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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 3: a microwave module.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Claim 3:
“a DC control module configured to control DC signals”;
“an RF control module configured to control RF signals”;
“an optical module configured for at least one of: generating or amplifying light; directing light from a device-external light source to the first ion trap module; splitting and distributing light in multiple positions of the micro-fabricated device; performing at least one light manipulation process; performing at least one light detection process; coupling out light from the micro-fabricated device to a device-external component”;
“a microwave module configured to provide and distribute microwave radiation”.
Claim 16:
“at least one connector module configured to mechanically connect…”
The corresponding structures in the disclosure for performing the claimed functions are:
Claim 3:
“a switch matrix, a multiplexer, a digital-to-analog converter”;
See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below;
See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below;
See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below.
Claim 16:
See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 16 are further 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.
The claim limitations “an RF control module configured to control RF signals” (claim 3), “a microwave module configured to provide and distribute microwave radiation” (claim 3), “an optical module configured for at least one of: generating or amplifying light; directing light from a device-external light source to the first ion trap module; splitting and distributing light in multiple positions of the micro-fabricated device; performing at least one light manipulation process; performing at least one light detection process; coupling out light from the micro-fabricated device to a device-external component” (claim 3), and “at least one connector module configured to mechanically connect…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. The written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the specification fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to claims 3 and 16; and claims 3 and 16 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted these limitations as being met by any structure, material, or acts which is/are capable of performing the claimed function(s).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 19 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 19 recites the limitation “each module tested as defective” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted claim 19 as “…testing at least one of the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module for defects; and if a defect is found in the tested ion trap module, discarding the tested ion trap module from assembling the device.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module are mechanically connected.” Claim 16 recites “at least one connector module configured to mechanically connect the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module.” As discussed supra, claim 16 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and is interpreted as being met by any structure, material, or acts which is/are capable of mechanically connecting the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module. Therefore, the recitation of a generic “connector module” fails to further limit the mechanical connection recited in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-6, 8, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lekitsch et al. (“Blueprint for a microwave trapped ion quantum computer”, 2017), hereinafter Lekitsch.
Regarding claim 1, Lekitsch discloses a micro-fabricated device for controlling trapped ions (page 2, column 2, ‘Description of individual quantum computer modules’ paragraph 1, lines 1-5), the micro-fabricated device comprising:
a first ion trap module (FIG. 1A; page 2, column 2, last paragraph, lines 3-5; “the ion trap X-junction and its arms” is the first ion trap module) comprising first electrodes configured to trap ions (page 3, column 2, last paragraph, lines 8-10) in a zone above the first electrodes (page 4, column 1, first full paragraph, lines 6-7; the ions’ position is 100 μm above the electrode surface); and
a second ion trap module laterally arranged next to the first ion trap module (page 1, column 2, last paragraph, lines 6-7) and comprising second electrodes configured to trap ions (page 3, column 2, last paragraph, lines 8-10) in a zone above the second electrodes (page 4, column 1, first full paragraph, lines 6-7; the ions’ position is 100 μm above the electrode surface),
wherein the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module are mechanically connected (FIG. 4: the ion trap modules are mechanically connected through the supporting steel frame structure), and
wherein the first electrodes and the second electrodes are aligned relative to each other so as to be configured to provide a shuttling of ions between the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module (page 1, column 2, last paragraph, lines 6-7) along the first electrodes and the second electrodes (page 3, column 1, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Lekitsch as applied to claim 1 discloses the micro-fabricated device of claim 1.
In addition, Lekitsch discloses a first module (FIG. 1A, caption, photodetectors) mounted on a first mounting region of the first ion trap module (FIG. 1A, Readout zone),
wherein the first ion trap module and the first module are electrically and/or optically coupled via the first mounting region (page 4, column 2, paragraph beginning “Readout zones…”).
Regarding claim 3, Lekitsch as applied to claim 2 discloses the micro-fabricated device of claim 2.
In addition, Lekitsch discloses that the first module is an optical module configured for performing at least one light detection process (FIG. 1A, caption, photodetectors).
Regarding claim 4, Lekitsch as applied to claim 2 discloses the micro-fabricated device of claim 2.
In addition, Lekitsch discloses that the first ion trap module further comprises a second mounting region (FIG. 1A, gate zone), the micro-fabricated device further comprising:
a second module mounted on the second mounting region of the first ion trap module (page 4, column 1, paragraph beginning “A gate zone…”; current-carrying wires and coils).
Regarding claim 5, Lekitsch as applied to claim 4 discloses the micro-fabricated device of claim 4.
In addition, Lekitsch discloses that the first ion trap module and the second module are electrically and/or optically coupled via the second mounting region (page 4, column 2, paragraph beginning “Ions are precisely placed…”).
Regarding claim 6, Lekitsch as applied to claim 4 discloses the micro-fabricated device of claim 4.
