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 .
Claims 1 – 11 are canceled.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinis (CN-110520873-A) in view of Zheng (CN-103235362-A).
Regarding claim 12
Martinis discloses
An assembly of a quantum device and a sample holder (Fig. 1, Ref 112, ¶ 6, under Specific Implementation Methods), the sample holder comprising:
a first portion comprising a first cavity (¶ 17, under Summary Of The Invention),
a second portion comprising a second cavity (¶ 17, under Summary Of The Invention),
first fixing elements comprising a printed circuit board (¶ 22 under Summary Of The Invention) configured to bias the quantum device (¶ 6 under Specific Implementation Methods) toward the first portion, the printed circuit board comprising electrically conducting elements and/or wave guides of the printed circuit board ((¶ 6 under Specific Implementation Method, the paragraph discloses conductors), and
second fixing elements configured to fix the first and second portions to each other (¶ 6 under Specific Implementation Methods), wherein:
Martinis does not disclose
“the quantum device covers at least part of the first cavity,
the quantum device covers at least part of the second,
the quantum device is fixed to the first portion by the first fixing elements, and
the electrical conductor(s) and/or wave guide(s) is/are connected to the quantum device and extend to outside of the first and second portions”.
Zheng, however, discloses
the quantum device covers at least part of the first cavity ([0015]),
the quantum device covers at least part of the second cavity ([0015] & [0012], the quantum device comprises “microcavities—at least a part of the cavities),
the quantum device is fixed to the first portion by the first fixing elements ([0004] & [0009]), and
the electrical conductor(s) and/or wave guide(s) is/are connected to the quantum device and extend to outside of the first and second portions ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “several cavities under the quantum device and waveguide” as taught by Zheng in the device of Martinis.
The justification for this modification would be to make an integrated quantum device of small size, and use a waveguide for low-loss, high-frequency transmission.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinis (CN-110520873-A) in view of Zheng (CN-103235362-A) in view of
Pednault (CN-111052122-A).
Regarding claim 13
Martinis in view of Zheng teach the assembly according to claim 12,
Martinis in view of Zheng do not teach
“further comprising a cut-out portion at the first cavity, the quantum device being provided in the cut-out portion”.
Pednault, however, teaches
further comprising a cut-out portion at the first cavity, the quantum device being provided in the cut-out portion (¶ 21 above “Claims”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “cut out at first cavity” as taught by Pednault in the assembly of Martinis in view of Zheng.
The justification for this modification would be to miniaturize the quantum device.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinis (CN-110520873-A) in view of Zheng (CN-103235362-A) in view of Shu (CN-105610047-A).
Regarding claim 14
Martinis in view of Zheng teach the assembly according to claim 13,
Martinis in view of Zheng do not disclose
“wherein the cut-out portions have a first depth, and the quantum device has a first height, where the first height exceeds the first depth”.
Shu, however, discloses
wherein the cut-out portions have a first depth, and the quantum device has a first height, where the first height exceeds the first depth (Claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “specific dimension of cut-out portions” as taught by Shu in the assembly of Martinis in view of Zheng.
The justification for this modification would be to tailor the resonant cavity to a specific resonant frequency.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinis (CN-110520873-A) in view of Zheng (CN-103235362-A) in view of Butters (CN-102621343-A).
Regarding claim 15
Martinis in view of Zheng teach the assembly according to claim 12,
Martinis in view of Zheng do not teach
“further comprising an electromagnetic shielding surrounding a main portion of the first and second portions”.
Butters, however, discloses
further comprising an electromagnetic shielding surrounding a main portion of the first and second portions (Claim 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “electromagnetic shielding surrounding the first and second portions” as taught by Butters in the assembly of Martinis in view of Zheng.
The justification for this modification would be to minimize the EM interference in the quantum device.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinis (CN-110520873-A) in view of Zhen (CN-103235362-A) in view of Sheik- Bahae (US-8720219-B1).
Regarding claim 16
Martinis in view of Zheng teach the assembly according to claim 12,
Martinis in view of Zheng do not teach
“An assembly cooled to a temperature below 100K”.
Sheik- Bahae, however, teaches
An assembly cooled to a temperature below 100K (¶ 1 below Detailed Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “assembly cooled below 100K” as taught by Sheik- Bahae in the assembly of Martinis in view of Zheng.
The justification for this modification would be to minimize thermal noise in a quantum device application.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinis (CN-110520873-A) in view of Zheng (CN-103235362-A) in view of Wang (CN-104569884-A).
Regarding claim 17
Martinis in view of Zheng teach a method of a quantum device in an assembly according to claim 12,
Martinis in view of Zheng do not teach
“the method comprising:
fixing the quantum device to the first portion so as to cover at least a
a) portion of the first cavity, fixing the second portion to the first portion so that the quantum device
b) covers at least a portion of the second cavity, and
electrically connecting the quantum device to the electrically conducting
c) element(s) and/or wave guide(s)”.
Wang, however, discloses
fixing the quantum device to the first portion so as to cover at least a
a) portion of the first cavity, fixing the second portion to the first portion so that the quantum device
b) covers at least a portion of the second cavity, and
electrically connecting the quantum device to the electrically conducting
c) element(s) and/or wave guide(s) (Claim 9, the devices overlap each other and are electrically connected).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “fixing portion with electrical connections” as taught by Wang in the method of Martinis in view of Zheng.
The justification for this modification would be to miniaturize the quantum device as much as possible.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinis (CN-110520873-A) in view of Zheng (CN-103235362-A) in view of Wang (CN-104569884-A) in view of Guo (CN-104752803-A).
Regarding claim 18
Martinis in view of Zheng in view of Wang teach a method of a quantum device in an assembly according to claim 17,
Martinis in view of Zheng in view of Wang do not teach
“wherein step a) comprises biasing, via the printed circuit board, the quantum device toward the first portion”.
Guo, however, discloses
wherein step a) comprises biasing, via the printed circuit board, the quantum device toward the first portion (¶ 1 & 4 under (Two) Technical Solution)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “biasing towards the first portion via circuit board” as taught by Guo in the method of Martinis in view of Zheng in view of Wang.
The justification for this modification would be to allow communication between the quantum portion of the device and the rest of the device.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinis (CN-110520873-A) in view of Zheng (CN-103235362-A) in view of Wang (CN-104569884-A) in view of Pednault (CN-111052122-A).
Regarding claim 19
Martinis in view of Zheng in view of Wang teach the method according to claim 17, Martinis in view of Zheng in view of Wang do not teach
“wherein the first portion comprises a cut-out portion at the first cavity,
wherein step a) comprises providing the quantum device in the cut-out portion”.
Pednault, however, teaches
wherein the first portion comprises a cut-out portion at the first cavity,
wherein step a) comprises providing the quantum device in the cut-out portion (¶ 21 above “Claims”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “cut out at first cavity” as taught by Pednault in the assembly of Martinis in view of Zheng in view of Wang.
The justification for this modification would be to miniaturize the quantum device.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinis (CN-110520873-A) in view of Zheng (CN-103235362-A) in view of Wang (CN-104569884-A) in view of Pednault (CN-111052122-A) in view of Shu (CN-105610047-A).
Regarding claim 20
Martinis in view of Zheng in view of Wang in view of Pednault teach the method according to claim 19, Martinis in view of Zheng in view of Wang in view of Pednault do not teach
“the cut-out portion has a first depth, and the quantum device has a first height, where the first height exceeds the first depth”.
Shu, however, teaches
the cut-out portion has a first depth, and the quantum device has a first height, where the first height exceeds the first depth (Claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “specific dimension of cut-out portions” as taught by Shu in the assembly of Martinis in view of Zheng in view of Wang in view of Pednault.
The justification for this modification would be to tailor the resonant cavity to a specific resonant frequency.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinis (CN-110520873-A) in view of Zheng (CN-103235362-A) in view of Wang (CN-104569884-A) in view of Butters (CN-102621343-A).
Regarding claim 21
Martinis in view of Zheng in view of Wang teach the method according to claim 17,
Martinis in view of Zheng in view of Wang do not teach
“further comprising the step of providing an electromagnetic shielding surrounding a main portion of the first and second portions”.
Butters, however, discloses
further comprising the step of providing an electromagnetic shielding surrounding a main portion of the first and second portions (Claim 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “electromagnetic shielding surrounding the first and second portions” as taught by Butters in the assembly of Martinis in view of Zheng in view of Wang.
The justification for this modification would be to minimize the EM interference in the quantum device.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinis (CN-110520873-A) in view of Zheng (CN-103235362-A) in view of Wang (CN-104569884-A) in view of Sheik-Bahae (US-8720219-B1).
Regarding claim 22
Martinis in view of Zheng in view of Wang teach the method according to claim 17,
Martinis in view of Zheng in view of Wang do not teach
“further comprising the step of cooling the assembly to a temperature below 100K”.
Sheik-Bahae, however, teaches
further comprising the step of cooling the assembly to a temperature below 100K (¶ 1 below Detailed Description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the “assembly cooled
below 100K” as taught by Sheik- Bahae in the assembly of Martinis in view of Zheng in view of Wang.
The justification for this modification would be to minimize thermal noise in a quantum device application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK WENDEROTH whose telephone number is (571)270-1945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 4 p.m..
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/Frederick Wenderoth/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852