DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.9 /. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
The Cross-Reference to Related Applications section in paragraph [0001] of the specification does not provide the status of U.S. application serial no. 18/305,152 (i.e., now U.S. Patent No. 12,141,661).
For example, paragraph [0060] refers to figure 1 and mention the system can program the control electronics 106 to perform a multi-level qubit reset operation 108 whereas figure 1 element 108 have “Multi-level Qubit Rest Operation”. Applicants are requested to review all drawings and specification and make corrections accordingly. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 1 element 108 “Multi-level Qubit Rest Operation” should be corrected to “Multi-level Qubit Reset Operation” as described in the specification (see paragraph [0060]).
A proposed drawing correction or corrected drawings are required in reply to the office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Corrected drawings sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the office action should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended”. If a drawing figure is to be cancelled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheet may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not acceptable by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 6, insert "a" prior to ---control electronics---.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,141,661.
For example, claim 1 of the present application teaches “an apparatus comprising: a qubit, wherein a state of the qubit occupies at least one of a plurality of levels, the plurality of levels comprising two computational levels and one or more non-computational levels that are each higher in energy than the computational levels; a resonator, wherein the resonator operates at a resonator frequency; control electronics configured to control an operating frequency of the qubit, the controlling comprising, during a qubit reset operation: controlling, in a first stage, the operating frequency of the qubit from a holding frequency to a first frequency that is larger than or equal to the resonator frequency, wherein the holding frequency is smaller than the resonator frequency; controlling, in a second stage that is subsequent to the first stage, the operating frequency of the qubit from the first frequency to a second frequency, wherein the second frequency is larger than the holding frequency; and controlling, in a third stage that is subsequent to the second stage, the operating frequency of the qubit from the second frequency to an idling frequency, wherein the idling frequency is larger than the resonator frequency”. Whereas claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 18/305,152 teaches “an apparatus comprising: a qubit, wherein the state of the qubit occupies at least one of a plurality of levels, the plurality of levels comprising two computational levels and one or more non-computational levels that are each higher in energy than the computational levels; a resonator, wherein the resonator operates at a resonator frequency; a control electronics configured to control an operating frequency of the qubit such that during a reset operation the operating frequency of the qubit is adjusted from a holding frequency to an idling frequency, wherein the holding frequency is lower than the resonator frequency and the idling frequency is higher than the resonator frequency, and a first derivative of the qubit operating frequency at a first time during the adjustment is positive, and at a second time during the adjustment that occurs after the first time is zero, and at a third time during the adjustment that occurs after the second time is positive, and wherein the operating frequency of the qubit achieves the idling frequency at a fourth time that occurs after the third time”.
Rationales:
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention of the instant Application is broader in scope, which encompasses the claimed limitations included in the reference patent. The U.S. reference Patent No. 18/305,152, which is narrower in scope, recites additional limitations, such as ("a first derivative of the qubit operating frequency at a first time during the adjustment is positive, and at a second time during the adjustment that occurs after the first time is zero, and at a third time during the adjustment that occurs after the second time is positive, and wherein the operating frequency of the qubit achieves the idling frequency at a fourth time that occurs after the third time"). It is obvious the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 18/305,152 read on the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application. Further, it has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. See /n re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184(CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (BdPat App&int 1970); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. "A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Independent claim 11 have corresponding issues with the independent claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 18/305,152 are also rejected for the same rationales discussed above.
Other parallel dependent claims have corresponding issues with the dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 18/305,152 are also rejected under a non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, the independent claim 11 recites a method of controlling an operation of frequency of a qubit and the qubit occupies computational and non-computational levels, and therefore is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites method in which controlling an operation of frequency of a qubit and the qubit occupies computational and non-computational levels
The limitations of controlling an operation of frequency of a qubit and the qubit occupies computational and non-computational levels, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “controlling an operation of frequency of a qubit and the qubit occupies computational and non-computational levels” in the context of this claim encompasses an observation, evaluation or judgment of a value. Additionally, “holding and idling frequencies and comparing to first, second, and resonator frequencies at different stages” in the context of this claim encompasses making a decision (i.e. store data) based on an evaluation or judgment of a value.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “ from a holding frequency to a first frequency that is larger than or equal to the resonator frequency, wherein the holding frequency is smaller than the resonator frequency; operating frequency of the qubit from the first frequency to a second frequency, wherein the second frequency is larger than the holding frequency; and the operating frequency of the qubit from the second frequency to an idling frequency, wherein the idling frequency is larger than the resonator frequency are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The steps of operating of frequencies at different stages are also not indicative of integration into a practical application because they amount no more than extra-solution activity that is not directly linked to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do not do more than use mental processes making a decision (i.e. store data) based on an evaluation or judgment of a value.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the claim amount to no more than linking the abstract idea to a field of use and performing well-understood, routine and conventional extra-solution activities. Additionally, the elements of “a quantum computing system a qubit, and a resonator” merely apply the exception using generic components, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 11. Claim 1 recites additional elements of an apparatus, a resonator, and a controller” perform the method of claim 11. As such the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. The additional element of an apparatus does not change the results of the analysis because it merely limits the memory system to more than one memory device. At step 2A, the resonator and the controller configured to perform the method do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitation amounts to more instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f). At step 2B, the additional elements merely apply the exception using generic components, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
The Dependent claims 4, 5, 7-9, 14, 15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter as they fail to remedy the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith et al. (U.S. PN: 11,112,842) describes the quantum integrated circuit system may include qubit devices, resonator devices, and possibly other devices that are used to store and process quantum information. In the example shown in FIG. 1, each qubit device 105 has an associated reset element 107. The reset element 107 can be, for example, a defect, a transmission line, another qubit device, or another hardware element in the quantum integrated circuit system 104. The example reset elements 107 provide a frequency-dependent T.sub.1 process for the respective qubit devices, which can be used to selectively reset individual qubits in the quantum integrated circuit system 104. For instance, a reset element 107 coupled to a qubit device 105 can provide strong coupling between an environment and the qubit device 105 when the qubit device is tuned to a certain frequency range, thus activating a short-T.sub.1 process that can be used for reset operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Esaw T. Abraham whose telephone number is (571) 272-3812. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4PM.
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, Albert DeCady can be reached on (571) 272-3819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (703) 872-9306.
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.
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2112