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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3,5,10,14,16,27,28,30, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morohashi, S, et al., ‘Fabrication of a Tantalum-Based Josephson Junction for an X-Ray Detector’, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 39, Part 1, No. 6A, pp. 3371-3377, a reference cited by Applicant; URADE, Y. et al., "Microwave characterization of tantalum superconducting resonators silicon substrate with niobium buffer layer", APL Materials, 12, (2024), a reference cited by Applicant; and Solano et al (PG Pub 2011/0253906 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Morohashi teaches a device for forming a superconducting radiation detector (fig. 7), comprising: a substrate (Si substrate, fig. 7) having a first surface; and a patterned layer adjacent the substrate and comprising tantalum in an alpha phase (bcc tantalum, pp. 3375, right column), wherein the patterned layer forms at least a part of a structure.
Morohashi does not teach the tantalum to be in an alpha phase. Morohashi teaches the tantalum to be a body-center (bcc) tantalum (pp. 3375, right column). It is well known that body-center tantalum is in an alpha phase (Urade: Introduction, left column).
Morohashi does not teach the device is for forming a qubit or the patterned layer is for storing a quantum state.
In the same field of endeavor, Solano teaches a radiation detector comprising qubits for carrying out radiation detection (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the superconducting radiation detector to comprise a superconducting qubit for the benefit of carrying out radiation detection.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the patterned layer for storing a quantum state, for the known benefit of maintaining the detected radiation signal for readout.
Regarding claim 2, Morohashi teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the patterned layer forms at least a portion of a circuit component (fig. 7) comprising the tantalum in the alpha phase.
Regarding claim 3, Morohashi teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the circuit component comprises one or more of a capacitor, an inductor, or a Josephson junction (abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Morohashi in view of Solano teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the structure comprises one or more of a qubit (abstract in Solano), a transmon qubit, a X monan Xmon qubit, a three-dimensional transmon qubit, a fluxionium qubit, or a zero-pi qubit.
Regarding claim 10, Morohashi teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises one or more of sapphire or silicon (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14, Morohashi in view of Solano teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the patterned layer forms a plurality of superconducting qubits (abstract or Morohashi and abstract of Solano).
Regarding claim 16, Morohashi in view of Urade and Solano teaches (see claim 1) the method for producing a superconducting qubit, comprising: providing a substrate having a first surface; and forming a patterned layer adjacent the substrate and comprising tantalum in an alpha phase, wherein the patterned layer forms at least a part of a structure for storing a quantum state.
Regarding claim 27, Morohashi teaches the method of claim 16, wherein forming the patterned layer comprises forming at least a portion of a circuit component comprising the tantalum in the alpha phase (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 28, Morohashi teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the circuit component comprises one or more of a capacitor, an inductor, or a Josephson junction (abstract).
Regarding claim 30, Solano teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the structure comprises one or more of a qubit (abstract), a transmon qubit, a X mon an Xmon qubit, a three-dimensional transmon qubit, a fluxionium qubit, or a zero-pi qubit.
Regarding claim 37, Morohashi in view of Solano teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the structure for storing the quantum state is configured for storing quantum information for quantum computing (paragraphs [0004][0016] of Solano). Solano teaches a EM detector uses qubits to sense/detect and store information in a radiation (paragraphs [0015][0019]), the information is to be processed or readout as electrical signal (paragraphs [0004][0016]).
Claim(s) 4,6,7,29,31,32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morohashi, S, et al., ‘Fabrication of a Tantalum-Based Josephson Junction for an X-Ray Detector’, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 39, Part 1, No. 6A, pp. 3371-3377, a reference cited by Applicant; URADE, Y. et al., "Microwave characterization of tantalum superconducting resonators silicon substrate with niobium buffer layer", APL Materials, 12, (2024), a reference cited by Applicant; and Solano et al (PG Pub 2011/0253906 A1); as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Versluis et al (PG Pub 2021/0279134 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach the patterned layer forms one or more electrical circuit components configured to store the quantum state based on enabling non-harmonic energy levels for forming qubit states.
In the same field of endeavor, Versluis teaches one or more electrical circuit components (fig. 14A) configured to store the quantum state based on enabling non-harmonic energy levels (paragraph [0017]) for forming qubit states, for the benefit of enabling two energy states to be used as qubit states (paragraph [0017]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the patterned layer to form one or more electrical circuit components configured to store the quantum state based on enabling non-harmonic energy levels for forming qubit states, for the benefit of enabling two energy states to be used as qubit states.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Brink does not teach the one or more additional layers comprise a Josephson junction.
Versluis teaches one or more additional layers (split Josephson junction, fig. 14A, paragraph [0017]) that form one or more electric components (split Josephson junction, paragraph [0017]) wherein the patterned layer and the one or more additional layers form an electrical circuit configured to form energy levels for storing the quantum state (paragraph [0017]), for the benefit of enabling two energy states to be used as qubit states (paragraph [0017]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include one or more additional layers that form one or more electric components, wherein the patterned layer and the one or more additional layers form an electrical circuit configured to form energy levels for storing the quantum state, for the benefit of enabling two energy states to be used as qubit states (paragraph [0017]) by including a split Josephson junction.
Regarding claim 7, Versluis teaches the device of claim 6, wherein the one or more additional layers comprise a Josephson junction (split Josephson junction, paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 29, Brink in view of Versluis (see claim 3) teaches the method of claim 16, wherein forming the patterned layer comprising forming one or more electrical circuit components configured to cause the quantum state to be stored based on enabling non-harmonic energy levels for forming qubit states.
Regarding claim 31, Brink in view of Versluis (see claim 6) teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising forming one or more additional layers that form one or more electric components, wherein the patterned layer and the one or more additional layers form an electrical circuit configured to form energy levels for storing the quantum state.
Regarding claim 32, Versluis teaches the method of claim 31, wherein the one or more additional layers comprise a Josephson junction (split Josephson junction, paragraph [0017]).
Claim(s) 8,9,33,34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morohashi, S, et al., ‘Fabrication of a Tantalum-Based Josephson Junction for an X-Ray Detector’, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 39, Part 1, No. 6A, pp. 3371-3377, a reference cited by Applicant; URADE, Y. et al., "Microwave characterization of tantalum superconducting resonators silicon substrate with niobium buffer layer", APL Materials, 12, (2024), a reference cited by Applicant; and Solano et al (PG Pub 2011/0253906 A1); as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Jeffrey et al (US Patent 10,720,563 B1).
Regarding claims 8 and 33, the previous combination remains as applied in claims 1 and 16.
The previous combination does not teach a relaxation time of the quantum state comprises one or more of at least 150 µs, at least 200 µs, or at least 300 µs.
In the same field of endeavor, Jeffrey teaches increasing the relaxation time increases the quality of the qubit (column 2, lines 46-61).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make a relaxation time of the quantum state to comprise one or more of at least 150 µs, at least 200 µs, or at least 300 µs, for the benefit of increasing the quality of the qubit.
Regarding claims 9 and 34, the previous combination remains as applied in claims 1 and 16.
The previous combination does not teach a relaxation time of the quantum state is in a range of one or more of 150 µs to 317 µs or 200 µs to 317 µs.
In the same field of endeavor, Jeffrey teaches the relaxation time is based on fault tolerance of the quantum computations (column 2, lines 46-61).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the relaxation time of the quantum state to be in a range of one or more of 150 µs to 317 µs or 200 µs to 317 µs, for examples, according to the fault tolerance of the quantum computations in a specific use.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morohashi, S, et al., ‘Fabrication of a Tantalum-Based Josephson Junction for an X-Ray Detector’, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 39, Part 1, No. 6A, pp. 3371-3377, a reference cited by Applicant; URADE, Y. et al., "Microwave characterization of tantalum superconducting resonators silicon substrate with niobium buffer layer", APL Materials, 12, (2024), a reference cited by Applicant; and Solano et al (PG Pub 2011/0253906 A1); as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brink (PG Pub 2018/0358538 A1); and Lisenfeld, J. et al., ‘Electric field spectroscopy of material defects in transmon qubits’, arXiv:1909.09749, (2019).
Top of Form
Regarding claim 11, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach the device of claim 1, wherein the first surface contains at least one of. less than 6 atomic percent carbon as measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) or less than 0.1 atomic percent zinc as measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS).
In the same field of endeavor, Brink teaches to form the elements (above substrate 108, fig. 9) on the first surface (of substrate 108) in a vacuum environment. Brink teaches in such vacuum environment any element other than the materials to be deposited is removed (paragraph [0003]), for the known benefit of reducing contaminants (fig. 1 of Lisenfeld) that limit device coherence (pp. 1, left column of Lisenfeld).
Thus, it would have been obvious to make the first surface contains least one of: less than 6 atomic percent carbon as measured by any method, including X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) or less than 0.1 atomic percent zinc as measured by any method, including X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), for the known benefit of reducing contaminants that limit device coherence.
Regarding claim 12, the previous combination does not teach the device of claim 1, wherein the first surface has an average roughness less than 0.1 nm as measured by atomic force microscopy.
Brink teaches to make the surface of the substrate smooth to achieve uniformity of material deposited (paragraph [0003]).
Lisenfeld teaches substrate surface damage (fig. 1) limits device coherence (pp. 1, left column of Lisenfeld).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the first surface to have an average roughness less than 0.1 nm as measured by atomic force microscopy, for the benefit of achieving uniformity of material deposited and increasing device coherence.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (page 8, remarks)
Morohashi is directed to superconducting X-ray detectors that intentionally convert the energy of an absorbed X-ray photon into a macroscopic electrical signal by generating a large population of quasiparticles...Morohashi explains that "the Josephson junction can operate as an X-ray detector by detecting these quasiparticles tunneling into the other electrode through the barrier." Morohashi, at 3374. Morohashi further characterizes device operation in terms of measured I-V characteristics and subgap leakage current, demonstrating that the detector signal is a macroscopic electrical response arising from quasiparticle tunneling. These processes are expressly designed to convert absorbed radiation into an irreversible electrical signal, in direct contrast to the requirements of a structure for storing a quantum state, which suppress quasiparticles and minimize dissipation.
In contrast, a "structure for storing a quantum state," as recited in Claim 1, would have the opposite objectives of Morohashi, such as suppression of quasiparticles, minimization of dissipation, and preservation of phase coherence over time. Quasiparticles are widely understood by those of ordinary skill in the art to be a dominant source of decoherence in superconducting of
qubits, and therefore are deliberately minimized in qubit architectures.
In response, it is noted that the primary reference, Morohashi, teaches all physical features claimed. What Morohashi is silent about is the functional recitation in the claim: qubit for storing a quantum state. Both Morohashi and the secondary reference, Solano, teach electromagnetic (EM) detectors: Morohasi teaches EM in X-ray range (title) while Solano teaches EM in microwave range (title). Applicant’s arguments (quoted above) focusing on quasiparticles and their tunneling effect seem irrelevant to the reasoning stated in the rejection and to what is being claimed. Solano teaches a EM detector uses qubits to sense/detect information in a radiation (paragraphs [0015][0019]). The information must be stored in the qubits to be readout as electrical signal. It is irrelevant if the states of the qubits, or the electrical signal they carry, are irreversible, which seems to be the focus of Applicant’s arguments. The relevant portion in Solano teaching is that the qubits store the detected information as a quantum state to be readout (paragraphs [0004][0016]). The focus of Solano teaching in the rejection is the capability of a qubit in storing information. It is impertinent if the qubit original state is irreversible as long as it can store the detected signal carried in the radiation by assuming a new state, after absorbing the radiation. Without a place to store what is being detected to be readout, it is pointless to detect at all.
Applicant argues (page 9, remarks)
Moreover, Morohashi teaches the use of tantalum for reasons fundamentally opposite to those underlying Applicant's disclosure. In Morohashi, tantalum processing is used to temporarily destroy superconductivity during fabrication and does not contemplate preserving a high-quality, low-loss tantalum oxide suitable for long-term quantum coherence to achieve a "structure for storing a quantum state" as sought after by one of ordinary skill in the art for a device that stores quantum. Additionally, the Morohashi structures are macroscopic radiation- detector devices, orders of magnitude larger than structures typically suitable for storing a quantum state. A person of ordinary skill would not reasonably view Morohashi's detector geometries as adaptable to compact, coherence-limited qubit architectures. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Morohashi with Urade and Solano in the manner proposed.
In response, Morohasi in view of Solano teaches all claimed features, both physical and functional limitation. Thus, there is no distinction between the device taught in the prior art and that claimed.
Applicant argues (page 10, remarks)
As explained above, the Office relies on Solano as allegedly teaching a "structure for storing a quantum state." However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the device in Solano to be a structure for storing a quantum state within the meaning of Claim 1. Solano is directed to microwave photon detection, not to structures whose purpose is to store a quantum state. In Solano, qubits are used as absorptive detector elements whose states are intentionally altered upon interaction with radiation. For example, the abstract of Solano explains that "detection is carried out using qubits, the states of which are irreversibly changed during the passage of the absorbed photons." Solano, at Abstract.
Consistent with this description, Solano explains that the absorbent elements are initially prepared in a metastable quantum state and are designed to undergo an irreversible transition upon photon absorption. Specifically, Solano states that the elements "which are initially in a metastable state 10), can carry out an irreversible transition to a stable state |g) once a photon has been absorbed." Solano, at para. 16. Solano further explains that this irreversible change "consists of the measurement sought by the designed device" and that the final state is "macroscopically distinguishable from the rest," such that the state can be verified at a later time. Solano, at para. 16
Thus, although a quantum state is initially prepared in Solano, the device is expressly designed so that photon absorption terminates that state rather than stores it. The quantum state does not persist after detection, and the irreversible transition itself constitutes the detection event. This is further illustrated in Solano's description of the detector operation, in which each absorbent element "can therefore absorb a photon and perform an irreversible transition 0 -- 1 -> g." Solano, at para. 28.
In response, as noted above, Morohashi teaches all physical features claimed, except the functional recitation of a qubit for storing a quantum state. Applicant seems to miss the meaning in Solano teaching, quoted above, of a qubit storing information by assuming a new state after photon absorption. Even the change of state causes loss of information about the qubit original state (i.e. irreversible). Again, irreversibility is irrelevant to the issue at hand. What relevant is the qubit stores a quantum state, which is what is being claimed.
Applicant argues (page 11, remarks)
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that one attempted to combine Morohashi and Solano, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing a structure for storing a quantum state. Morohashi's architecture deliberately absorbs high-energy (keV-scale) radiation, generating orders of magnitude more energy than the peV-scale excitations relevant to superconducting qubits. For example, as explained in the introduction of Morohashi, "a single 6 keV X-ray absorbed in a Josephson junction produces more than one million quasiparticles." Morohashi, at 3371. The resulting quasiparticles would immediately relax and decohere any qubit-like element placed in the structure of Morohashi. As such, incorporating a structure for storing a quantum state into Morohashi would neither preserve quantum information nor result in a workable superconducting qubit, but would instead ensure rapid and unavoidable decoherence. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have no expectation that the proposed combination would result in a "a patterned layer adjacent the substrate and comprising tantalum in an alpha phase, wherein the patterned layer forms at least a part of a structure for storing a quantum state" as claimed.
In response, as noted above, Morohashi teaches all structure claimed. Thus, there is no structural modification to Morohashi device. What Solano teaches is to use the function that the structure in Morohashi is capable of performing, that is to store a quantum state. And an element that is capable of storing a quantum state is a qubit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 and 26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art does not teach
“the structure is free of niobium” (claims 13 and 26).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights