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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10-12 are 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.
The scope of Claim 10 only requires a plurality of qubits, at least one of which constitutes a part of the arrangement of Claim 1. Thus, Claim 10 requires only qubits, and only part of the arrangement of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 10 fails to include all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected for inheriting and not curing the deficiency of Claim 10, upon which they depend.
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.
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 8, 9, 11 and 12 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation the connection between said qubit and said other circuit element. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, as no connection has been previously recited. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as if it had read a connection between …
Claim 11 recites the limitation said other circuit elements. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because only one another circuit element has previously been recited. It is unclear what said other circuit elements to each other could mean. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted only as requiring a plurality of qubits in an array.
Dependent claims are rejected for inheriting the indefiniteness of a parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-5, 7, 10-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al., “Generating entanglement among microwave photos and qubits in multiple cavities coupled by a superconducting qubit” (as provided by the applicant in the IDS dated 8/8/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang teaches an arrangement for making a coupling to a qubit (Yang, pg. 2, Fig. 1(b), where circles denote qubits coupled to each other via lines representing resonators) comprising: said qubit, another circuit element, which is to be controllably coupled to said qubit and decoupled therefrom for performing quantum computing operations (Yang, pg. 2, Fig. 1(b), where circles denote qubits and qubits can be coupled or decoupled to each other, see pg. 4, 2nd paragraph, “adjust the level spacing of the qubit A such that it is decoupled from all resonators”), and a network of resonators between said qubit and other circuit elements, wherein said network of resonators comprises a plurality of resonators, comprising linear or nonlinear resonators or both (Yang, pg. 2, Fig. 1(b), where circles denote qubits coupled to each other via a network of lines representing resonators, which are inherently either linear or nonlinear) and wherein at least two of said plurality of resonators have an identical circuit topology but different frequency responses (Yang, pg. 2, Fig. 1(b), where each resonator lies between four qubits, i.e. an identical circuit topology and have different frequency responses, see caption, “the red, yellow, green, and blue colors in (b) represent four different resonator frequencies”).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang teaches the arrangement according to Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). The rejection has already been shown to teach wherein said other circuit element is another qubit (any other circle in Fig. 1(b)).
Regarding Claim 4, Yang teaches the arrangement according to Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). The rejection has already been shown to teach wherein said network of resonators comprises said plurality of resonators coupled in series between said qubit and said other circuit element (Yang, pg. 2, Fig. 1(b) where any path between two qubits consists of a plurality of edges/resonators in series).
Regarding Claim 5, Yang teaches the arrangement according to Claim 4 (and thus the rejection of Claim 4 is incorporated). The rejection has already been shown to teach wherein there are at least six of said resonators coupled in series between said cubit and said other circuit element (Yang, pg. 2, Fig. 1(b) where any path between the top right and bottom lefts qubits comprises at least six resonators in series).
Regarding Claim 7, Yang teaches the arrangement according to Claim 4 (and thus the rejection of Claim 4 is incorporated). Yang further teaches wherein each of said resonators comprises a qubit (Yang, pg. 4, Fig. 3, with three qubits in each cavity/resonator, see Abstract, “resonators (a.k.a. cavities) … qubit coupled cavities, which multiple qubits embedded in each cavity”).
Claim 10 is broader than each of Claim 3 and Claim 7, and is thus rejected for reasons set forth in the rejections of those Claims (also see Yang, pg. 2, Fig. 1(b)).
Regarding Claim 11, Yang teaches the quantum computing system according to Claim 10 (and thus the rejection of Claim 10 is incorporated). Yang further teaches said plurality of qubits form an array, and each qubit in said array constitutes part of the arrangement, the qubits in said array constitutes said other circuit elements to each other (Yang, pg. 2, Fig. 1(b) where each circle is a different qubit).
Regarding Claim 12, Yang teaches a quantum computing system according to Claim 11 (and thus the rejection of Claim 11 is incorporated). Yang further teaches wherein said qubits in said array are addressable (a limitation whose broadest reasonable interpretation is that the qubits are capable of being assigned addresses) through a grid addressing scheme that involves a grid of addressing lines in at least two distinct directions through said array (Yang, pg. 2, Fig. 1(b), where assigning a vertical and horizontal index to each row and column indicates that the qubits are addressable in this manner) so that combinations of control signals through said grid addressing scheme are configured to selectively define, which qubits in said array become coupled together through said network of resonators (Yang, pg. 4, 3rd paragraph, “It should be mentioned that for superconducting qubits, the level spacing can be readily adjusted by varying external control parameters (e.g. gate voltage and/or magnetic flux for the superconducting charge qubits”).
Regarding Claim 13, Yang teaches a method for making a coupling to a qubit (Yang, title, “Generating entanglement among microwave photons and qubits in multiple cavities coupled by a superconducting qubit”) comprising: controllably coupling and decoupling said qubit with another circuit element for performing quantum computing operations (Yang, pg. 2, Fig. 1(b), where circles denote qubits and qubits can be coupled or decoupled to each other, see pg. 4, 2nd paragraph, “adjust the level spacing of the qubit A such that it is decoupled from all resonators”), and conveying said controllable coupling through a network of resonators between said qubit and said other circuit element (Yang, Abstract, “generating entangled coherent states of four microwave resonators … to build scalable quantum networks for quantum information processing”), wherein said network of resonators comprises a plurality of resonators, comprising linear or nonlinear resonators or both (Yang, pg. 2, Fig. 1(b), where circles denote qubits coupled to each other via a network of lines representing resonators, which are inherently either linear or nonlinear) and wherein at least two of said plurality of resonators have an identical circuit topology but different frequency responses (Yang, pg. 2, Fig. 1(b), where each resonator lies between four qubits, i.e. an identical circuit topology and have different frequency responses, see caption, “the red, yellow, green, and blue colors in (b) represent four different resonator frequencies”).
Regarding Claim 14, Yang teaches the method according to Claim 13 (and thus the rejection of Claim 13 is incorporated). Yang further teaches wherein said resonators are static resonators (Yang, Abstract, “e.g. cavities” are static resonators) and said controllable coupling and decoupling are done by tuning the operating frequence of at least one of said qubit and said other circuit element (Yang, pg. 4, 2nd paragraph, “adjust the level spacing of the qubit A such that it is decoupled from all resonators”).
Regarding Claim 15, Yang teaches the method according to Claim 13 (and thus the rejection of Claim 13 is incorporated). Yang further teaches wherein among said plurality of resonators is at least one frequency-tunable resonator, and said controllable coupling and decoupling involve tuning the resonant frequency or frequencies of such at least one frequency-tunable resonator (Yang, pg. 2, 2nd paragraph, “one tunable superconducting qubit is needed”).
Regarding Claim 17, Yang teaches the method according to Claim 5 (and thus the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated). Yang further teaches wherein each of said resonators comprises a qubit (Yang, pg. 4, Fig. 3, with three qubits in each cavity/resonator, see Abstract, “resonators (a.k.a. cavities) … qubit coupled cavities, which multiple qubits embedded in each cavity”).
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Messinger et al., “Left-handed superlattice metamaterials for circuit-QED” (as provided by the applicant in the IDS dated 8/8/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Messinger teaches an arrangement for making a coupling to a qubit (Messinger, pg. 2, Fig. 1, “Composite left-handed superlattice and right-handed transmission line coupled to a qubit”) comprising: said qubit, another circuit element, which is to be controllably coupled to said qubit and decoupled therefrom for performing quantum computing operations (Messinger, pg. 2, Fig. 1, “Composite left-handed superlattice and right-handed transmission line coupled to a qubit” & Abstract, “Quantum simulation is a promising field where a controllable system is used to mimic another system of interest”), and a network of resonators between said qubit and other circuit elements, wherein said network of resonators comprises a plurality of resonators, comprising linear or nonlinear resonators or both (Messinger, pg. 2, Fig. 1, where each LC cell is a resonator, see pg. 3, 1st column, “resonance frequency of the first cell”) and wherein at least two of said plurality of resonators have an identical circuit topology but different frequency responses (Messinger, pg. 2, Fig. 1, where each LC cell has identical topology but different frequencies, see pg. 2, 1st column, last paragraph, “left-handed LC cells with different frequencies”).
Regarding Claim 4, Messinger teaches the arrangement according to Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). The rejection has already been shown to teach wherein said network of resonators comprises said plurality of resonators coupled in series between said qubit and said other circuit element (Messinger, pg. 2, Fig. 1, the LC cells are in series with each other).
Regarding Claim 8, Messinger teaches the arrangement according to Claim 4 (and thus the rejection of Claim 4 is incorporated). Messinger further teaches wherein said network of resonators comprises at least one serially coupled LC resonator as a part of the connection between said qubit and said other circuit element and at least one LC resonator between said connection and ground (Messinger, pg. 2, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Messinger teaches the arrangement according to Claim 8 (and thus the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated). Messinger further teaches three LC resonators between said connection and ground, one of which is coupled between a middle point of said serially coupled LC resonator and ground (Messinger, pg. 2, Fig. 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Hsu et al., “Tunable refrigerator for nonlinear quantum electronic circuits” (as provided by the applicant in the IDS of 8/8/2024).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang teaches the arrangement according to Claim 1 (and thus the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated). Yang does not teach any quantum circuit refrigerator, but Hsu teaches a quantum circuit refrigerator (Hsu, title, “Tunable refrigerator for nonlinear quantum electric circuits”) which is tunable-ly coupled to a qubit (Hsu, pg. 3, Fig. 2, “a quantum-circuit refrigerator capacitively coupled to an arbitrary quantum-circuit network”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple a quantum circuit refrigerator, such as that of Hsu, to the qubit-resonator network of Yang (for example, as Hsu couples their refrigerator to a quantum circuit of qubits and resonators in Fig. 2). The motivation to do so is “for setting different qubit types to fidelities above 99.99% in a few or tens of nanoseconds” (Hsu, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 6, Yang teaches the arrangement according to Claim 4 (and thus the rejection of Claim 4 is incorporated). Yang does not teach wherein each of said resonators comprises a capacitively shunted Josephson junction, but Hsu teaches this limitation (Hsu, pg. 3, Fig. 2, where the boxes in between qubits represent resonators, and the caption reads “a blue box connecting a pair of nodes denotes a capacitor, an inductor, a Josephson junction, or parallel combinations thereof”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Josephson junctions in the resonators of Yang. The motivation to do so is that they are known to perform the same function and may be implemented in the qubits in the cavities of Yang.
Regarding Claim 16, Yang teaches the arrangement according to Claim 5 (and thus the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated). Yang does not teach wherein each of said resonators comprises a capacitively shunted Josephson junction, but Hsu teaches this limitation (Hsu, pg. 3, Fig. 2, where the boxes in between qubits represent resonators, and the caption reads “a blue box connecting a pair of nodes denotes a capacitor, an inductor, a Josephson junction, or parallel combinations thereof”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Josephson junctions in the resonators of Yang. The motivation to do so is that they are known to perform the same function and may be implemented in the qubits in the cavities of Yang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M SMITH whose telephone number is (469)295-9104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm Pacific.
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, Kakali Chaki can be reached at (571) 272-3719. 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.
/BRIAN M SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2122
Prosecution Insights