In addition, Lekitsch discloses that the first module and the second module are mounted on a same side of the first ion trap module (FIG. 2, caption: the current-carrying wires/coils and the photodetector are both mounted on the underside of the ion trap module).
Regarding claim 8, Lekitsch as applied to claim 2 discloses the micro-fabricated device of claim 2.
In addition, Lekitsch discloses that the first ion trap module (FIG. 1B, HR silicon) and the first module (page 4, column 2, paragraph beginning “Readout zones…”, lines 11-14) are fabricated from at least one of silicon, fused silica, sapphire, diamond, silicon carbide, and glass.
Regarding claim 11, Lekitsch as applied to claim 2 discloses the micro-fabricated device of claim 2.
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Lekitsch teaches the structural limitations of the first ion trap module and the first module as discussed supra. Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 13, Lekitsch as applied to claim 1 discloses the micro-fabricated device of claim 1.
In addition, Lekitsch discloses that the first electrodes and the second electrodes are arranged in a common plane (page 6, column 1, paragraphs 1-2: the modules including the electrodes must be “accurately aligned” and form a two-dimensional array).
Regarding claim 14, Lekitsch as applied to claim 1 discloses the micro-fabricated device of claim 1.
In addition, Lekitsch discloses that the first electrodes are DC electrodes, and wherein the second electrodes are DC electrodes (page 5, column 1, paragraph beginning “Each electrical submodule…”, line 1).
Regarding claim 15, Lekitsch as applied to claim 1 discloses the micro-fabricated device of claim 1.
In addition, Lekitsch discloses that the first electrodes are RF electrodes and DC electrodes, and wherein the second electrodes are RF electrodes and DC electrodes (page 6, column 1, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Lekitsch as applied to claim 1 discloses the micro-fabricated device of claim 1.
In addition, Lekitsch discloses at least one connector module configured to mechanically connect the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module (FIG. 4: the ion trap modules are mechanically connected through the supporting steel frame structure).
Regarding claim 18, Lekitsch discloses a method for assembling a device for controlling trapped ions (page 2, column 2, ‘Description of individual quantum computer modules’ paragraph 1, lines 1-5), the method comprising:
providing a first ion trap module (FIG. 1A; page 2, column 2, last paragraph, lines 3-5; “the ion trap X-junction and its arms” is the first ion trap module) comprising first electrodes (page 3, column 2, last paragraph, lines 8-10) configured to trap ions in a zone above the first electrodes (page 4, column 1, first full paragraph, lines 6-7; the ions’ position is 100 μm above the electrode surface);
arranging a second ion trap module comprising second electrodes configured to trap ions (page 3, column 2, last paragraph, lines 8-10) in a zone above the second electrodes (page 4, column 1, first full paragraph, lines 6-7; the ions’ position is 100 μm above the electrode surface) laterally next to the first ion trap module (page 1, column 2, last paragraph, lines 6-7); and
mechanically connecting the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module (FIG. 4: the ion trap modules are mechanically connected through the supporting steel frame structure), such that the first electrodes and the second electrodes are aligned relative to each other and configured to provide a shuttling of ions between the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module (page 1, column 2, last paragraph, lines 6-7) along the first electrodes and the second electrodes (page 3, column 1, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, Lekitsch as applied to claim 18 discloses the method of claim 18.
In addition, Lekitsch discloses mounting a first module (FIG. 1A, caption, photodetectors) on a first mounting region of the first ion trap module (FIG. 1A, Readout zone); and
electrically and/or optically coupling the first ion trap module and the first module via the first mounting region (page 4, column 2, paragraph beginning “Readout zones…”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekitsch.
Regarding claim 12, Lekitsch as applied to claim 2 discloses the micro-fabricated device of claim 2.
Lekitsch fails to disclose that the first ion trap module and the first module are mechanically coupled by at least one of gluing and bonding; and/or the first ion trap module and the first module are electrically coupled by at least one of a solder bump, an anisotropic conductive adhesive and a wire bond; and/or the first ion trap module and the first module are optically coupled by at least one of a waveguide and a free space beam.
However, the disclosure of Lekitsch demonstrates that the function of bonding is known in the art of microfabricated ion traps. Lekitsch also shows that substituting bonding for another mechanical coupling mechanism in a microfabricated ion trap yields the predictable result of highly precise alignment between coupled components (page 6, column 2, paragraphs 1-2). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lekitsch to include that the first ion trap module and the first module are mechanically coupled by bonding because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekitsch as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Loboda (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0299689 A1), hereinafter Loboda.
Regarding claim 7, Lekitsch as applied to claim 4 discloses the micro-fabricated device of claim 4.
Lekitsch fails to disclose that the first module and the second module are mounted on opposing sides of the first ion trap module.
However, Loboda discloses that the first module (FIG. 9, upper row of electrodes 920 comprising a control PCB 2100 as shown in FIG. 21) and the second module (FIG. 9, lower row of electrodes 920 comprising a control PCB 2100 as shown in FIG. 21) are mounted on opposing sides of the first ion trap module (FIG. 9, element 913).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lekitsch to include that the first module and the second module are mounted on opposing sides of the first ion trap module, based on the teachings of Loboda that this arrangement provides greater and more independent control of the voltages applied to control the ions in the trap (paragraph 0079).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekitsch as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Folman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0321719 A1), hereinafter Folman.
Regarding claim 9, Lekitsch as applied to claim 2 discloses the micro-fabricated device of claim 2.
Lekitsch fails to disclose that the first ion trap module and the first module are fabricated from different materials.
However, Folman discloses that the first ion trap module (paragraph 0089, core layer of the electrode comprising silicon carbide, silicon nitride, or tungsten) and the first module (paragraph 0260, sapphire substrate) are fabricated from different materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lekitsch to include that the first ion trap module and the first module are fabricated from different materials, based on the teachings of Folman that the combination of different materials improves the ability of the trap to withstand mechanical deformation (Folman, paragraph 0088).
Regarding claim 10, Lekitsch as applied to claim 2 discloses the micro-fabricated device of claim 2.
Lekitsch fails to disclose that a thermal expansion coefficient of the first ion trap module differs from a thermal expansion coefficient of the first module.
However, Folman discloses that a thermal expansion coefficient of the first ion trap module (paragraph 0089, core layer of the electrode comprising silicon carbide, silicon nitride, or tungsten; Table 2 shows a thermal expansion coefficient of 3.8 x
10
-
6
1/°C for silicon carbide) differs from a thermal expansion coefficient of the first module (paragraph 0260, sapphire substrate; Table 1 shows a thermal expansion coefficient of 4.5 x
10
-
6
1/°C for sapphire).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lekitsch to include that a thermal expansion coefficient of the first ion trap module differs from a thermal expansion coefficient of the first module, based on the teachings of Folman that the use of sapphire in combination with silicon carbide improves the ability of the trap to withstand mechanical deformation (Folman, paragraphs 0088-0089).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lekitsch as applied to claim 18 above, in view of Brown et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,525,111 B1), hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 19, Lekitsch as applied to claim 18 discloses the method of claim 18.
Lekitsch fails to disclose testing at least one of the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module for defects; and discarding each module tested as defective from assembling the device.
However, Brown discloses testing (column 39, lines 37-42) at least one of the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module for defects (column 28, lines 47-50); and
discarding each module tested as defective from assembling the device (column 28, lines 50-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Lekitsch to include testing at least one of the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module for defects; and discarding each module tested as defective from assembling the device, based on the teachings of Brown that this minimizes time spent on maintenance and/or repair operations (Brown, column 28, lines 43-57).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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:
Claim 17 contains allowable subject matter because the prior art of record fails to teach “the first ion trap module comprises at least one protruding portion arranged at a periphery of the first ion trap module; the second ion trap module comprises at least one notch arranged at a periphery of the second ion trap module; and the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module are mechanically connected by an insertion of the at least one protruding portion of the first ion trap module into the at least one notch of the second ion trap module” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 17.
The closest prior art of record, Lekitsch, teaches the micro-fabricated device of claim 1 as discussed supra, including that the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module are mechanically connected.
However, Lekitsch fails to teach that the ion trap modules are connected by inserting a protruding portion of the first ion trap module into a notch of the second ion trap module. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “the first ion trap module comprises at least one protruding portion arranged at a periphery of the first ion trap module; the second ion trap module comprises at least one notch arranged at a periphery of the second ion trap module; and the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module are mechanically connected by an insertion of the at least one protruding portion of the first ion trap module into the at least one notch of the second ion trap module” as currently claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kielpinski et al. (“Architecture for a large-scale ion-trap quantum computer”, 2002), hereinafter Kielpinski, teaches a micro-fabricated device for controlling trapped ions, the micro-fabricated device comprising: a first ion trap module comprising first electrodes configured to trap ions in a zone above the first electrodes; and a second ion trap module laterally arranged next to the first ion trap module and comprising second electrodes configured to trap ions in a zone above the second electrodes, wherein the first electrodes and the second electrodes are aligned relative to each other so as to be configured to provide a shuttling of ions between the first ion trap module and the second ion trap module along the first electrodes and the second electrodes.
Wright et al. (“Reliable transport through a microfabricated X-junction surface-electrode ion trap”, 2013), hereinafter Wright, teaches a first module mounted on a first mounting region of the first ion trap module, wherein the first module is a DC control module configured to control DC signals provided to DC electrodes of the first ion trap module.
Sinclair et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0402362 A1), hereinafter Sinclair, teaches a first ion trap module and a first module electrically coupled by at least one of a solder bump and a wire bond.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights