DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The three information disclosure statement(s) filed on various dates is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) filed on 05/14/2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings do not satisfy the requirement of satisfactory reproduction characteristics. As stated in 37 CFR 1.84(l): All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
In the present case the Figures contain lines, numbers, and symbols which are not dense and dark, nor uniformly thick and well-defined such that they are rendered illegible. See esp. FIGS. 7-8, as originally filed, appear to be a scan or photocopy of a document, rather than an original document itself.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
1. A typo (underlined) in claims 2 & 15: “…the ferroic material includes a perovskite material having an ABX3 structure (A: positive ion, B: metal ion, C: halogen ion or oxygen)…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
1. Claims 1 & 10 limitation “a Rabi frequency controller configured to control…” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This limitation, and in particular the controlling function thereof, does not have sufficient structure.
2. Claim 3 limitation “a temperature control device configured to provide…” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This is interpreted to correspond to: a micro temperature varying unit (¶0048 of PUGPUB (US 2025/0355315 A1) of originally-filed specification). For purposes of prosecution, the Examiner will consider known equivalents.
3. Claim 7 limitation “a qubit generating unit configured to generate…” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This limitation, and in particular the generating function thereof, does not have sufficient structure.
Claims 10-13 limitation “a quantum state control device configured to control and/or provide…” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This limitation, and in particular the controlling and/or providing function(s) thereof, does not have sufficient structure.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted by the Examiner to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. See MPEP § 2164.08(a), citing In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claim 1 does not utilize the term “means”, but the recited claim term “a Rabi frequency controller” is a generic placeholder that fails to recite sufficiently definite structure. Moreover, the remainder of Claim 1 recites functional language “configured to control…” without sufficient structure for performing said function. Thus, the Examiner concludes that Claim 1 is interpreted in means-plus-function format. However, the claim is drawn to a single element (a controller) performing the recited function.
As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most one means known to the inventor. Therefore, the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for all possible means for satisfying the claimed function. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The factors considered when determining if the disclosure satisfies the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is undue include, but are not limited to: 1) nature of the invention, 2) state of the prior art, 3) relative skill of those in the art, 4) level of predictability, 5) existence of working samples, 6) breadth of claims, 7) amount of direction or guidance by the inventor, and 8) quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention. in re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The claim recites a singular element of “a Rabi frequency controller” performing the function “configured to control…”. Thus, there are innumerable possibilities of structures that may satisfy the claimed function.
The nature of the invention is drawn to optical systems. The state of the art (see e.g., US 2022/0187634 A1) discloses various polariton devices comprising specific arrangements of layered materials ensconcing a cavity whose optical properties and quantum effects give rise to polaritons under certain excitation conditions. Such a device and/or system may be utilized in the generation of qubits for quantum information applications (see e.g., US 2022/0407213 A1). The level of skill in the art is related to the areas of quantum emitters, photonics, and quantum computing, which is high due to the intricate and unpredictable nature of optical systems and design.
The specification discloses in ipsis verbis the generic claim language of “a Rabi frequency controller” with no further elucidation regarding any corresponding structure/material/acts to perform the claimed functions (¶0047-49 of PUGPUB (US 2025/0355315 A1) of originally-filed specification). Thus, the entirety of the disclosed embodiments/examples represent infinitely many possible structures of Claim 1. Applicants’ claims are excessively broad due to failing to recite a combination of elements as required by the statutory provision.
Therefore, based on the discussions above concerning the art’s recognition of the intricate nature of optical and quantum systems and design, the specification fails to teach the skilled artisan how to use the claimed methods without resorting to undue experimentation to determine such a controller satisfying the claimed condition.
For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make or use an RF driver while satisfying the claimed functions of claims 2-9. Such a system would be encompassed by the claims, but could not be made or used by one having ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation.
Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 1 fails to comply with the enablement requirement and is thus rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent on Claim 1 and fail to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10 recite: “a Rabi frequency controller” and/or “a Rabi frequency control device”. Additionally, claims 14, 16 and 17 recite limitations directed to “the Rabi frequency is controlled according to…”. It is unclear what is meant by “a Rabi frequency controller”, since the Rabi frequency of a given quantum/material system is the frequency of oscillations between occupation of two quantum states when the system is driven by a resonant applied field. Such a frequency is the result of light-matter interaction under nonequilibrium conditions and is dependent on the specifics of the driving conditions of the quantum system. In the present case, it is unclear in what manner the Rabi frequency can be controlled. The as-filed disclosure appears to be completely silent with regard to any structure/material/acts capable of controlling the Rabi frequency of the claimed polariton device at hand. Furthermore, the present claim language (and the instant disclosure) fails to specify any driving conditions that would result in Rabi oscillations of the polaritons in the claimed system, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear and indefinite. See also indefiniteness rejection detailed further below due to corresponding 112(f) claim interpretation. For the purposes of examination, the limitations will be treated as “a stimulus to the gain layer resulting in a Rabi frequency of the polariton device”.
2. Claim 1 recites (underlined for emph.) “a cavity including a gain layer including a ferroic material that undergoes a phase transition into an asymmetrical crystal structure in response to an external stimulus… a Rabi frequency controller configured to control a Rabi frequency of the polariton device by providing a stimulus to the gain layer”. Claim 3 recites: “a temperature control device configured to provide a temperature change stimulus to the gain layer, wherein the Rabi frequency controller controls the Rabi frequency of the polariton device by changing the temperature change stimulus provided to the gain layer through the temperature control device.” Similarly, Claim 7 recites “the Rabi frequency controller controls a probability distribution of an upper polariton or a lower polariton of the polariton device by providing a stimulus to the gain layer”. Claims 5, 7, 10, 14, 16-17 and 19 recite similar limitations directed to the myriad of stimuli. There appears to be unclear antecedent basis for the two stimuli as recited in the base claims, i.e., the distinction between “an external stimulus” and “a stimulus” (as recited in claims 1, 10 and 14), especially in light of claims 3, 5, 7, 16-17 and 19 (which depend upon the base claims) further limiting the stimuli as recited in claims 1, 10 and 14. Claim 7 limitation “a stimulus to the gain layer” renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite because it is unclear which stimulus claim is referring to or if this is a newly recited stimulus that is to be differentiated from the stimuli recited in claim 1. Similarly, claim 3 reciting “a temperature change stimulus” renders unclear whether this stimulus further limits “a stimulus to the gain layer” by the Rabi frequency controller as recited in claim 1, or if it refers to a newly recited term. See MPEP 2173.05(e) citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Examiner respectfully requests the claims be amended to reflect clear antecedent basis such that the claim scope may be reasonably ascertainable. For the purposes of examination, the limitations will be treated as “one or more stimuli”.
3. The following limitations (A-C) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function:
A. Regarding Claims 1 and 10 limitation: “a Rabi frequency controller configured to control…”, the specification is silent to any definite structure required to meet the functional limitations of a Rabi frequency controller beyond merely reciting in ipsis verbis the generic placeholder: “The Rabi frequency controller 13 may control the Rabi frequency of the polariton device 1 by providing a stimulus to the gain layer 100” (¶0047-49 of PUGPUB (US 2025/0355315 A1).
B. Regarding Claim 7 limitation “a qubit generating unit configured to generate…”, the specification is silent to any definite structure required to meet the functional limitations of the qubit generating unit.
C. Regarding Claims 10-13 limitation “a quantum state control device configured to control and/or provide…”, the specification is silent to any definite structure required to meet the functional limitations of the quantum state control device.
Therefore, Claims 1, 7, 10-13 are rendered indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-9, 11-13 and 15-20 inherit the deficiencies of the base claims respectively, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 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, 10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (NPL titled “Exciton-Polariton Properties in Planar Microcavity of Millimeter-Sized Two-Dimensional Perovskite” (2020)), as evidenced by Wu et al. (NPL titled “Pressure‐Induced Broadband Emission of 2D Organic–Inorganic Hybrid Perovskite (PEA)2PbBr4…” (2018)).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Zhang discloses: A polariton device (FIGS. 1 & 3) comprising:
a cavity including a gain layer including a ferroic material that undergoes a phase transition into an asymmetrical crystal structure in response to an external stimulus (p. 5083 c. 2: the 2D (PEA)2PbBr4 perovskite crystal sheet; the Examiner notes that it is commonly known in the art that 2D (PEA)2PbBr4 crystalline structure undergoes a phase transition leading to lattice asymmetry in response to an external stimulus such as pressure, stress, etc.; see evidentiary reference of Wu et al.’s NPL titled “Pressure‐Induced Broadband Emission of 2D Organic–Inorganic Hybrid Perovskite (PEA)2PbBr4…” (2018)); an upper reflective layer formed on top of the cavity; a lower reflective layer formed below the cavity (p. 5085 c. 1: The layered 2D perovskite sheets [gain layer] naturally form F−P optical cavities with two surface planes or side faces serving as mirrors [upper and lower reflective layer]; p. 5082 c. 2: The layered 2D perovskite sheets exhibit evident cavity polariton modes.); and a Rabi frequency controller configured to control a Rabi frequency of the polariton device by providing a stimulus to the gain layer (p. 5082 c. 2: Rabi splitting energy (Ω) evaluated from the energy-wavevector (E−k) dispersion relation of exciton-polariton coupling was about 259 ± 10 meV; p. 5086 c. 1-2: The Rabi splitting energy can be evaluated by a minimum vertical distance between lower and upper polariton branches of E−k dispersions.).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang discloses the polariton device according to Claim 1, as above. Zhang further discloses: the ferroic material includes a perovskite material having an ABX3 structure (A: positive ion, B: metal ion, C: halogen ion or oxygen) (p. 5083 c. 2: the 2D (PEA)2PbBr4 perovskite crystal sheet).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang discloses the polariton device according to Claim 1, as above. Zhang further discloses: further comprising: a temperature control device configured to provide a temperature change stimulus to the gain layer, wherein the Rabi frequency controller controls the Rabi frequency of the polariton device by changing the temperature change stimulus provided to the gain layer through the temperature control device (p. 5083 c. 1: The sample was mounted on the cold finger of a Janis closed-cycle cryostat, providing a varying temperature range from 60 K to room temperature (293 K); p. 5084 c. 2: normalized PL color curves at typical temperatures clearly show that the emission spectrum depends on the temperature. It is noted that the PL spectra are asymmetric with a lower-energy PL tail, which can be ascribed to the multiple excitonic states, the coupling of exciton to photons, and the radiative recombination of trap states due to the noticeable quantum and dielectric confinement effects in layered 2D perovskites.30 With decreasing temperature, the emission peak is blue shifted from 411 nm at room temperature to 407 nm at 60 K, while full width at half maximum (FWHM)is correspondingly reduced from ∼15 to 3 nm (Figure 3e).).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang discloses the polariton device according to Claim 3, as above. Zhang further discloses: further comprising: a substrate having an upper surface supporting the lower reflective layer, wherein the temperature control device is formed to be attached to a lower surface of the substrate (p. 5082 c. 2: The glass substrate; p. 5083 c. 1: The sample was mounted with silver paint on the cold finger of a Janis closed-cycle cryostat, providing a varying temperature range from 60 K to room temperature (293 K)).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Zhang discloses: A polariton system including a polariton device, the polariton system comprising: a polariton device including a gain layer including a ferroic material that undergoes a phase transition into an asymmetrical crystal structure in response to an external stimulus; a Rabi frequency control device configured to control a Rabi frequency of the polariton device by providing a stimulus to the polariton device (see claim 1 rejection supra); and a quantum state control device configured to control a quantum state based on the controlled Rabi frequency (p. 5087 c. 1: F−P cavity polariton modes, exhibiting obvious spectra oscillation modes (Figure 5a). The resonant F−P peaks can be easily observed in 2D perovskite sheets at the excitation power as low as 2 μW (Figure 5)…the oscillation modes induced by the exciton-polariton coupling; excitation by He−Cd gas laser).
