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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending of which all pending claims are rejected under nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/ file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U. S. Patent No. 11,367,013. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the patent both claimed fusion measurement based on fusion graph edges.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as in the following table. Note that only exemplary independent claim 1 of the instant application is compared for illustration purposes, underlining is used to indicate conflicting limitations.
Instant application
US Patent # 11,367,013 B2
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, measurement data describing a previous fusion measurement;
updating syndrome data based on the measurement data,
the syndrome data comprising a first graph in a primary basis and a second graph in a dual basis that corresponds to the primary basis;
identifying a connected component in the first graph of the primary basis, the connected component comprising a contiguous set of erased edges;
selecting an edge in the primary basis for a subsequent fusion measurement based on the updated syndrome data, the edge being selected based on both ends of the edge being connected to the connected component; and
transmitting instructions to perform the subsequent fusion measurement on the selected edge in the primary basis.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the first, second, third and fourth quantum modes are part of a logical qubit described by a syndrome graph,
wherein the syndrome graph is updated based on the first and second classical measurement results, and
wherein selecting the basis for performing the second fusion measurement comprises: analyzing the syndrome graph
9. The method of claim 1, wherein …. described by a syndrome graph, wherein the syndrome graph comprises a primal syndrome graph and a dual syndrome graph, ……..;
7. to identify a connected component of the syndrome graph, wherein the connected component comprises a contiguous set of erased edges in the syndrome graph; and
determining that a first basis risks an erasure of an edge of the syndrome graph that connects two nodes within the connected component, wherein the first basis is the selected basis for performing the second fusion measurement.
The non-underlined limitations are merely differing in form that does not change the scope of the invention. For example, omitting or adding the last limitation ‘transmitting instruction…to perform fusion measurement…’ would not interfere with the functionality of the steps because processing, receiving, transmitting or storing data and/or instructions are conventional tasks for a processor. Therefore, it is obvious that the ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the claims of the instant application by omitting or adding the non-underlined limitation. Omitting or adding the non-underlined elements would not interfere with the functionality of the steps claimed of the patent and would perform the same function (see In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Independent claims 12 and 19 have similar limitations as of claim 1. Hence, they are also rejected under same rational as of claim 1 under obviousness type double patenting over claims 16-23 of the patent for having obvious variations. Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the pending obviousness double patenting rejection and all remaining pending objections and rejections (if any) are overcome.
Conclusion
When amending the claims, Applicants are respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ENAMUL MD KABIR whose telephone number is (571)270-7256. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00-6:30 pm.
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, Albert Decady can be reached on 571-272-3819. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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.
/ENAMUL M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2112