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 .
This is a NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to the present Application filed 06/28/2024. Claims 1-14 are pending in the Application, of which Claims 1 and 5 are independent.
Continuity/ Priority Information
The present Application 18725611 filed 06/28/2024 is a National Stage entry of PCT/US2022/054224, Filing Date: 12/29/2022, which Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63294672, filed 12/29/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2025 and 07/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-14 are 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.
Claims 1, 5, the limitation “qubit electrode comprising detrimental defects and intrinsic qubit resonance” is indefinite. It is not clear if the defects are associated with the qubit or with the electrode. The term “qubit electrode” in the claims is understood to refer to some electrode which is part of the qubit. Normally defects occur in the “qubit”. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as defects in the “qubit”.
Claim 1, the limitation "applying an intrinsic parameter of an electric field to the qubit electrode in order to tune the defects away from the qubit resonance" is indefinite because it amounts to a definition in terms of a result to be achieved (tuning defects away from the qubit resonance) without defining the features (e.g. characteristics of the electric field such as its strength, how the field should be applied, at which distance the field source should be placed. Para. [00032] of the specification describes the requirement in order to achieve this result, but they are not recited in the Claims. It is not clear how a complete tuning away of the defects can be achieved without defining the features.
The limitation in claims 1 and 5 "applying an intrinsic parameter of an electric field to the qubit electrode" lacks clarity as to how a "parameter" is applied to a qubit electrode. As currently formulated, the limitation is not equivalent to defining that it is the electric field (that has a certain intrinsic parameter) that is applied to the qubit.
Claims 1 and 5, the term "qubit electrode" recited in the claims is understood to refer to some electrode that is part of the qubit. It is unclear how such an electrode pertains to the qubit, for any method “for enhancing and for determining the coherence of a qubit" in claims 1 and 5 respectively.
According to the description in the specification para. [00032] and Fig. 1, the DC-electrode is installed at a specific location and distance with respect to the qubit and provides the electric field for TLS tuning. These features are however currently not defined in claims 1 and 5.
Claims 1 and 5, recite, respectively, "providing at least one qubit electrode comprising detrimental effects and intrinsic qubit resonance", and "providing at least one qubit electrode, wherein the qubit electrode comprises......an intrinsic qubit energy relaxation time (T1). These features may be understood to refer to the intrinsic qubit resonance and the T1, respectively, as being comprised by the "at least one qubit electrode", which results in a lack of clarity as to how an electrode (which is considered to be a physical entity) can "comprise" a qubit resonance in claim 1 and an intrinsic qubit energy relaxation time (T1) in claim 5.
Claim 5 defines "providing a qubit working frequency". The qubit working frequency is not used in any of the remaining defined method steps. It is not clear how this step contributes to determining the enhancement of coherence of the qubit.
Claim 6, "the steps are used at different qubit working frequencies for optimization" is indefinite. The claim lacks clarity as to what using different frequencies mean and what the optimization refers to. Furthermore, claim 5 defines the provision of a (one) qubit working frequency, not different (multiple) frequencies.
Claim 10, “determining the intrinsic qubit energy relaxation time at zero applied electric field; and comparing the determined qubit energy relaxation time (T1) with the intrinsic qubit energy relaxation time”. It is not clear (Art. 6 PCT) how the "intrinsic qubit energy relaxation time at zero applied electric field" differs from "the intrinsic qubit energy relaxation time".
Claim 11, "the quantification of enhancement was at least 23% of all determinations" is indefinite because it lacks clarity with respect to a reference.
Claim 12, "determined within 30 mins" is indefinite because it lacks clarity as to whether it refers to determining T1 throughout a time interval of 30 mins or for example at a moment in time falling within 30 mins from some time reference.
Claim 14, “Use of a qubit in a quantum computing system” is indefinite because it lacks clarity as to how the qubit used in the quantum computing system relates to the qubit/qubit electrode recited in claims 6 to 13.
Any claim not specifically mentioned above is rejected because of its dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abdo et al. (Pub. No. US 20180260729) Pub. Date: 2018-09-13.
Regarding independent Claim 1, Abdo discloses a weakly tunable qubit based on two coupled disparate transmons, comprising:
a qubit comprising detrimental defects and intrinsic qubit resonance; FIG. 1 illustrates a circuit of a weakly tunable qubit 100. [0027] The qubit 100 includes a fixed frequency transmon qubit 110A and a tunable frequency transmon qubit 110B, which share one electrode and are coupled together via coupling capacitor Cc 120. The transmon qubit 110A includes a single JJ 102 having critical current denoted I.sub.c1. The transmon qubit 110A is a fixed frequency qubit and is not tunable.
[0024] Defects included in the junction. Two-level system (TLS) defects can arise in the amorphous structure of the junction barrier dielectric. Any of these defects in the junctions lying close in frequency to the qubit will couple to the qubit and degrade the qubit's coherence. It is estimated that a typical junction of size 100,000 nm.sup.2 will incorporate such defects at an energy density of 1 every 3 GHz.
applying an intrinsic parameter of an electric field to the qubit electrode.
[0018] Superconducting qubits having a tunable critical current (e.g., based on Josephson junctions) are generally useful in the field of quantum computing, and have been realized using a so-called superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID), which allows the qubit frequency to be tuned by means of an external magnetic field. The SQUID is two JJs in parallel, thereby forming a loop through which a magnetic field can be applied.
Regarding Claim 2, Abdo discloses wherein the intrinsic parameter is the strength of the electric field. para. [0035] For the design example, the Table 1 depicts qubit properties of the qubit 100. The qubit properties are illustrated for two cases of the external magnetic flux Φ.sub.ext threading the asymmetric dc-SQUID transmon loop.
Regarding Claim 3, Abdo discloses the detrimental defects are parasitic two-level quantum systems (TLS). [0020] Excess junction size can complicate junction fabrication, add undesired junction capacitance, and/or incorporate randomly occurring defects such as two-level-system dissipators.
Regarding Claim 4, Abdo discloses the qubit is a superconducting qubit. [0030] The circuit elements of the qubit circuit 100 are made of superconducting material. Examples of superconducting materials (at low temperatures, such as about 10-100 millikelvin (mK), or about 4 K) include niobium, aluminum, tantalum, etc.
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 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdo et al. (Pub. No. US 20180260729) Pub. Date: 2018-09-13, in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,112,842) Pub. Date: 2021-09-07.
Regarding independent Claim 5, Abdo discloses a weakly tunable qubit based on two coupled disparate transmons, comprising substantially the same limitations as recited in independent Claim 1 above.
Re independent Claim 5, Abdo additionally discloses providing a qubit working frequency; [0026] the tunable range of the resonance frequency (i.e., qubit frequency f.sub.q) is about 100 MHz “working frequency”. In other embodiments, the resonance frequency of the qubit 100 is tunable in a sub-100 MHz tuning range. In other embodiments, the resonance frequency of the qubit 100 is tunable with a 50 MHz or smaller tuning range.
Abdo does not explicitly disclose “determining the qubit energy relaxation time (T1) over time for each of the different values”.
However, in analogous art, Smith discloses, See Abstract. The frequency-dependent energy relaxation process is produced by a material defect in the quantum processor cell. A first qubit frequency associated with a first relaxation time of the tunable qubit device is identified and a second qubit frequency associated with a second relaxation time of the tunable qubit device is identified. The second relaxation time is shorter than the first due to the frequency-dependent energy relaxation process produced by the material defect.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to calculate the relaxation time as taught by Smith in the tunable qubit Abdo for the purpose of optimizing the frequency associated with the relaxation time.
Regarding Claim 6, Abdo discloses used at different qubit working frequencies for optimization. [0026] In other embodiments, the resonance frequency of the qubit 100 is tunable in a sub-100 MHz tuning range. In other embodiments, the resonance frequency of the qubit 100 is tunable with a 50 MHz or smaller tuning range.
Regarding Claims 7, 8, Abdo discloses the intrinsic parameter is the strength of the electric field and DC electrical field. para. [0035] For the design example, the Table 1 depicts qubit properties of the qubit 100. The qubit properties are illustrated for two cases of the external magnetic flux Φ.sub.ext corresponding to electrical field threading the asymmetric dc-SQUID transmon loop.
Regarding Claim 9, Abdo discloses the detrimental defects are parasitic two-level quantum systems (TLS). [0020] Excess junction size can complicate junction fabrication, add undesired junction capacitance, and/or incorporate randomly occurring defects such as two-level-system dissipators.
Regarding Claims 10, 11, 12, Abdo does not explicitly disclose “determining the qubit energy relaxation time (T1)”. However, in analogous art, Smith discloses determining the qubit energy relaxation time for the same obvious reasons as described in the independent Claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 13, Abdo discloses the qubit is a superconducting qubit. [0030] The circuit elements of the qubit circuit 100 are made of superconducting material. Examples of superconducting materials (at low temperatures, such as about 10-100 millikelvin (mK), or about 4 K) include niobium, aluminum, tantalum, etc.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation “Use of a qubit in a quantum computing system or device after performing the method of claim 6.” is rejected for being indefinite with respect to how the qubit is used in the quantum computing system relative to claims 6 to 13.
Prior Art References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See References Cited on PTO-892 form.
Rugar et al. (US 20250280741) [0042] In examples, the electrode 220 can be one or more of a variety of components that can generate/produce an electric field proximate a qubit device 210 to effectively tune the TLS defect frequency away from the qubit device 210 frequency.
Didier (US 20220374755) [0172] As shown in FIG. 11, the maximum error can be obtained at the maximum frequency, at the minimum frequency, and in the middle of the frequency band with respect to identity for a tunable qubit device coupled to three two-level systems (TLS) with a coupling of 3 MHz at various operating points (over 1 μs).
Epstein et al. (US 10,097,186) See Abstract. Each tunable oscillator is responsive to a control signal to tune an associated resonance frequency of the tunable oscillator within a first frequency range, within which the two components are coupled, and within a second frequency range, within which the two components are isolated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C KERVEROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3824. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, MARK FEATHERSTONE can be reached at (571) 270-3750. 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.
/JAMES C KERVEROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Date: November 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection 20251119
JAMES C. KERVEROS
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
James.Kerveros@USPTO.GOV