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood, Zhang discloses: A method of manufacturing a polariton device, the method comprising: forming a lower reflective layer on the substrate; forming a cavity, including a gain layer including a ferroic material that undergoes a phase transition into an asymmetrical crystal structure in response to an external stimulus, on the lower reflective layer; and forming an upper reflective layer on the cavity, wherein the Rabi frequency of the polariton device is controlled according to a stimulus provided to the gain layer (see rejection of claim 1 supra); providing a substrate.
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang discloses the method according to Claim 14, as above. Zhang further discloses: wherein: the ferroic material includes a perovskite material having an ABX3 structure (A: positive ion, B: metal ion, C: halogen ion or oxygen) (see rejection of claim 2 supra).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhang discloses the method according to Claim 14, as above. Zhang further discloses: forming a temperature control device on a lower surface of the substrate, wherein the Rabi frequency of the polariton device is controlled according to a temperature change stimulus provided to the gain layer through the temperature control device (see rejection of claim 3 supra).
Claims 1, 2, 5-6, 8-9, 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (NPL titled “Electrically Pumped Polarized Exciton-Polaritons in a Halide Perovskite Microcavity” (2022)), as evidenced by Boziki et al. (NPL titled “Molecular Origin of the Asymmetric Photoluminescence Spectra of CsPbBr3 at Low Temperature” (2021)).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Wang discloses: A polariton device (FIG. 1a-c) comprising:
a cavity including a gain layer including a ferroic material that undergoes a phase transition into an asymmetrical crystal structure in response to an external stimulus (p. 5176 c. 1: we realize an electrically pumped polariton light-emitting device by assembling inorganic perovskite CsPbBr3 microplates [gain layer]…a high-quality microcavity; the Examiner notes that it is well known in the art that CsPbBr3 perovskite crystalline structure undergoes a phase transition leading to lattice asymmetry in response to an external stimulus such as temperature, etc.; see evidentiary reference of Boziki et al.’s NPL titled “Molecular Origin of the Asymmetric Photoluminescence Spectra of CsPbBr3 at Low Temperature” (2021)); an upper reflective layer formed on top of the cavity; a lower reflective layer formed below the cavity (FIG. 1; p. 5176 c. 2: a micrometer-scale silver flake onto the hybrid structure (Figure 1a), acting as a top mirror… The bottom DBR mirror…The bare microcavity composed of the bottom DBR and the transferred silver mirror shows a resonance); and a Rabi frequency controller configured to control a Rabi frequency of the polariton device by providing a stimulus to the gain layer (p. 5178 c. 1: the Rabi splitting energies, ℏΩ, between the LP branch and the UP branch along the a axis and b axis, which are 53.28 and 36.66 meV, respectively; p. 5177 c. 1: electrically pumped lower polariton branches, LPa (LPb) is well resonant with the cavity…their large Rabi splitting).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang discloses the polariton device according to Claim 1, as above. Wang further discloses: the ferroic material includes a perovskite material having an ABX3 structure (A: positive ion, B: metal ion, C: halogen ion or oxygen) (p. 5176 c. 1: inorganic perovskite CsPbBr3 microplates).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang discloses the polariton device according to Claim 1, as above. Wang further discloses: an electrical control device configured to provide an electrical change stimulus to the gain layer (see FIG. 1b showing electrical control device configuration scheme to provide an electrical change stimulus to the CsPbBr3 layer; FIG. 1 caption (p. 5176): The applied voltage Vbias is 20 V with a frequency (f) of 1 MHz for EL measurements), wherein the Rabi frequency controller controls the Rabi frequency of the polariton device by changing an electrical change stimulus provided to the gain layer through the electrical control device (p. 5176 c. 1: electrically pumped polariton light-emitting device based on a CsPbBr3 microplate; p. 5177 c. 1: electrically pumped lower polariton branches, LPa (LPb) is well resonant with the cavity…and due to their large Rabi splitting; p. 5178 c. 2: it is realized by electrical means, which not only brings about the linearly polarized light source but also opens up a way to control the polaritons and their polarizations in perovskites electrically; p. 5177 c. 2: By applying a bipolar square voltage with a Vbias value of 20 V and an f value of 1 MHz, we obtain strong EL. The angle-resolved EL map (right panel in Figure 2b) matches well with the PL map, which firmly illustrates that the electrically pumped strong-coupling regime has been reached).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang discloses the polariton device according to Claim 5, as above. Wang further discloses: an electrode is formed in the gain layer, and the electrical control device is electrically connected to the gain layer through the electrode (p. 5176 c. 1-2: by applying an alternating current (AC) voltage, the electrons and holes can be injected into the CsPbBr3 microplates from the FLG alternately in time but close in space…FLG electrode (marked by the black dashed line in Figure 1c).).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang discloses the polariton device according to Claim 1, as above. Wang further discloses: at least one of the upper reflective layer and the lower reflective layer is formed by alternately stacking first and second dielectric layers having different refractive indices, a refractive index of the first dielectric layer is greater than a refractive index of the second dielectric layer, the first dielectric layer includes at least one of ZnS, TiO2, Si3N4, Nb2O5, ZnSe, and Ta2O5, the second dielectric layer includes at least one of SiO2 and MgF2, and the ferroic material includes MAPbBr3, MAPbl3, MAPbCl3, CsPbBr3, or BiFeO3 (p. 5176 c. 2: The bottom DBR mirror is composed of 14.5 pairs of Ta2O5/SiO2 structures, showing a reflectivity of over 99.94% and a stopband ranging from 450 to 615 nm (Figure S1a); p. 5179 c. 2: The bottom DBR is composed of 14.5 pairs of SiO2/Ta2O5 deposited on silicon substrates via ion beam sputtering… The CsPbBr3 microplates were synthesized on mica substrates as described in our previous work and transferred by the PDMS).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang discloses the polariton device according to Claim 8, as above. Wang further discloses: the upper reflective layer is formed on top of the cavity according to a direct deposition method (p. 5179 c. 1: a 30 nm silver film was evaporated on the Si/SiO2 substrates using electron beam evaporation (EBE) with a deposition rate of 1 Å/s).
Examiner’s Notes
Regarding claim 9, the Applicant is respectfully advised that “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” See MPEP § 2113, Section I, citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966. Nonetheless, the Examiner has considered the structure implied by the process steps. See also In re Nordt Dev. Co., 881 F.3d 1371,1375-76, 125 USPQ2d 1817, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood, Wang discloses: A method of manufacturing a polariton device, the method comprising: forming a lower reflective layer on the substrate; forming a cavity, including a gain layer including a ferroic material that undergoes a phase transition into an asymmetrical crystal structure in response to an external stimulus, on the lower reflective layer; and forming an upper reflective layer on the cavity, wherein the Rabi frequency of the polariton device is controlled according to a stimulus provided to the gain layer (see rejection of claim 1 supra); providing a substrate (p. 5179 c. 2: silicon substrate).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang discloses the method according to Claim 14, as above. Wang further discloses: wherein: the ferroic material includes a perovskite material having an ABX3 structure (A: positive ion, B: metal ion, C: halogen ion or oxygen) (see rejection of claim 2 supra).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang discloses the method according to Claim 14, as above. Wang further discloses: wherein: the forming of the cavity further includes forming an electrode on the gain layer, and wherein the method further comprising: connecting an electrical control device through the electrode, wherein the Rabi frequency of the polariton device is controlled according to an electrical change stimulus provided to the gain layer through the electrical control device (see rejection of claims 5-6 supra).
Regarding Claim 18, Wang discloses the method according to Claim 14, as above. Wang further discloses: wherein: the forming of the upper reflective layer includes forming the upper reflective layer on the cavity according to a direct deposition method (see rejection of claim 9 supra).
Claims 1, 2, 7, 10-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forster et al. (NPL titled “Room-Temperature Strong Coupling for CsPbBr3…” (2023)), as evidenced by Boziki et al. (NPL titled “Molecular Origin of the Asymmetric Photoluminescence Spectra of CsPbBr3 at Low Temperature” (2021)).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Forster discloses: A polariton device (FIG. 1) comprising:
a cavity including a gain layer including a ferroic material that undergoes a phase transition into an asymmetrical crystal structure in response to an external stimulus (FIG. 1a: Mirror cavity with defect centered at exciton emission; section 2: Porous-silicon micro-cavities were synthetized… CsPbBr3 perovskite quantum dots [making up gain layer] were fabricated by a typical hot-injection synthesis. They were coupled to the cavities; the Examiner notes that it is well known in the art that CsPbBr3 perovskite crystalline structure undergoes a phase transition leading to lattice asymmetry in response to an external stimulus such as temperature, etc.; see evidentiary reference of Boziki et al.’s NPL titled “Molecular Origin of the Asymmetric Photoluminescence Spectra of CsPbBr3 at Low Temperature” (2021)); an upper reflective layer formed on top of the cavity; a lower reflective layer formed below the cavity (see FIG. 1a showing upper and lower reflective layer; section 3: the Fabry-Pérot mirror cavity with a defect); and a Rabi frequency controller configured to control a Rabi frequency of the polariton device by providing a stimulus to the gain layer (section 3: a Rabi splitting of around 100 meV; section 4: , controlled variation of the defect thickness, allows controlled passing from negative, to zero, to positive detuning among the perovskite exciton energy and the cavity mode at normal incidence, that is, the cavity-detuning, reaching values of around or even larger than 100 meV for the Rabi splitting).
Regarding Claim 2, Forster discloses the polariton device according to Claim 1, as above. Forster further discloses: the ferroic material includes a perovskite material having an ABX3 structure (A: positive ion, B: metal ion, C: halogen ion or oxygen) (Section 2: CsPbBr3 perovskite).
Regarding Claim 7, Forster discloses the polariton device according to Claim 1, as above. Forster further discloses: a qubit generating unit configured to generate a polariton qubit implemented based on polariton, wherein the Rabi frequency controller controls a probability distribution of an upper polariton or a lower polariton of the polariton device by providing a stimulus to the gain layer, and the qubit generating unit generates a qubit having an occupation state determined depending on the controlled probability distribution (section 1: allowing to obtain multiple strong coupling among different modes of this cavity and the perovskite excitonic system, for forming multiple polariton condensates…forming thus a pseudo logical qubit generator; section 3: For the mirror cavity with a defect, in the angular range 0-40° (Fig. 2a), both polaritons, UP and LP, could be observed for the negative detuning case… given the Fabry-Pérot geometry, at larger angles, 40-80°, strong coupling could be observed for other cavity modes, where again both polaritons could be observed. Also, a possible tunable-type quasi bound state in the continuum could be found for specific parameters of the QDs + defect layers…several polaritons within the same energy range could be observed (Fig. 2b), giving access to simultaneous optical operations by one single laser pulse).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Forster discloses: A polariton system (section 1: perovskite excitonic system) including a polariton device, the polariton system comprising: a polariton device including a gain layer including a ferroic material that undergoes a phase transition into an asymmetrical crystal structure in response to an external stimulus; a Rabi frequency control device configured to control a Rabi frequency of the polariton device by providing a stimulus to the polariton device (see claim 1 rejection supra); and a quantum state control device configured to control a quantum state based on the controlled Rabi frequency (section 4: For the mirror cavity design, controlled variation of the defect thickness, allows controlled passing from negative, to zero, to positive detuning among the perovskite exciton energy and the cavity mode at normal incidence, that is, the cavity-detuning, reaching values of around or even larger than 100 meV for the Rabi splitting).
Regarding Claim 11, Forster discloses the polariton system according to Claim 10, as above. Forster further discloses: the quantum state control device provides a qubit for a quantum computer generated by controlling the quantum state (section 1: obtain multiple strong coupling among different modes of this cavity and the perovskite excitonic system, showing its potential for forming multiple polariton condensates, forming thus a pseudo logical qubit generator).
Regarding Claim 12, Forster discloses the polariton system according to Claim 10, as above. Forster further discloses: the quantum state control device controls a quantum encryption level by controlling the quantum state (section 1: manufacturing efficient and robust qubits, protected from decoherence and allowing redundancy, which ease the path toward fault tolerant quantum computing…allowing to obtain multiple strong coupling among different modes of this cavity and the perovskite excitonic system, showing its potential for forming multiple polariton condensates [controlling quantum state], which could be used as redundancy in error-correction protocols; section 3: a pseudo-logical qubit generator ideal for efficient error correction protocols based on redundancy for quantum technologies [controlling encryption]).
Regarding Claim 13, Forster discloses the polariton system according to Claim 10, as above. Forster further discloses: the quantum state control device finely adjusts strength of an optical signal for an optical modulator by controlling the quantum state (section 1: modulate the cavity-detuning by varying the defect thickness, since the cavity mode depends on this thickness, passing then from negative, to zero, to positive detuning. This control was simulated by using the Transfer Matrix Method and validated experimentally; section 3: e tunable-type quasi bound state in the continuum could be found for specific parameters of the QDs + defect layers).
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood, Forster discloses: A method of manufacturing a polariton device, the method comprising: forming a lower reflective layer on the substrate (see FIG. 1); forming a cavity, including a gain layer including a ferroic material that undergoes a phase transition into an asymmetrical crystal structure in response to an external stimulus, on the lower reflective layer; and forming an upper reflective layer on the cavity, wherein the Rabi frequency of the polariton device is controlled according to a stimulus provided to the gain layer (see rejection of claim 1 supra); providing a substrate (section 2: “a silicon substrate”).
Regarding Claim 15, Forster discloses the method according to Claim 14, as above. Forster further discloses: wherein: the ferroic material includes a perovskite material having an ABX3 structure (A: positive ion, B: metal ion, C: halogen ion or oxygen) (see rejection of claim 2 supra).
Regarding Claim 19, Forster discloses the method according to Claim 15, as above. Forster further discloses: A method of controlling a polariton device, the method comprising: providing a polariton device manufactured by the method of manufacturing a polariton device (section 1: obtain multiple strong coupling among different modes of this cavity and the perovskite excitonic system, forming multiple polariton condensates; section 4: For the mirror cavity design, controlled variation of the defect thickness, allows controlled passing from negative, to zero, to positive detuning); and controlling a probability distribution of an upper polariton or a lower polariton of the polariton device by providing a stimulus to the polariton device (see rejection of claim 7 supra).
Regarding Claim 20, Forster discloses the method according to Claim 19, as above. Forster further discloses: further comprising: generating a qubit with an occupation state determined according to the controlled probability distribution (see rejection of claim 7 supra).
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Dzurak et al. (US 2022/0407213 A1), Colombelli et al. (US 2022/0187634 A1) disclose state of the art inventions directed to polariton devices with qubit generation device therein, and further satisfying some of the additional conditions as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-1800 (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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights