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 .
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.
Claims 3 and 9-10 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.
For claims 3 and 9-10, it is not understood what is meant by “and/or”. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret all instances of “and/or” as “or.”
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the number of Josephson junctions" and “the number of SQUIDs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 9 as follows:
9. The quantum circuit apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one qubit comprises a number of series-connected Josephson junctions or a number of series-connected SQUIDs,
wherein the number of Josephson junctions connected in series and/or the number of SQUIDs connected in series in the at least one qubit is different from the other qubits.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson et al (US 10,074,792).
For claim 1, Ferguson teaches a quantum circuit apparatus (Figure 2) comprising:
a coupler (60) made up of one or more linear elements (69); and
at least three or more qubits (72, 74, 76) coupled with a many- body interaction via the coupler (col. 3, lines 33-47).
Ferguson fails to explicitly teach:
wherein at least one qubit out of the at least three or more qubits has a nonlinearity different from that of one or more other qubits.
It is noted that Ferguson teaches:
“Tuning either coupler 62 or 64 , to a non-zero coupling strength adjusts the energy of each minimum” col. 5, lines 47-48;
“[a first applied flux and a second applied flux]…can be adjusted to separately control the ZZ coupling provided by the second tunable coupler 64 as well as the ZZZ coupling provided by the assembly 60 through the first tunable coupler 62” col. 6, lines 2-7;
“values between [a maximum positive coupling and a maximum negative coupling] can be selected to tune the coupling strength to a desired magnitude and sign. One of ordinary skill in the art will realize that fabrication variation of the critical currents will slightly alter the flux values where zero couplings occur” col. 6, lines 44-52.
Examiner takes official notice that changes in the critical current of a flux qubit will alter its nonlinearity.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have at least one of the critical currents of Ferguson’s qubits (72, 74, 76) be different from one another since this is disclosed to be a likely occurrence as a result of fabrication variation (i.e., even if uniformity was desired, variations are often a unintended result of the fabrication process).
Furthermore, since Ferguson teaches tuning the coupling strength to compensate for said variations (as cited above), Ferguson’s invention is capable of use with qubits having differing nonlinearities. Note In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955) where it was held that optimizing particular values is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (who would easily be able to set different values within the range of possible values in order to arrive at the best value by simple experimentation).
Lastly, note MPEP 2144.05-II-A and 2144.05-III-A which state:
In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)…+
… In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946) (“Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”)
For claim 3, Ferguson further teaches:
the one or more linear elements of the coupler includes an inductor (69).
For claim 10, Ferguson further teaches:
a value of a structural inductance and/or capacitance in the at least one qubit is made different from that of one or more other qubits (critical current and inductance are inversely proportional).
For claim 11, Ferguson teaches a method (Figure 2) for controlling a strength of coupling (Abstract) in which at least first to third qubits (72, 74, 76) are coupled with a many-body interaction (col. 3, lines 33-47) via a coupler (60), the method comprising:
constituting the coupler with one or more linear elements (69).
Ferguson fails to explicitly teach:
making a nonlinearity of at least one of the first through third qubits different from that of one or more other qubits.
It is noted that Ferguson teaches:
“Tuning either coupler 62 or 64 , to a non-zero coupling strength adjusts the energy of each minimum” col. 5, lines 47-48;
“[a first applied flux and a second applied flux]…can be adjusted to separately control the ZZ coupling provided by the second tunable coupler 64 as well as the ZZZ coupling provided by the assembly 60 through the first tunable coupler 62” col. 6, lines 2-7;
“values between [a maximum positive coupling and a maximum negative coupling] can be selected to tune the coupling strength to a desired magnitude and sign. One of ordinary skill in the art will realize that fabrication variation of the critical currents will slightly alter the flux values where zero couplings occur” col. 6, lines 44-52.
Examiner takes official notice that changes in the critical current of a flux qubit will alter its nonlinearity.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have at least one of the critical currents of Ferguson’s qubits (72, 74, 76) be different from one another since this is disclosed to be a likely occurrence as a result of fabrication variation (i.e., even if uniformity was desired, variations are often a unintended result of the fabrication process).
Furthermore, since Ferguson teaches tuning the coupling strength to compensate for said variations (as cited above), Ferguson’s invention is capable of use with qubits having differing nonlinearities. Note In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955) where it was held that optimizing particular values is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (who would easily be able to set different values within the range of possible values in order to arrive at the best value by simple experimentation).
Lastly, note MPEP 2144.05-II-A and 2144.05-III-A which state:
In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)…+
… In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946) (“Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-9 and 12 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. Specifically, the prior art fails to teach a four-body interaction of four qubits as claimed having capacitive coupling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Epstein (US 12,206,404) teaches a multi-body interaction but fails to teach different nonlinearities as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CALRISSIAN PUENTES whose telephone number is (571)270-5070. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6:30 (flex).
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at (571) 270-7166. 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.
/DANIEL C PUENTES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights