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 June 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant’s argument is that Abdo explicitly criticizes and teaches away from the use of "lossy" materials in its directional coupler. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to an absorptive (lossy) filter, such as Ohashi's filter, to improve Abdo's circuit, as it directly contradicts Abdo's stated goal of minimizing loss.
This is not persuasive because the citations of Abdo are not found at the locations cited by applicant and the specific emphasized language is not found in the Abdo reference. Additionally, applicant characterizes Ohashi as an absorptive (lossy) filter, but Ohashi is silent to the filter being a heat dissipating absorptive filter. Paragraph 0056 of Ohashi, as cited by applicant, is silent to the assertion that Ohashi achieves its frequency response by dissipating RF energy as heat through the resistor R1. Lastly, applicant argues that the combination “could potentially physically overwhelm the dilution refrigerator’s cooling capacity, but there is no further discussion or rationale to support the assumed scenario proposed by applicant.
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(s) 1, 3, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdo (US 9,589,236), in view of Ohashi et al. (US 2015/0263406).
In regard to Claim 1:
Abdo discloses, in Figure 4A, a quantum computing apparatus comprising: one or more frequency sources (470); a dilution refrigerator (491); a quantum processor (405); a directional coupler (488); and a filter (493), wherein the quantum processor (405), the directional coupler (488), and the filter (493) are disposed within or in thermal equilibrium with a mixing chamber of the dilution refrigerator (491, Column 14: lines 51-62), and wherein the one or more frequency sources (470) are connected to the quantum processor (405) via the apparatus (498), but does not disclose an absorptive low pass filter.
Ohashi discloses, in Figure 12, an absorptive low pass filter (30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the low pass filter taught by Ohashi with the filter taught by Abdo, in order to allow for suppression of changes in the power of the coupling signal or changes in the coupling of the directional coupler 1 with increases in the frequency of the high frequency signal (Ohashi Paragraph 0054).
In regard to Claim 3:
Abdo further discloses, in Figure 4A, the quantum computing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the directional coupler comprises a stripline directional coupler (Column 12: lines 26-29).
In regard to Claim 10:
Abdo further discloses, in Figure 4A, the quantum computing apparatus of claim 1, comprising: an enclosure (491, enclosure of the dilution refrigerator), wherein the directional coupler (488) and the absorptive low pass filter (493) are embedded in the enclosure (Column 13: lines 17-25); and a first connector and a second connector connected to a first port and a third port of the directional coupler (488), respectively, for connecting to a printed circuit board (PCB) (Column 13: lines 9-16).
In regard to Claim 11:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 1 and 10 above, except for wherein the enclosure has a thermal conductivity larger than 10-5 W/m/K. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have an enclosure has a thermal conductivity larger than 10-5 W/m/K, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have an enclosure has a thermal conductivity larger than 10-5 W/m/K, in order to allow for a continuous refrigeration method to reach temperatures below 0.3 K (Abdo Column 13: lines 17-25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-9 and 12-16 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John W Poos whose telephone number is (571)270-5077. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/JOHN W POOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights