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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the feature “wherein the capacitor comprises at least two layers of conductive material separated by at least one dielectric layer” of claims 1, 2, and 10must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,055,809 (Sagawa) in view of US 2013/0093424 (Blank) and US 9,589,236 (Abdo).
Claim 1, Sagawa teaches a resonator for coupling electromagnetic radiation (see resonator 2, 6 of Figs. 1B and 6A; NOTE: although Sagawa does not teach “a resonator for coupling electromagnetic radiation to a sample on the scale of a quantum object embodying a qubit”, Sagawa teaches all the structure as claimed and the examiner notes the material or article worked upon by an apparatus, and inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims; see MPEP 2115, also see MPEP 2114 II. “MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART”.), the resonator comprising:
an electrically conductive member (strip line 10B, 60; see Figs. 1B, 6A);
an opening through the member defining an inductive loop in the member (an open loop as formed by the strip line as illustrated in Figs. 1B, 6A);
wherein the electrically conductive member comprises a capacitor, wherein the capacitor comprises at least two layers of conductive material separated by at least one dielectric layer (the capacitor comprises two conductive members in the form of strip line 21 and ground plane 81 separated by a dielectric layer; see Fig. 2C; col. 3, lines 7-26), wherein the capacitor comprises a plurality of legs, wherein electrical current flows in opposite directions along alternate legs within the plurality of legs, thereby causing the corresponding magnetic fields to Hocancel out to a first order (strip line 12 comprises a capacitance means having a plurality of interlaced/interdigitated strip lines in an equivalent manner as the legs and turns disclosed in Figs. 2-5 of the pending application, and would reasonably provide the functional limitations of “wherein electrical current flows in opposite directions along alternate legs within the plurality of legs, thereby causing the corresponding magnetic fields to cancel out to a first order” in an equivalent manner due to the similar structure; see Figs. 1B, 6A; see col. 3, line59 – col. 4, line 12; col. 5, line 45 - col. 6, line 2).
Sagawa fails to teach a resonator for coupling electromagnetic radiation to a sample on the scale of a quantum object embodying a qubit; the sample at least partially receivable within the opening.
Blank teaches a resonator for coupling electromagnetic radiation to a sample on the scale of a quantum object embodying a qubit; the sample at least partially receivable within the opening (a loop-gap resonator includes an opening 18 wherein the magnetic field is larges, and wherein a sample comprising electron spins is usually located at a point where the microwave magnetic field is maximal, thus it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art for the sample to be placed in the opening; see [0002], [0133], [0154]; see Figs. 2A, 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features as taught in Blank into Sagawa in order to gain the advantage of detection and imaging of defects on the surface and sub-surface of semiconductors; measurements of paramagnetic monolayers; inspection of small biological systems, such as single cells internalized by stable radicals or paramagnetic labeled membranes; and, in general, performing ESR spectroscopic measurements on spin-limited samples.
Abdo teaches a sample on the scale of a quantum object embodying a qubit (a microwave resonator measures a sample comprising a qubit 410; see Fig. 4A; see col. 1, lines 13-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features as taught in Abdo into Sagawa in order to gain the advantage of microwave resonators to readout and facilitate interaction among qubits.
Claim 2, Sagawa teaches wherein the electrically conductive member comprises at least two metallic layers overlying a dielectric substrate (an electrically conductive member comprises two strip lines arranged over dielectric layer 80; see Figs. 2C and 7-15).
Claim 3, Sagawa teaches wherein the electrically conductive member is substantially planar (the conductor is identified as a “strip” and as best understood by the examiner would reasonably be planar; see Figs. 1B, 6A; see col. 3, line59 – col. 4, line 12; col. 5, line 45 - col. 6, line 2).
Claim 4, Sagawa teaches wherein a plurality of neighboring legs give rise to a capacitive structure in the electrically conductive member (the interleaved/interdigitated strip lines 12 give rise to a larger capacitance than a strip line 11; see Figs. 1B, 6A; see col. 3, line59 – col. 4, line 12; col. 5, line 45 - col. 6, line 2).
Claim 5, recites wherein the sample consists of a single magnetic molecule (the material or article worked upon by an apparatus, and inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims; see MPEP 2115, also see MPEP 2114 II. “MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART”.).
Claim 6, Sagawa teaches wherein conductive legs are even in number, thereby supporting cancellation of magnetic fields along neighboring ones of the plurality of legs (the number of teeth 62, 63 are even at, i.e. 6 teeth in Figs. 1B and 6A which would result in an equivalent functional limitation of canceling the magnetic fields along neighboring ones of the plurality of legs resulting in a capacitive means; see Figs. 2B and 6A; see col. 3, line59 – col. 4, line 12; col. 5, line 45 - col. 6, line 2).
Claim 7, the combination of Sagawa, Blank, and Abdo teaches all the elements of claim 1 but fail to teach wherein the opening is less than 10 nanometers wide, however, MPEP teaches wherein 2144.04IV.A. teaches wherein it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change a size/dimension, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”.
