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 22 and 24 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 22 is indefinite because it is not clear if the claim depends on claim 16 or if it is a multiple dependency claim depending on any one of claims 1-13. The dependency is not clear.
Claim 24 is indefinite because it fails to further limit claim 16 from which it depends.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 15-17, 20-21, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hetzberg et al. (US 2019/0165244).
In reference to claim 1, Hertzberg discloses a method of adjusting the frequency of a qubit comprising a Josephson junction (see [0001]), the method comprising:
directing an electron beam (see [0049] where Hertzberg discloses uses electron-beam lithography for heating the Josephson junction) to heat the Josephson junction (402); and
cooling the Josephson junction following the heating of the Josephson junction by the electron beam, (see [0051] which discloses the process of annealing of the Josephson junction. Annealing inherently includes the steps of first heating followed by cooling of a material.)
wherein the heating and cooling of the Josephson junction serves to alter a resistance of the Josephson junction, and wherein the alteration of the resistance of the Josephson junction changes the frequency of the qubit ([0051] further discloses annealing of the Josephson junction which results in a change in the resistance.)
In reference to claim 2 Hertzberg discloses in Figure 3A, 3B, [0049] and [0051], wherein directing the electron beam (thermal source 502) to heat the Josephson junction comprises directing the electron beam to be incident on the Josephson junction (402).
In reference to claim 3 Hertzberg discloses in [0049] wherein directing the electron beam to heat the Josephson junction (402) comprises directing the electron to beam incident on a component (bilayer of resist) which is thermally coupled to the Josephson junction (402), thereby causing heating of the component and heating of the Josephson junction through heat conduction from the heated component.
In reference to claim 4 Hertzberg discloses in [0049] wherein the component comprises a portion of a substrate (400) supporting the Josephson junction.
In reference to claim 5 Hertzberg discloses in [0048] wherein the qubit comprises the Josephson junction (402) connected between two superconducting electrodes (through a trilayer (superconductor – insulator- superconductor) stack.
In reference to claim 9 Hertzberg discloses in [0051] wherein the directing an electron beam to heat the Josephson junction comprises directing the electron beam to heat the Josephson junction (402) for a single continuous exposure time period (10 seconds).
In reference to claim 15 Hertzberg discloses wherein the directing an electron beam to heat the Josephson junction (402) comprises using an electron beam lithography apparatus (see [0049] where Hertzberg discloses uses electron-beam lithography for heating the Josephson junction) to direct the electron beam to heat the Josephson junction (402).
In reference to claim 16 Hertzberg discloses in Figure 10 a method of adjusting qubit frequencies of a quantum information processor comprising a plurality of qubits (Multi-Qubit Chip), wherein each qubit comprises a Josephson junction (402), the method comprising:
determining a frequency of each of the plurality of qubits (S1020);
identifying, based on the determined frequencies of the plurality of qubits, at least one of the qubits for frequency adjustment (S1025); and
adjusting a frequency of the at least one qubit identified for frequency adjustment (S1030, S1040, S1050, S1060). The same applies to claims 23 and 24.
In reference to claim 17 Hertzberg discloses in Figure 8 wherein determining a frequency of each of the plurality of qubits comprises measuring a resistance of a Josephson junctions included in each of the plurality of qubits (S825).
In reference to claim 20 Hertzberg discloses in the ABSTRACT and [0054] wherein adjusting the frequency of the at least one qubit identified for frequency adjustment comprises increasing the resistance of a Josephson junction of at least a first of the at least one qubit identified for frequency adjustment so as to decrease the frequency of the at least a first of the at least one qubit identified for frequency adjustment (see [0054] where Hertzberg discloses decreasing or increasing the resistance of the Josephson junction (402), which may increase or decrease the frequency of a qubit associated with the Josephson junction (402)).
In reference to claim 21 Hertzberg discloses in the ABSTRACT and [0054] wherein adjusting the frequency of the at least one qubit identified for frequency adjustment comprises decreasing the resistance of a Josephson junction of at least a second of the at least one qubit identified for frequency adjustment so as to increase the frequency of the at least a second of the at least one qubit identified for frequency adjustment (see [0054] where Hertzberg discloses decreasing or increasing the resistance of the Josephson junction (402), which may increase or decrease the frequency of a qubit associated with the Josephson junction (402)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertzberg et al. (US 2019/0165244) in view of Orcutt (US 12,201,036).
In reference to claim 10 Hertzberg discloses all the limitations of the claim as mentioned above with respect to claim 1. Hertzberg does not disclose directing a plurality of pulses of an electron beam. Orcutt discloses in Figure 1 a method of laser annealing of qubits using a beam splitter splitting an optical beam into a plurality of optical beams (110). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that a method of using a plurality of pulses in the annealing process (as disclosed by Orcutt) could have been implemented into the annealing process of Hertzberg for the benefit of producing a uniform junction temperature even in the presence of laser misalignment as disclosed by Orcutt (see column 3, lines 37-43).
In reference to claim 11 Hertzberg in view of Orcutt discloses all the limitations of the claim as mentioned above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Orcutt further discloses wherein at least some of the plurality of pulses of an electron beam are directed to be incident at a plurality of different positions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that a method of using a plurality of pulses in the annealing process (as disclosed by Orcutt) could have been implemented into the annealing process of Hertzberg for the benefit of producing a uniform junction temperature even in the presence of laser misalignment as disclosed by Orcutt (see column 3, lines 37-43).
In reference to claim 12 Hertzberg in view of Orcutt discloses all the limitations of the claim as mentioned above with respect to claims 1 and 10-11. Orcutt further discloses wherein the plurality of different positions (110) are arranged to form an exposure pattern which encloses the Josephson junction (104). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that a method of using a plurality of pulses in the annealing process (as disclosed by Orcutt) could have been implemented into the annealing process of Hertzberg for the benefit of producing a uniform junction temperature even in the presence of laser misalignment as disclosed by Orcutt (see column 3, lines 37-43).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 13-14, and 18-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA F COX whose telephone number is (571)272-1741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:30; off alt Fridays.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/CASSANDRA F COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights