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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FR 2001129, filed on 02/05/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/03/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the two second portions connected to the junction" in reference to an unknown two second portions. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is rejected under for the same reasons as listed above due its dependency on claim 4.
For purposes of examination, “the two second portions connected to the junction” is interpreted to reference the first and second portions of the electrical conductor as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation ""the two first portions of a pair of successive conductors"" in reference to two distinct first portions of the set of electrical conductors. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20210043824 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
1084
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Provided directly below Is an annotated Fig. 10e from Yan.
Regarding claim 1, Yan teaches a device including:
a substrate 10,
a set of electrical conductors 20 & 80 carried by a face of the substrate (Fig. 10e),
a set of junctions (The face of 20 and 80 being in contact with 30 & 60 make a Josephson junction, and Fig. 10e shows a plurality of them) carried by said face of the substrate 20 and a set of control elements 60,
each electrical conductor 20 being made of a superconducting material (Paragraph [0048]),
each electrical conductor comprising a single first portion 20 extending in a first direction X tangential to the substrate 10 and a set of second portions 80 (Please see provided annotated Fig. 10e),
the first portions 20 of the electrical conductors being successively offset relative to each other according to a second direction Y perpendicular to the first direction (Annotated Fig. 10e, Note: See annotated fig. 10e which shows 3 junctions arranged in the second direction between respective first portions 20 and 80),
at least three junctions being interposed according to the second direction Y between each pair of successive first portions (Fig. 10e),
each junction being connected to the first portion of each of the conductors between which the junction is interposed by a second portion of said conductor (Note: The Josephson junction is the functional junction made from the combinations of elements 20,30, 60, & 80 working together),
each control element 60 being associated with a single junction of the set of junctions, and being configured to switch the associated junction between a first configuration in which the junction forms a Josephson junction between the conductors to which the junction is connected and a second configuration in which the junction prevents the passage of Cooper pairs between said conductors, Because the structural elements of Yan are the same as the claimed structure, the claimed functions are presumed to be inherent, See MPEP 2112.01(I).
Although Yan shows much of the claimed device, Yan fails to expressly teach each electrical conductor 80 being made of a superconducting material.
However, Yan teaches each electrical conductor 20 being made of a superconducting material (Paragraph [0063], Note: Yan teaches superconducting interconnects 20, as the use of superconducting material to form interconnects can significantly reduce lost energy. Considering that Yan refers to 80 as an interconnect, it would be appropriate to make 80 from a superconducting material.), for the purposes of significantly reducing lost energy (Paragraph [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device taught by Yan, with each electrical conductor 80 being made of a superconducting material as taught by Yan, for the purposes of significantly reducing lost energy (Paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 3, Yan teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein each second portion 80 extends according to the second direction (Fig. 10e).
Regarding claim 4, Yan teaches the device of claim 1, wherein each junction includes a barrier forming a barrier 30 between the two second portions connected to the junction.
Although Yan shows much of the claimed invention, Yan fails to expressly disclose at least one of the following properties being verified: the barrier is made of a ferroelectric material presenting an electrical polarization, the control element being configured to modify a direction of the electrical polarization; the barrier is made of an electrically insulating material, the junction further including an electrically conductive layer presenting a first face in contact with the two second portions and a second face opposite the first face, the control element including an electrically insulating barrier layer in contact with the second face and a configuration electrode the barrier layer being interposed between the electrically conductive layer and the configuration electrode, the control element being configured to modify an electrical potential of the configuration electrode, the junction includes at least two magnetic layers, each magnetic layer being made of a magnetic material, the junction being configured to have an electric current flowing through the barrier and the two magnetic layers, the control element being configured to modify an orientation of a magnetization of at least one of the magnetic layers.
However, Yan teaches that the barrier material may be from a Group III-N material (Yan Paragraph [0048], note: “a Group III-N material or alloys thereof”). Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that ScAlN is a Group III-N alloy given its constituent elements).
Regarding claim 6, Yan teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein each first 20 or second portion 80 is straight (Fig. 10e).
Regarding claim 7, Yan teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein a distance, measured according to the second direction between the two first portions 20 of a pair of successive conductors, is identical for each pair of successive conductors, and/or a distance, measured according to the first direction between two successive second portions 80 of a same electrical conductor, is identical for each pair of successive second portions. (Fig. 10e).
Regarding claim 10, Yan teaches a method for using a device including:
a substrate 10,
a set of electrical conductors 20 & 80 carried by the substrate 10 (Fig. 10e),
a set of junctions (The face of 20 and 80 being in contact with 30 & 60 make a Josephson junction, and Fig. 10e shows a plurality of them) and a set of control elements 60,
each electrical conductor 20 being made of a superconducting material (Paragraph [0048]), each electrical conductor comprising a single first portion 20 extending according to a first direction X tangential to the substrate 10 and a set of second portions 80 the first portions 20 of the electrical conductors being successively offset relative to each other according to a second direction Y perpendicular to the first direction (Please see annotated Fig. 10e above),
at least three junctions being interposed according to the second direction Y between each pair of successive first portions 20, each junction being connected to the first portion 20 of each of the conductors (annotated Fig. 10e, Note: See annotated fig. 10e which shows 3 junctions arranged in the second direction between respective first portions 20 and 80),
between which the junction is interposed, by a second portion of said conductor 80 (Fig. 10e),
the method including a step of switching at least one junction between a first configuration in which the junction forms a Josephson junction between the conductors to which the junction is connected and a second configuration in which the junction prevents the passage of Cooper pairs between said conductors, Because the structural elements of Yan are the same as the claimed structure, the claimed functions are presumed to be inherent, See MPEP 2112.01(I).
Although Yan shows much of the claimed device, Yan fails to expressly teach each electrical conductor 80 being made of a superconducting material.
However, Yan teaches each electrical conductor 20 being made of a superconducting material (Paragraph [0063], Note: Yan teaches superconducting interconnects 20, as the use of superconducting material to form interconnects can significantly reduce lost energy. Considering that Yan refers to 80 as an interconnect, it would be appropriate to make 80 from a superconducting material.), for the purposes of significantly reducing lost energy (Paragraph [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device taught by Yan, with each electrical conductor 80 being made of a superconducting material as taught by Yan, for the purposes of significantly reducing lost energy (Paragraph [0063]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20210043824 A1) in view of Lanting (US 20110065585 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yan teaches the device of claim 1, including at least ten junctions being interposed between each pair of successive first portions (Fig. 10e).
Although Yan shows much of the claimed device, Yan fails to expressly disclose wherein the device includes at least ten electrical conductors.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Lanting teaches that the addition of further junctions to an array of Josephson Junctions may provide more robustness against shorting (Paragraph [0004] & [0089], Note: paragraph 4 teaches that parallel junctions can effectively act as one, and series junctions may provide resistance against shorting.). Considering the array of junctions taught by Yan are already arranged in series & parallel, increasing the size of the Josephson Junction array such that it would include at least ten electrical conductors would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result Is produced (In this case, a new and unexpected result would not be produced, in fact there is even a taught rationale and motivation behind increasing the size of the array) In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 5, 8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20210043824 A1) in view Kobayashi (US 20210011087 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yan teaches the device according to claim 1.
Although Yan shows much of the claimed invention, Yan fails to expressly disclose wherein it further includes an output electrode, an input electrode, a power supply, and a sensor, the power supply being able to inject an electric current into the input electrode and to set a magnitude of the electric current at a predetermined value, the electric current flowing through each of the conductors from the input electrode to the output electrode, the sensor being able to measure an electric potential difference between the input electrode and the output electrode.
However, Kobayashi teaches an output electrode 6, an input electrode 5, a power supply 20, and a sensor 26, the power supply being able to inject an electric current into the input electrode and to set a magnitude of the electric current at a predetermined value (Paragraph [0039], Note: It is a variable DC power supply), the electric current flowing through each of the conductors from the input electrode to the output electrode (Paragraph [0039], Note: It is a variable DC power supply), the sensor being able to measure an electric potential difference between the input electrode 5 and the output electrode 6 (Note: 26 is a voltmeter).
In view of the teachings of Kobayashi it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Kobayashi to Yan at the time the application was filed in order to teach the inclusion of an output electrode, an input electrode, a power supply, and a sensor, the power supply being able to inject an electric current into the input electrode and to set a magnitude of the electric current at a predetermined value, the electric current flowing through each of the conductors from the input electrode to the output electrode, the sensor being able to measure an electric potential difference between the input electrode and the output electrode. Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kobayashi with the teachings of Yan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to combine the variable DC power supply and voltmeter taught by Kobayashi with the device of claim 1. The two devices merely performing the same functions as they perform separately and being no more “the combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” (In this case, the powering of Yan’s device, and the measuring of the data that Yan’s device would produce through a sensor.) (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Regarding claim 8, Yan teaches the device according to claim 1.
Although Yan shows much of the claimed invention, Yan does not expressly disclose a system including a control module, along with the device according to claim 1.
However, Kobayashi teaches a control module (Paragraph [0039], Note: Kobayashi teaches a control module in the form of a variable DC power supply and accompanying sensors)
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Kobayashi it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Kobayashi to Yan at the time the application was filed in order to teach the inclusion of a control module as taught by Kobayashi with the device according to claim 1 as taught by Yan. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kobayashi in the same or in a similar field of endeavor with Yan’s device of claim 1. The control module and the device of claim 1 merely performing the same functions as they would perform separately and being no more “the combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” (In this case, the use of a control module being a variable DC power supply and accompanying sensors) (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yan and Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the system is an antenna (Yan Paragraph [0060], Note: Yan describes the device of claim 1 as being potentially used in RF superconducting quantum interference devices (rf SQUID), which is a high sensitivity magnetic antenna, and the detection of the potential fluctuations across the DC power supply by the incorporated voltmeter as seen in the rejection of claim 8 would make it an antenna).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20210043824 A1) in view of Cybart (US 20170133577 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Yan teaches the device according to claim 4.
Although Yan shows much of the claimed device, Yan fails to expressly disclose wherein the electrically conductive layer is made of graphene.
Cybart however, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the electrically conductive layer is made of graphene (Paragraph [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device according to claim 4 as taught by Yan with the electrically conductive layer being made of graphene as taught by Cybart (Note: as claimed in claim 1, this electrically conductive layer is also required to be a superconductor), as it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because it has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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.
Claim 11 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:
although the cited references show much of the claimed invention of claim 9, including the system according to claim 8, they fail to expressly disclose wherein the control module is configured for: determining a closed contour on the face of the substrate carrying the conductors and the junctions, the closed contour delimiting a first zone of said face, controlling a switching of each junction included in the first zone to the corresponding first configuration and a switching of each junction located outside the first zone to the corresponding second configuration rotating the closed contour through a predetermined angle about an axis perpendicular to the face of the substrate carrying the conductors and the junctions, the closed contour delimiting a second zone upon completion of the rotating, and controlling a switching of each junction included in the second zone to the corresponding first configuration and a switching of each junction located outside the second zone to the corresponding second configuration. Most significantly, the rotation of the closed contour through a predetermined angle, for the purposes of switching the junctions between their first and second configurations (superconducting and non-superconducting as defined in the spec).
Although the cited references show much of the claimed invention of claim 11, including the method according to claim 10, they fail to expressly disclose the method further comprising the following steps: rotating the closed contour through a predetermined angle about an axis perpendicular to the face of the substrate carrying the conductors and the junctions, the closed contour delimiting a second zone on said face after the rotating step, and switching each junction within the second zone to the corresponding first configuration and switching each junction outside the second zone to the corresponding second configuration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY ALEXANDER RINE whose telephone number is (703)756-5701. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30 EST First Fr Off.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached on 5712725055. 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.
/JEREMY ALEXANDER RINE/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 March 4, 2025
Prosecution Insights