Blank teaches wherein the application may be used in physics, biology, medicine and materials science to measure measurements of paramagnetic monolayers; inspection of small biological systems, such as single cells internalized by stable radicals or paramagnetic labeled membranes; and, in general, performing ESR spectroscopic measurements on spin-limited samples (see [0078] and [0131] of Blank) and Sagawa teaches wherein the interdigitated strip lines 12 (See Fig. 1B or strip line 61 of 6B) allow for a larger capacitance than a straight gap as illustrated in strip line 11 of Fig. 1A. Further, Sagawa teaches in col. 4, lines 2-6, “the strip lines 12 have a larger capacitance than the strip line 11. Therefore, there is an advantage that dimensions of the resonator 2 becomes smaller than the resonator 1 of the first embodiment.”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combination of Blank and Sagawa teaches wherein a loop-gap resonator may be used to measure magnetic properties of spin-limited samples as in Blank and wherein the size of the resonator may be reduced by incorporating the interdigitated strip lines results in a larger capacitance such that the dimensions of the resonator become smaller as taught in Sagawa. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the scale of the resonator such that the gap is only 10 nm wide as outlined above.
Claim 8, Sagawa teaches whereby parasitic inductance of the resonator is minimized (Sagawa teaches interdigitated strip line (see rejection of claim 1) and the pending application teaches wherein “The interdigitated-capacitor structures are designed to minimize parasitic inductance.” See abstract and [0029]. Since Sagawa teaches an equivalent structure as claimed, it is understood by the examiner that the interdigitated structure disclosed in Sagawa would provide the equivalent function of minimizing parasitic inductance of the resonator as claimed.).
Claim 9, recites wherein the sample comprises a qubit (See Abdo in the rejection of claim 1. All note, the material or article worked upon by an apparatus, and inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure does not impart patentability to the claims; see MPEP 2115, also see MPEP 2114 II. “MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART”.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0093424 (Blank) in view of US 5,055,809 (Sagawa) and US 9,589,236 (Abdo).
Claim 10, Blank teaches a method for at least one of measuring and changing a quantum state of a sample (a resonator is disclosed for electron spin resonance (ESR) by exciting electron spins and detecting irradiation by the electron spins as a result of the excitation; see [0002]), the method comprising:
positioning at least a portion of the sample within an opening of a loop-gap resonator simultaneously exposing the sample to a magnetic field and electromagnetic radiation (a loop-gap resonator 12 includes an opening 18 wherein the magnetic field is larges, and wherein a sample comprising electron spins is usually located at a point where the microwave magnetic field is maximal, thus it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art for the sample to be placed in the opening; see [0002], [0131], [0133], [0154]; see Figs. 2A, 5A); and
detecting a resonance signal from the sample (the resonator layer 12 concentrates the ESR signal created by the spins to feed 26 when the spins irradiate; see [0033], [0037], [0093]; see Fig. 1A);
wherein the loop-gap resonator comprises an electrically conductive member (the resonator layer is made of gold; see [0149]);
wherein the opening comprises an opening through the member defining an inductive loop in the member (see gap 16 and round portion 18 of Fig. 2A).
Blank fails to teach a sample on the scale of a quantum object embodying a qubit, wherein the electrically conductive member comprises a capacitor, wherein the capacitor comprises at least two layers of conductive material separated by at least one dielectric layer, wherein the capacitor comprises a plurality of legs, wherein electrical current flows in opposite directions along alternate legs within the plurality of legs, thereby causing the corresponding magnetic fields to cancel out to a first order.
Sagawa teaches wherein the electrically conductive member comprises a capacitor, wherein the capacitor comprises at least two layers of conductive material separated by at least one dielectric layer (the capacitor comprises two conductive members in the form of strip line 21 and ground plane 81 separated by a dielectric layer; see Fig. 2C; col. 3, lines 7-26), wherein the capacitor comprises a plurality of legs, wherein electrical current flows in opposite directions along alternate legs within the plurality of legs, thereby causing the corresponding magnetic fields to cancel out to a first order (strip line 12 comprises a capacitance means having a plurality of interlaced/interdigitated strip lines in an equivalent manner as the legs and turns disclosed in Figs. 2-5 of the pending application, and would reasonably provide the functional limitations of “wherein electrical current flows in opposite directions along alternate legs within the plurality of legs, thereby causing the corresponding magnetic fields to cancel out to a first order” in an equivalent manner due to the similar structure; see Figs. 1B, 6A; see col. 3, line59 – col. 4, line 12; col. 5, line 45 - col. 6, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features as taught in Sagawa into Blank in order to gain the advantage of interdigitated strip lines which results in the strip lines having a larger capacitance such that the resonator 2 becomes smaller.
Abdo teaches a sample on the scale of a quantum object embodying a qubit (a microwave resonator measures a sample comprising a qubit 410; see Fig. 4A; see col. 1, lines 13-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features as taught in Abdo into Blank in order to gain the advantage of microwave resonators to readout and facilitate interaction among qubits.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858