threshold detector is a component that indicates whether a threshold has been exceeded or not. Paragraph [0044] of the Specification defines the term as “a device that has an input and output, of which the output assumes one of two possible values depending on whether a signal present at the input is below or above a threshold.” Accordingly, a POSA would understand that a threshold detector outputs a first value (for example, “1”’) if a signal is above a threshold and outputs a second value (for example, “O”’) if the signal is not above the threshold (or if there is no signal at the input)…
…the AQFP sensor outputs a stream of 1’s and 0’s where the relative proportion of 1’s over 0’s depends on the frequency and phase relations of the two GHz-range oscillating current signals Iin, and Ix….
… the 1’s and 0’s of the AQFP sensor do not indicate the state of the qubit during read-out, as reading out the qubit makes it collapse to a single digital value. Rather, a single bit out of the AQFP sensors has an extremely small probability of collapsing the qubit. And even if it did, one cannot discriminate the qubit state just from a single bit. Thus, a POSA would understand that single bits do not correspond to individual threshold measurements because the single bit out doesn’t properly collapse the qubit. In contrast, a POSA would understand that a threshold detector is strongly coupled to the qubit and functions such that the output of the detector is essentially a single bit, and the likelihood of the threshold detector bit corresponding to the qubit state is close to 100%. Accordingly, a POSA would not consider the AQFP sensor of Yoshikawa to teach a threshold detector as recited in claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the language of paragraph [0044]; and “a POSA would understand that a threshold detector is strongly coupled to the qubit and functions such that the output of the detector is essentially a single bit, and the likelihood of the threshold detector bit corresponding to the qubit state is close to 100%”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). The limitation “threshold detector” is a vague term, the description of Yoshikawa indicates “a highly sensitive microwave detector” which effectively functions to track whether a frequency variable equals another frequency, which covers the broad “threshold” terminology.
With respect to independent claim 2, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Yoshikawa in view of McDermott according to the “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” rationale, the Applicant asserts:
“First, the Office Action has not articulated the required elements to reject a claim based on the “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” rationale. These elements are discussed in MPEP § 2143(1)(B):…
…the Office Action never addresses at least elements (3) and (4). In particular, the Office Action’s statement that “McDermott demonstrated that ... one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable” (Office Action, pg. 7) is not supported and amounts to ipse dixit. It is the Examiner’s burden to show unpatentability. The burden of proof requires evidence supporting each conjecture underlying motivation to combine. Ex parte Gonzalez, Application 13/255,000, Appeal 2016-006154, slip op. at 4, 2018 WL 1225918 at *2 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2018). The Office Action has not met this burden and therefore fails to establish prima facie obviousness.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Element (4) of the rationale is optional based on “whatever additional finding…may be necessary”; there were no additional findings considered necessary for element (4) because the rationale was supported by the findings noted for element (3) which was addressed in the context of the rejection paragraph:
“Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yoshikawa and McDermott before him or her, to substitute the readout circuitry of Yoshikawa with the microwave photon counter of McDermott because Yoshikawa contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a read out component with another (i.e., microwave photon counter), McDermott demonstrated that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable read out architecture.”
The Applicant further asserts:
“Second, a POSA would be led away from the arrangement of the claims. In particular, because Yoshikawa relies on AQFP sensors—which use AQFP logic—a POSA would understand that replacing the AQFP sensors would require a fundamental redesign of Yoshikawa’s logic, such that a POSA would be discouraged from making such a modification.”
The Applicant’s assertion of requiring “a fundamental redesign” which would discourage a POSA “from making such a modification” only generally acknowledges that the elements are different but does not present persuasive evidence against a substitution. As well, McDermott acknowledges the possible use of different detection technologies related to qubit circuitry; and, while not relied upon for the rejection, the US Pub. No. 2009/0289638 of Farinelli provides additional evidence that a POSA would consider a variety of read-out technologies, see paragraph [0036-0037].
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.
The examiner has cited particular column, line, and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
Applicants seeking an interview with the examiner, including WebEx Video Conferencing, are encouraged to fill out the online Automated Interview Request (AIR) form (http://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html). See MPEP §502.03, §713.01(11) and Interview Practice for additional details.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T OBERLY whose telephone number is (571)272-6991. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 800am-430pm (MT).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dr. Henry Tsai can be reached on (571) 272-4176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC T OBERLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184