DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action addresses U.S. Application No. 18/282,900. Based upon a review of the instant application, the actual filing date of the instant application is September 9, 2024. Since the instant application was filed after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act ("AIA ") will govern this proceeding.
The instant application is a reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,838 (“the ‘838 Patent”). The ‘838 Patent matured from U.S. Patent Application 17/990299, filed November 18, 2022.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which the ‘838 Patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.
Reissue Applications
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.
The declaration contains an error statement however the error statement does not specifically identify an error in the original claims. Initially, the Examiner notes that the instant reissue application is a broadening reissue application as it adds a new statutory category (see MPEP 1412.03(III)). As such the error statement must specifically identify a claim in which the reissue application seeks to broaden and a word, phrase, or expression in an original claim and how it renders the claims wholly or partly inoperative. The Examiner also suggests the declaration include an unequivocal indication of an intent to broaden the claims (see MPEP 1412.03(IV)).
MPEP 1414(II), states in part,
“For an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must also identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden in the identification of the error that is relied upon to support the reissue application. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. In specifically identifying the error as required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify the claim being broadened and a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. The corresponding corrective action which has been taken to correct the original patent need not be identified in the oath/declaration. If the initial reissue oath/declaration "states at least one error" in the original patent, and, in addition, recites the specific corrective action taken in the reissue application, the oath/declaration would be considered acceptable, even though the corrective action statement is not required.”
35 USC 251 Rejections – Defective Declaration
Claims 1-21 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 are free from prior art rejections, however are rejected under 35 USC 251 for the reasons mentioned above.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to fairly teach or suggest, alone or in combination, a quantum device as recited in claims 1 and 20, comprising a classical processor and a quantum processor, wherein the quantum processor comprises qubits configured to be arranged in columns, and a gateable semiconductor device comprising semiconductor columns arranged between the qubit columns and assigned to respective plaquettes, and the gateable semiconductor device performing two-qubit Pauli measurements between respective qubit pairs of the plurality of qubits, and the classical processor applies a Floquet code to the quantum processor, wherein the Floquet code detects errors based on the results of the two-qubit Pauli measurements, in combination with the other recited claim limitations.
Additionally, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a method and system for performing a Floquet code on a quantum processor comprising a classical processor assigning qubits to plaquettes the qubits being arranged in columns; the classical processor performing a sequence of two-bit Pauli measurements by controlling a gateable semiconductor device to form connections between pairs of qubits in the plaquettes; and detecting using the classical processor, errors based on the results of the two-qubit Paulie measurements, in combination with the other recited claim limitations.
WO 2020/081805 to Rigetti et al. teaches a system comprising a quantum processor and a classical processor and discusses plaquette fusion techniques, however Rigitti is silent with respect to performing two-qubit Pauli measurements and detecting errors based on those measurements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERON J SORRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM 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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at 571-270-1367. 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.
Signed:
/ERON J SORRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees: /JOSEPH R POKRZYWA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights