DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-10), species 1 without traverse in the reply filed on 7/22/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
The claim listing does not correctly list the claims as previously amended. See claim(s) 4, 7, 8, 13-15, 17, 18. The claims are examined based on the dependency of the claims filed on 7/25/2024. The applicant should list the claims correctly with the correct status identifiers to avoid notices of non-compliant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, see the claim interpretation section for the issues that cause indefiniteness issues to arise.
The recitation, “dilution units disposed inside each of the cryostats and operable to cool at least a subset of the temperature-controlled flanges” is indefinite since the recitation is not clear. The disclosure shows a single dilution unit in each cryostat not a plurality of dilution units in each of the cryostats.
In regard to claim 5, the recitation, “high vacuum pump” is indefinite since there is no way to discern what vacuum is considered “high”.
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.
Claim limitation “Dilution unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, 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. The description (pg. pub. para. 44) does not make clear what structure is optional and what structure is essential to meet the recitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “flow control devices” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, 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. The description (pg. pub. para. 54) does not make clear if both or either valves and pumps are required. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “pumping arrangement” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and is interpreted as pumps and valves or just pumps (pg. pub. para. 54).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doherty (US 2024/0431074). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Doherty teaches a dilution refrigerator (see all figures and whole disclosure, para. 7 “quantum processing circuitry cooling system”) comprising: a plurality of cryostats (Fig. 2, 4A, 4B vacuum housings holding quantum computers that are each cooled by dilution units, hereafter vacuum housings) each comprising a plurality of temperature-controlled flanges (para. 34 “thermal mounting flange”) inside a vacuum chamber (“independent vacuum housing”-para. 34; chamber 4 - Fig. 2), the temperature-controlled flanges (thermal mounting flanges) cooled to progressively lower temperatures (para. 34, 38, Fig. 4B, 7, see 1.5K, 4K, 30K 100K); dilution units (para. 38 “dilution unit”; in each independent vacuum housing) disposed inside each of the cryostats (vacuum housings) and operable to cool at least a subset of the temperature-controlled flanges (thermal mounting flange); a gas handling system (gas handling system, Fig. 4B, 5, 7) fluidly coupled to the plurality of cryostats (vacuum housings), the gas handling system (gas handling system) comprising a flow circuit (see flow lines; para. 34-35) and flow control devices (para. 35 pumps and valves) interconnecting a gas mixture reservoir (tank, para. 35) with the dilution units (dilution units); and a controller (processing circuitry 16; para. 35) coupled to the gas handling system (gas handling system, para. 35) and configured for operating the flow control devices (pumps and valves) in accordance with a sequence of operations that open and close paths in the flow circuit (flow lines) that allow a gas mixture to circulate between the gas mixture reservoir (tank) and the dilution units (dilution units).
In regard to claim 4, Doherty teaches that the flow control devices (para. 35) comprise: a second pumping arrangement (at least one pump - para. 35); a first set of valves (para. 35 valves of “system outlet control” - Fig. 5) coupled between the gas mixture reservoir (Tank) and the second pumping arrangement (at least one pump); and a second set of valves (para. 35 valves of “system inlet control” - Fig. 5) coupled between the second pumping arrangement (at least one pump) and the dilution units (dilution units) of the cryostats (independent vacuum housings).
In regard to claim 5, Doherty teaches that the second pumping arrangement (see Fig. 4B, 5) comprises a high vacuum pump (first of plurality shown, interpreted as a vacuum pump having a higher vacuum than some other vacuum pressure), a backing pump (Second of plurality shown), and a condensing pump (third of plurality shown).
In regard to claim 8, Doherty teaches that the flow circuit (flow lines) and flow control devices (pumps and valves) define, for each cryostat (vacuum housing), paths comprising: a mixture storing path (path into “system outlet control”); a mixture admission path (path through “system inlet control”); and a mixture circulating path (path between these two, including at least one pump).
In regard to claim 9, Doherty teaches that at least two of the paths share at least one of the flow control devices (both the mixture storing path and the mixture admission path identified above both have valves).
In regard to claim 10, Doherty teaches that all of the paths share at least one of the flow control devices (the identified paths all share a compressor; i.e. a compressor is used to provide flow through all of the identified paths).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty (US 2024/0431074) in view of (JP H02185681) hereafter JP681. See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Doherty teaches most of the claim limitations but does not appear to explicitly teach that the gas handling system comprises a vacuum generator having a first pumping arrangement operable to apply a vacuum to each said vacuum chamber for evacuation thereof; wherein the first pumping arrangement comprises an evacuation valve per cryostat, coupled to a respective one of the vacuum chambers, and a first set of pumps configured for evacuating the cryostats via a respective evacuation valve. However, it is routine and ordinary to evacuate vacuum spaces with a vacuum pumping arrangement. JP681 teaches a vacuum generator (see whole disclosure) having a first pumping arrangement (see valves and pump 7) operable to apply a vacuum to several vacuum chambers (1, 2) for evacuation thereof; wherein the first pumping arrangement comprises an evacuation valve (3, 4) coupled to a respective one of the vacuum chambers (1, 2), and a first set of pumps (7) configured for evacuating the vacuum chambers (1, 2) via a respective evacuation valve (3, 4). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Doherty with the vacuum generator of JP681 for the purpose of providing selective evacuation with greater ease of control (page 2) and backflow prevention (page 2).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty (US 2024/0431074) in view of Trepp (DE 1263788). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Doherty teaches most of the claim limitations, including at least three pumps, and that the second set of valves (para. 35 valves of “system inlet control”) comprise at least one inflow valve (valve on fluid to each) per cryostat (each independent vacuum housing) and at least one outflow valve (valve on fluid from each) per cryostat (each independent vacuum housing) operable to regulate flow in and out of the dilution units (dilution units of each vacuum housing) but does not appear explicitly teach a first set of valves between the gas mixture reservoir (Tank) and the second pumping arrangement (at least one pump), wherein the first set of valves comprises at least one mixture supply valve and at least one mixture storing valve operable to regulate flow in and out of the mixture reservoir (tank). However, it is routine and ordinary to provide valving for isolating a storage tank. Trepp teaches a gas reservoir (12) having a first set of valves (13, 14) between the gas reservoir (12) and a second pumping arrangement (5). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the gas handling system of Doherty with a first set of valves between the gas mixture reservoir (tank) and the second pumping arrangement (pumps) having at least one mixture supply valve and at least one mixture storing valve for the purpose of providing the ability to isolate the gas mixture reservoir from either of the receiving and delivery portions of the gas handing system to provide greater control.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty (US 2024/0431074) in view of Rong (CN 213574607) and similarly
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty (US 2024/0431074) in view of Trepp (DE 1263788) and Rong (CN 213574607).
See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Doherty and Doherty, as modified, teach most of the claim limitations (see above) but does not appear to explicitly teach that the condensing pump is isolated from a main circulation loop of the flow circuit by isolation valves. However, it is routine and ordinary to provide additional pumping capacity with additional pumps and to provide isolation valving. Rong teaches a high vacuum pump (1), a backing pump (2), and a condensing pump (3); the condensing pump (3) is isolated from a main circulation loop (lines with 1, 2) by isolation valves (13, 7). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the gas handling system of Doherty with the pumps and isolation valves of Rong for the purpose of providing efficient gas pumping with flexible capacity for various phases of operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)-272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights