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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 & 4, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Luethi et al. (US 2021/0066570 A1), hereinafter Luethi, with Abraham et al. (US 9,344,092 B2), hereinafter Abraham, and Jeffrey et al. (US 2020/0403289 A1), hereinafter Jeffrey, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Luethi discloses, in figure 15, that the second end of the transmission line 214 is coupled to the circuit connector 222 via “wirebonding” (Para [0076]) as a conventional transition connection technique (Para [0076], “wirebonding pads or any other suitable connection”). Examiner notes that Luethi references the impedance of the transmission line with the minimization of reflected signals at transitions between connectors. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would also recognize that the connection technique used would also directly impact the amount of signal that is transmitted. Further, Luethi utilizes the engineered transmission line 214 in conjunction with the wirebonding transition to “minimize impedance mismatches” (Para [0085]) between the transmission line and circuit connector 222, all of which are relied upon elements in the rejection of record. Since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art [i.e., connecting two elements via a conventional transition method). (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385). Thus, the second end of the transmission line is coupled to the circuit connector with a wire bond is disclosed, as required by the invention as claimed.
Further, in response to applicant’s arguments that inserting a wire-bond connection would result in discontinuity and not have a reasonable expectation of success, this is not persuasive. Luethi discloses, in figure 15, that the wire-bonding is interconnected with the engineered transmission line 214 to “minimize impedance mismatches” (Para [0085]). The engineered transmission line is explicitly designed to prevent any discontinuities between the connected transmission line and circuit connector 222. Thus, the second end of the transmission line is coupled to the circuit connector with a wire bond is disclosed, as required by the invention as claimed.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham et al. (US 9,344,092 B2), hereinafter Abraham, in view of Jeffrey et al. (US 2020/0403289 A1), hereinafter Jeffrey, and further in view of Luethi et al. (US 2021/0066570 A1), hereinafter Luethi.
Regarding claim 1, Abraham discloses, in figure 1, A device comprising a superconducting circuit and a circuit connector configured to couple the superconducting circuit to external circuitry (Col. 4, Lines 32, “superconducting tunable notch filter 110”…coupled to 130 and circuit 180 via 140), wherein the superconducting circuit comprises:
a circuit resonator which has a target resonance frequency (Col. 4, Lines 59-61, “superconducting qubit circuit 120…a qubit frequency of 5 GHz”),
a transmission line with a first end and a second end (transmission line 170 with a first end and second end), wherein the first end is coupled to the circuit resonator and the second end is coupled to the circuit connector (line 170 has a first end coupled to qubit circuit 120 and a second end coupled to circuit connector 140,
wherein the transmission line has a characteristic effective speed of light (Col. 7, Lines 17-18, “transmission line 170 is implemented as a coplanar waveguide”…which has a characteristic effective speed of light),
wherein the transmission line is an open-circuited transmission line and the first end of the transmission line is capacitively coupled to the circuit resonator (Col. 3, Lines 54-59, “uses quarter-wavelength transmission line stubs to implement a notch filter at the qubit frequency…the free end of the stub is left as an open circuit”…with a first end capacitively [via capacitor 60] coupled to the qubit circuit 120), but fails to disclose wherein the length of the transmission line is substantially equal to (N * L) / 2, where N is a positive integer and L equals the effective speed of light divided by the target resonance frequency, and
wherein the second end of the transmission line is coupled to the circuit connector with a wire bond.
However, Jeffrey discloses, in figure 1, wherein the length of the transmission line is substantially equal to (N * L) / 2, where N is a positive integer and L equals the effective speed of light divided by the target resonance frequency (Para [0030], “filter may be implemented as a transmission line resonator, e.g., a quarter-wave (λ/4) or half-wave (λ/2) superconductor coplanar waveguide resonator”).
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 half-wavelength transmission line of Jeffrey in the superconducting circuit of Abraham, to achieve the benefit of implementing efficient coupling between the transmission line and resonator with phase and impedance matching (Jeffrey, Para [0027]).
In combination, Abraham and Jeffrey fail to disclose wherein the second end of the transmission line is coupled to the circuit connector with a wire bond.
However, Luethi discloses, in figure 15, wherein the second end of the transmission line (Para [0082], “Each one of the resonators and non-resonant transmission lines of a superconducting quantum circuit may be implemented as any suitable architecture of a microwave transmission line [microwave line 214], such as e.g. a coplanar waveguide”) is coupled to the circuit connector with a wire bond (Para [0076] & [0081], “microwave lines 214…connections (e.g. wirebonding pads or any other suitable connections) 220 and 222… resonant frequency is then passed to the microwave lines 214 and communicated to the pads 222.”).
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 wire bonding of Luethi in the device of Abraham and Jeffrey, to achieve the benefit of minimizing the amount of reflected signal at transitions from the device to the connector (Luethi, Para [0085]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Abraham, Jeffrey, and Luethi discloses the device according to claim 1, and Abraham continues to disclose, in figure 1, wherein the transmission line is a co-planar waveguide (Col. 7, Lines 17-18, “transmission line 170 is implemented as a coplanar waveguide”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Abraham, Jeffrey, and Luethi as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Woods et al. (US 11,699,091 B2), hereinafter Woods.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Abraham, Jeffrey, and Luethi discloses the device according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the transmission line has a meandering shape.
However, Woods discloses, in figure 1, wherein the transmission line has a meandering shape (Col. 4, Lines 6, “transmission line 140”…comprising a meandering shape, see figure 1).
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 meandering shaped transmission line of Woods in the superconducting circuit of Abraham, Jeffrey, and Luethi, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions [i.e., implementing a transmission line with a desired length while reducing the surface area utilized for the transmission line], and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham in view of Everard et al. (“HIGH PERFORMANCE DIRECT COUPLED BANDPASS FILTERS ON COPLANAR WAVEGUIDE”, IEEE transactions on Microwave theory and techniques, IEEE, USA, vol. 41, no. 9, September 1993, pages 1568-1573), and further in view of Luethi.
Regarding claim 4, Abraham discloses, in figure 1, A device comprising a superconducting circuit and a circuit connector configured to couple the superconducting circuit to external circuitry (Col. 4, Lines 32, “superconducting tunable notch filter 110”…coupled to 130 and circuit 180 via 140), wherein the superconducting circuit comprises
a circuit resonator which has a target resonance frequency (Col. 4, Lines 59-61, “superconducting qubit circuit 120…a qubit frequency of 5 GHz”),
a transmission line with a first end and a second end (transmission line 170 with a first end and second end), wherein the first end is coupled to the circuit resonator and the second end is coupled to the circuit connector (line 170 has a first end coupled to qubit circuit 120 and a second end coupled to circuit connector 140,
wherein the transmission line has a characteristic effective speed of light (Col. 7, Lines 17-18, “transmission line 170 is implemented as a coplanar waveguide”…which has a characteristic effective speed of light),
wherein the first end of the transmission line is coupled to the circuit resonator (Col. 3, Lines 54-59, “uses quarter-wavelength transmission line stubs to implement a notch filter at the qubit frequency”…with a first end capacitively [via capacitor 60] coupled to the qubit circuit 120), wherein the length of the transmission line is substantially equal to (N * L) / 2 – (L / 4), where N is a positive integer and L equals the effective speed of light divided by the target resonance frequency (Col. 3, Lines 54-56, “uses quarter-wavelength transmission line stubs to implement a notch filter at the qubit frequency”), but fails to disclose wherein the transmission line is a short-circuited transmission line and the first end of the transmission line is inductively coupled to the circuit resonator, and
wherein the second end of the transmission line is coupled to the circuit connector with a wire bond.
However, Everard discloses, in figure 9 & 10, wherein the transmission line is a short-circuited transmission line and the first end of the transmission line is inductively coupled to the circuit resonator (the transmission line, constituted as the left-most line with impedance Zp, utilizing “shunt inductances at the end of the filter” [i.e., short circuited the transmission line] to the resonator [i.e., inductive coupling], see figure 9 & 10).
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 transmission line of Everard in the device of Abraham, to achieve the benefit of implementing a transmission with “complete planarity as well as low loss” (Everard, Pg. 1568, Col. 1).
In combination, Abraham and Everard fail to disclose wherein the second end of the transmission line is coupled to the circuit connector with a wire bond.
However, Luethi discloses, in figure 15, wherein the second end of the transmission line (Para [0082], “Each one of the resonators and non-resonant transmission lines of a superconducting quantum circuit may be implemented as any suitable architecture of a microwave transmission line [microwave line 214], such as e.g. a coplanar waveguide”) is coupled to the circuit connector with a wire bond (Para [0076] & [0081], “microwave lines 214…connections (e.g. wirebonding pads or any other suitable connections) 220 and 222… resonant frequency is then passed to the microwave lines 214 and communicated to the pads 222.”).
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 wire bonding of Luethi in the device of Abraham and Everard, to achieve the benefit of minimizing the amount of reflected signal at transitions from the device to the connector (Luethi, Para [0085]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Abraham, Everard, and Luethi disclose the device according to claim 4, and Abraham continues to disclose, in figure 1, wherein the transmission line is a co-planar waveguide (Col. 7, Lines 17-18, “transmission line 170 is implemented as a coplanar waveguide”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Abraham, Everard, and Luethi as applied to claims 4-5 above, and further in view of Woods.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Abraham, Everard, and Luethi discloses the device according to claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the transmission line has a meandering shape.
However, Woods discloses, in figure 1, wherein the transmission line has a meandering shape (Col. 4, Lines 6, “transmission line 140”…comprising a meandering shape, see figure 1).
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 meandering shaped transmission line of Woods in the superconducting circuit of Abraham, Everard, and Luethi, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions [i.e., implementing a transmission line with a desired length while reducing the surface area utilized for the transmission line], and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshihito Hashimoto, Shinichi Yorozu, Toshiyuki Miyazaki; Transmission of single-flux-quantum pulse between superconductor chips. Appl. Phys. Lett. 14 February 2005; 86 (7): 072502. [discloses the speed of light transmit speed of superconductor transmission lines for the external connection to circuits/devices. See Paragraph 0001].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J PERENY whose telephone number is (571)272-4189. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at (571) 270-7166. 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.
/TYLER J PERENY/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights