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 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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the first port" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 16 nor claim 10, upon which it depends, provides antecedent basis for “the first port.”
For examination purposes, “the first port” will be interpreted as --a first port--.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartz et al. (US Patent 3636479) in view of Adams et al. (US PGPub 20090309671)
As per claim 1:
Hartz et al. discloses in Figs. 1-2:
A stripline circulator (title) comprising:
a first ground structure (ground plane member 33, lower steel shunt 34) having one or more cavities, the one or more cavities comprising a first center cavity (cavity wherein ferrite disk 22 steel pole piece 30 and permanent magnets 31 overlap) and a first plurality of arm cavities (cavity between ground plane members 32/33);
at least one center conductor (conductive disk 20 and conductors 17);
a first port (11);
a second port (12); and
a third port (13);
wherein the stripline circulator is characterized by non-reciprocal signal transmission behavior comprising:
responsive to a first signal being provided as an input signal to the first port, the second port provides the first signal as an output signal; and
responsive to a second signal being provided as the input signal to the second port, the third port provides the second signal as the output signal (being a circulator, col. 1 lines 15-50).
Hartz et al. does not disclose:
one or more dielectrics inside one or more first arm cavities of the first plurality of arm cavities.
Adams discloses in Fig. 5:
A circulator (title) wherein arms of a center conductor (metallic trace 510) are formed on a dielectric (504) that is “host” to a ferrite disk (ferrite puck 508, [0088]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the circulator of Hartz et al. with one or more dielectric materials surrounding the ferrite disks and between the center conductor and the ground planes as an art-recognized method of forming a center conductor of a circulator, as disclosed by Adams ([0088]) and further to provide the benefit of controlling the impedance of the strip line as is well understood in the art.
As per claim 4:
Hartz et al. discloses in Figs. 1-2:
a second ground structure (ground plane member 32, upper steel shunt 34) having one or more second cavities, the one or more second cavities comprising a second center cavity (cavity wherein ferrite disk 22 steel pole piece 30 and permanent magnets 31 overlap) and a second plurality of arm cavities (cavity between ground plane members 32/33).
Hartz et al. does not disclose:
the one or more dielectrics are first dielectrics, and one or more second dielectrics inside one or more second arm cavities of the second plurality of arm cavities.
Adams discloses in Fig. 5:
A circulator (title) wherein arms of a center conductor (metallic trace 510) are formed on a dielectric (504) that is “host” to a ferrite disk (ferrite puck 508, [0088]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the combination discloses the one or more dielectrics are first dielectrics, and one or more second dielectrics inside one or more second arm cavities of the second plurality of arm cavities.
As per claim 7:
Hartz et al. discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the center conductor comprises a first arm portion disposed in a first arm cavity of the first plurality of arm cavities (as seen in Fig. 2), wherein the center conductor does not extend past an outer edge of the first arm cavity (as seen in Fig. 2), and wherein the first port comprises an exposed portion of the first arm portion (stripline portion 16), the exposed portion disposed inside the first arm cavity (exposed to conductor 14, as seen in Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Hartz et al. (US Patent 3636479) in view of Adams et al. (US PGPub 20090309671) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pires et al. (US PGPub 20120088675), a reference of record.
The resultant combination discloses the stripline circulator of claim 1, as rejected above.
As per claim 8:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
vacuum grease inside the one or more cavities.
Pires et al. discloses the use of vacuum grease as a binder substance in outer conductive housings with inner conductors ([0013]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use vacuum grease within the one or more cavities of the resultant combination to provide the benefit of a binder substance as is well understood in the art, and as taught by Pires et al. ([0013])
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Hartz et al. (US Patent 3636479) in view of Adams et al. (US PGPub 20090309671) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rosenbaum et al. (US Patent 3935548), a reference of record.
The resultant combination discloses the stripline circulator of claim 1, as rejected above.
As per claim 9:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the stripline circulator is characterized by a minimum cavity mode greater than or equal to 12 GHz.
Rosenbaum et al. discloses the operating resonance for a stripline circulator is a design parameter that can be adjusted through selection of resonant disc radii and coupling angles to provide resonances of greater than or equal to 12 GHz (col. 4 line 61- col. 5 line 13).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the minimum cavity mode of the resultant combination to be adjusted to be greater than or equal to 12 GHz as a design parameter for the functionality of the circulator adjusted by physical parameters as disclosed by Rosenbaum et al. (col. 4 line 61- col. 5 line 13)
Claim(s) 10, 13, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartz et al. (US Patent 3636479) in view of Adams et al. (US PGPub 20090309671) and Abdo (US PGPub 20170093381), a reference of record.
As per claim 10:
Hartz et al. discloses in Figs. 1-2:
A stripline circulator (title) comprising:
a first ground structure (ground plane member 33, lower steel shunt 34) having one or more cavities, the one or more cavities comprising a first center cavity (cavity wherein ferrite disk 22 steel pole piece 30 and permanent magnets 31 overlap) and a first plurality of arm cavities (cavity between ground plane members 32/33);
at least one center conductor (conductive disk 20 and conductors 17).
Hartz et al. does not disclose:
A quantum computing system comprising: a plurality of qubits; a quantum logic circuit configured to perform one or more quantum operations on the plurality of qubits or one or more dielectrics inside one or more first arm cavities of the first plurality of arm cavities.
Adams discloses in Fig. 5:
A circulator (title) wherein arms of a center conductor (metallic trace 510) are formed on a dielectric (504) that is “host” to a ferrite disk (ferrite puck 508, [0088]).
Abdo discloses in Fig. 10:
A quantum computing system ([0069]) comprising:
a plurality of qubits (820A,B);
a quantum logic circuit (measurement circuit or multimode JPC, configured to entangle qubits, [0096]) configured to perform one or more quantum operations on the plurality of qubits;
and a circulator (1015A,B).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the circulator of Hartz et al. with one or more dielectric materials surrounding the ferrite disks and between the center conductor and the ground planes as an art-recognized method of forming a center conductor of a circulator, as disclosed by Adams ([0088]) and further to provide the benefit of controlling the impedance of the strip line as is well understood in the art.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the stripline circulator of Hill et al. to be used in the quantum computing system of Abdo as an art-recognized specific circulator replacing a generic circulator and able to perform the same function (that of being a circulator), as taught by Hartz et al. (being a circulator, col. 1 lines 15-50).
As per claim 13:
Hartz et al. discloses in Figs. 1-2:
a second ground structure (ground plane member 32, upper steel shunt 34) having one or more second cavities, the one or more second cavities comprising a second center cavity (cavity wherein ferrite disk 22 steel pole piece 30 and permanent magnets 31 overlap) and a second plurality of arm cavities (cavity between ground plane members 32/33).
Hartz et al. does not disclose:
the one or more dielectrics are first dielectrics, and one or more second dielectrics inside one or more second arm cavities of the second plurality of arm cavities.
Adams discloses in Fig. 5:
A circulator (title) wherein arms of a center conductor (metallic trace 510) are formed on a dielectric (504) that is “host” to a ferrite disk (ferrite puck 508, [0088]).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 1, the combination discloses the one or more dielectrics are first dielectrics, and one or more second dielectrics inside one or more second arm cavities of the second plurality of arm cavities.
As per claim 16:
Hartz et al. discloses in Figs. 1-2:
the center conductor comprises a first arm portion disposed in a first arm cavity of the first plurality of arm cavities (as seen in Fig. 2), wherein the center conductor does not extend past an outer edge of the first arm cavity (as seen in Fig. 2), and wherein the first port comprises an exposed portion of the first arm portion (stripline portion 16), the exposed portion disposed inside the first arm cavity (exposed to conductor 14, as seen in Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Hartz et al. (US Patent 3636479) in view of Adams et al. (US PGPub 20090309671) and Abdo (US PGPub 20170093381), a reference of record, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pires et al. (US PGPub 20120088675), a reference of record.
The resultant combination discloses the quantum computing system of claim 10, as rejected above.
As per claim 8:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
vacuum grease inside the one or more cavities.
Pires et al. discloses the use of vacuum grease as a binder substance in outer conductive housings with inner conductors ([0013]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use vacuum grease within the one or more cavities of the resultant combination to provide the benefit of a binder substance as is well understood in the art, and as taught by Pires et al. ([0013])
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Hartz et al. (US Patent 3636479) in view of Adams et al. (US PGPub 20090309671) and Abdo (US PGPub 20170093381), a reference of record, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rosenbaum et al. (US Patent 3935548), a reference of record.
The resultant combination discloses the quantum computing system of claim 10, as rejected above.
As per claim 9:
The resultant combination does not disclose:
the stripline circulator is characterized by a minimum cavity mode greater than or equal to 12 GHz.
Rosenbaum et al. discloses the operating resonance for a stripline circulator is a design parameter that can be adjusted through selection of resonant disc radii and coupling angles to provide resonances of greater than or equal to 12 GHz (col. 4 line 61- col. 5 line 13).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the minimum cavity mode of the resultant combination to be adjusted to be greater than or equal to 12 GHz as a design parameter for the functionality of the circulator adjusted by physical parameters as disclosed by Rosenbaum et al. (col. 4 line 61- col. 5 line 13)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 11-12, & 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.\
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the amendments of claims 1 & 10 overcame the rejections of the prior office action, requiring the new grounds of rejection above. The references above and a further search of the art did not disclose or render obvious the combination of limitations found in both the claims noted above and the claims upon which they depend, and therefore contain allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under Hill et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hartz et al. in view of Adams et al.
Conclusion
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 SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at (571) 272-1988. 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.
/Samuel S Outten/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
