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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,149,292 (Qasymeh et al). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations recited in claims 1-7 of the instant application are encompassed by claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,149,292 (Qasymeh et al).
Instant Application No. 18/950,916 (Claim 1)
US Patent No. 12,149,292 (Claim 1)
A system, comprising:
N-distant independent plasmonic graphene waveguides, wherein the N-distant independent plasmonic graphene waveguides are used to generate an N-partite continuous
variable entangled state.
A system, comprising:
N-distant independent plasmonic graphene waveguides, wherein the N-distant independent plasmonic graphene waveguides are used to generate an N-partite continuous
variable entangled state (i.e., see Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,149,292).
Regarding claim 2, as similarity described above, Qasymeh et al discloses
wherein the N-partite continuous variable entangled state is generated by sending an output from each of the N-distant plasmonic graphene waveguides to an intermediate common node (i.e., see Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,149,292).
Regarding claim 3, as similarity described above, Qasymeh et al discloses
wherein where a multipartite Bell measurement occurs based on sending the output from each of the N-distant plasmonic graphene waveguides to the
intermediate common node (i.e., see Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,149,292).
Regarding claim 4, as similarity described above, Qasymeh et al discloses
wherein the intermediate common node combines particular nodes on an array of N-1 beam splitters (BS) with particular ratios and performs multipartite
homodyne detection on BS output fields (i.e., see Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,149,292).
Regarding claim 5, as similarity described above, Qasymeh et al discloses
wherein the continuous variable-entangled state teleports an unknown coherent state over a long distance with high efficiency (i.e., see Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,149,292).
Regarding claim 6, as similarity described above, Qasymeh et al discloses
wherein the teleportation is secure based on the fidelity being above a particular threshold (i.e., see Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,149,292).
Regarding claim 7, as similarity described above, Qasymeh et al discloses
wherein the continuous-variable entangled state is controlled through the interaction of a microwave mode with two optical modes (i.e., see Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,149,292).
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Qasymeh et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0107794).
Regarding claim 1, referring to Figures 1, 13 and 14A, Qasymeh et al
teaches a system (i.e., Figs. 1, 13 and 14A), comprising:
N-distant independent plasmonic graphene waveguides (i.e., graphene
layers, Figs. 1, 13 and 14A), wherein the N-distant independent plasmonic
graphene waveguides are used to generate an N-partite continuous variable
entangled state (i.e., Figures 1, 13 and 14A, page 2, paragraph [0021], page 7,
paragraphs [0077]-[0081], and page 11, paragraph [0118]).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 2-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the
the double patenting rejection above.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure.
Qasymeh et al (Pub. No.: 2023/0016333) discloses continuous-variable
quantum teleportation using microwave enabled plasmonic graphene waveguide.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from
the examiner should be directed to Hanh Phan whose telephone number is
(571)272-3035. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are
unsuccessful the examiner's supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye, can be
reached on (571)272-3078. The fax phone number for the organization
where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Any
inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or
proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number
is (703)305-4700.
/HANH PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights