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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 16-29 in the reply filed on 10/09/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
(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) 16-17, 20, 22-24, 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Krogstrup (US 2020/0227636).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Krogstrup teaches a hybrid device (abstract) comprising a semiconductor component (fig. 3d, #4; para. Para. 0040), ferromagnetic insulator component (fig. 3d, #6; para. 0040), superconductor component (fig. 3d, #10; para. 0040), wherein the semiconductor component has at least three facets (fig. 3d, #4), wherein the ferromagnetic insulator component is arranged on a first and second facet (from the right to the left, fig. 3d), wherein the superconductor component is arranged on a third facet and extends over the ferromagnetic insulator component on at least the second facet (third facet is top flat facet going from left to right to the second facet; fig. 3d, #10).
Regarding claim 17, Krogstrup teaches that the superconductor does not extend over the ferromagnetic insulator on the first facet (first facet is the facet perpendicular to the substrate on the right side; fig. 3d).
Regarding claim 20, Krogstrup teaches a oxide layer formed over the heterostructure (arranged on the ferromagnetic layer, claim does not requirement abutment; para. 0037, fig. 3d, #8).
Regarding claims 22-24, Krogstrup teaches that the semiconductor is InAs and the ferromagnetic insulator comprises EuS (abstract).
Regarding claim 28-29, Krogstrup teaches a network of the devices and a quantum computing device comprising the device (abstract).
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) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krogstrup.
Krogstrup fails to teach that the semiconductor component having a generally hexagonal cross section formed integrally with a substrate.
However, it appears that the shape of the semiconductor component would be prima facie obvious such that the trapezoid and hexagonal shape recited in the claims is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B).
Additionally regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to provide the semiconductor and substrate as integrally formed as a matter of engineering choice. MPEP 2144.04 (V) (B).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krogstrup in view of Eickelmann (US 20160372617).
Krogstrup teaches a product as described above in claim 16, but fails to teach that the protective insulator comprises aluminum oxide.
Krogstrup, however, teaches that the protective insulator is a dielectric (para. 0037).
Eickelmann teaches that aluminum oxide is a well known dielectric (para. 0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the protective insulator of Krogstrup comprising aluminum oxide in order to provide a dielectric known in the art as taught by Eickelmann and because Krogstrup teaches that the protective insulator is a dielectric.
Claim(s) 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krogstrup in view of Winkler (US 2021/0126181).
Krogstrup teaches a product as described above in claim 16, but fails to teach that the superconductor component comprises alumni and has a thickness of 3-10 nm.
Winkler, however, teaches a semiconductor superconductor hybrid device (abstract) wherein the superconductor has a thickness of 4-10 nm for the purpose of providing coupling to the InAs (para. 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the superconductor of Krogstrup has a thickness of 4-10 nm in order to provide coupling to the InAs as taught by Winkler.
Krogstrup teaches that the superconductor is aluminum (para. 0023).
Regarding claim 27, Krogstrup fails to teach that the device further comprises a gate electrode for applying an electrostatic field to the semiconductor component.
Krogstrup, however, teaches gating part of the nanowire with an electrostatic potential (para. 0021)
Winkler teaches an gate electrode for gating the nanowire (para. 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a gate electrode in Krogstrup in order to gate the nanowire as taught by Winkler and because Krogstrup teaches gating part of the nanowire with an electrostatic potential.
Regarding claim 25, as the thickness of the ferromagnetic layer appears to be substantially similar in thickness to that of the superconductor layer (see Krogstrup at 3d) and Winkler teaches the thickness of the superconductor is 4-10 nm as described above, it appears that the combined prior art teaches a thickness of the ferromagnetic layer overlapping with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A WARTALOWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735