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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the original filing of 09/16/2024. Claims 1-11 are pending and have been considered below.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
2. 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 8 recites and/or inherit recitations of limitations “means for applying an electrostatic potential so as to apply a bias voltage (ε) to the double quantum dot; and means for applying a symmetric magnetic field and an antisymmetric magnetic field between the left and right dots..” that invoke interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) due to the “means for” language used therein. In this case, the specification does not indicate what the functions recited by the means-plus-function limitations are intended to.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 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 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 8 limitations “means for applying an electrostatic potential so as to apply a bias voltage (ε) to the double quantum dot; and means for applying a symmetric magnetic field and an antisymmetric magnetic field between the left and right dots..” 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 specification fails to indicate what the recited functions are intended to be performed on. However, MPEP 2181(II)(B) indicates that “[i]n cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function” [emphasis added], wherein “[a]n algorithm is defined, for example, as ‘a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task’”. Algorithms for the following means-plus-function limitations incorporated in claim 8 which invokes 35 USC 112(f) are not adequately disclosed by the specification.
Claims 1, 2 and 13 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.
Claims 1 and 13 recites the limitation "… the second feature extracted by the second neural network and the third feature extracted by the learning support neural network come closer…" in lines 18 and 14, respectively. The term “closer” expresses an unclear scope in which the specification is not clearly conveyed the meaning of the term. The claim will be rejected as best understood.
Therefore, claims 1 and 13 as well as dependent claims 2-9 are also rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "…the scale of the network structure…" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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 112(a)
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 USC 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 USC 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 invokes 35 USC 112(f) and is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure in the specification. MPEP 2181(II)(B) indicates that “[w]hen a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 USC 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 USC 112(a).” Consequently, these claims are further rejected for inadequate written description under 35 USC 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1 recites the limitations:
determining a wave function φp of each of the quantum dots;
calculating and/or setting the antisymmetric αas and symmetric αs magnetic coupling constants using the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
26
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where φp is the wave function of the electronic orbital p, p corresponding to the left dot or the right dot, and Bi(x) is the symmetric magnetic field Bs(x) and the antisymmetric magnetic field Bas(x); and
calculating and/or setting the tunnel coupling constant (γ), and/or the symmetric magnetic coupling constant αs and/or the antisymmetric magnetic coupling constant αas such that:
PNG
media_image2.png
30
180
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
40
82
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is the desired probability of undesired transitions after applying the AC electric current, where
PNG
media_image4.png
38
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
amount to Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).” (2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B).
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “setting the bias voltage (ε) to zero volts” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“setting the bias voltage (ε) to zero volts” amount to insignificant extra solution activity like mere data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 8
Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 8 recites the limitations:
“means for applying an electrostatic potential so as to apply a bias voltage (ε) to the double quantum dot; wherein a bias voltage (ε) is maintained at zero volts and a tunnel coupling constant (γ) and/or the symmetric magnetic coupling constant αs and/or the antisymmetric magnetic coupling constant αs such that:
PNG
media_image5.png
34
264
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is the desired probability of undesired transitions after applying the AC electric current, where
PNG
media_image6.png
40
584
media_image6.png
Greyscale
where αas and αs are respectively symmetric and asymmetric magnetic coupling constants via the following formula:
PNG
media_image7.png
24
244
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, where φp is the electronic orbital wave function p (p=left dot or right dot), and Bi(x) is the symmetric Bs(x) and antisymmetric Bas(x) magnetic field” amount to Mathematical Formulas or Equations A claim that recites a numerical formula or equation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. For example, the phrase "determining a ratio of A to B" is merely using a textual replacement for the particular equation (ratio = A/B). Additionally, the phrase "calculating the force of the object by multiplying its mass by its acceleration" is using a textual replacement for the particular equation (F= ma).” (2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B).
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “means for applying a symmetric magnetic field and an antisymmetric magnetic field between the left and right dots, respectively” amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f)
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
“means for applying a symmetric magnetic field and an antisymmetric magnetic field between the left and right dots, respectively” amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 2 recites “wherein the wave functions are determined by solving a Schrödinger equation on the assumption that the system is a double-well electrostatic potential”. 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the symmetric magnetic field and/or the antisymmetric magnetic field is/are adjustable” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 4 recites “further comprising: calculating each wave functions in the absence of a magnetic field; calculating the tunnel coupling constant (γ); applying symmetric Bs(x) and antisymmetric Bas(x) magnetic fields to the electron; and calculating the asymmetric αas and symmetric αs magnetic coupling constants” 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the symmetric Bs(x) and antisymmetric Bas(x) magnetic fields are realized by magnets” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 6 recites “wherein the symmetric magnetic field Bs(x) is realized by a solenoid and the antisymmetric magnetic field Bas(x) is realized by at least one magnetically polarizing electrode” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 7 recites “wherein the bias voltage is adjustable” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 9 recites “wherein the symmetric magnetic field and/or the antisymmetric magnetic field is/are adjustable” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 10 recites “further comprising: calculating each wave functions in the absence of a magnetic field; calculating the tunnel coupling constant (γ); applying symmetric Bs(x) and antisymmetric Bas(x) magnetic fields to the electron; and calculating the asymmetric αas and symmetric αs magnetic coupling constants” 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) “Mathematical Calculations. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the at least one magnetically polarizing electrode comprises at least one grid electrode” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phenuel S. Salomon whose telephone number is (571) 270-1699. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Alternate Friday Off) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800.
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.
/PHENUEL S SALOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146
