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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 11 , 17 , 21 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. Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 17 recite “preferably” language such that it is unclear if the clauses following “preferably” are required. The claims will be treated as the clauses following “preferably” are not required. The recitation in claim 11, lines 1-3 of “wherein the surface area has a diameter…” renders the claim indefinite. It appears that this recitation infers that the nanowire has a diameter of 4-10 micrometers. 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) 1, 3, 6, 10, 12, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by CN 110350077 . 077 teaches a single photon detector and method of making thereof (para. 0002) comprising a large core optical fiber with a core diameter larger than 8 micrometers (SMF-28e with diameter around 10 micrometers; para. 0061), a small core optical fiber with a core smaller than 5 micrometers (diameter of small fiber eg. 1.6 micrometers; para. 0062), a taper between the large and small optical fiber (para. 0061) a superconducting nanowire having a surface area configured to receive all photons emitted form the small core optical fiber (optimal coupling between small fiber and superconducting nanowire wherein small fiber is located on the upper surface of the nanowire, therefore configured to receive all photons emitted from small fiber; para. 0060). Regarding claim 24 , it appears that this limitation would necessarily occur in the operation of the single photon detector of 077 absent a showing to the contrary. 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) 2, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110350077 in view of US 2021381884 and WO 2014/026724 . 077 teaches a product and method as described above in claims 1 and 12, but fails to teach butt coupling the free end of the small fiber to the superconducting nanowire. 884 , however, teaches that there are various coupling options for coupling photon detectors with optical fibers ( para. 0016). 724 additionally teaches that different a single photon detector is butt coupled to the optical fiber (page 4, paragraph 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the single photon detector of 077 butt coupled with the small optical fiber in order to provide a known alternative means of coupling single photon detectors as taught by 884 and 724. Regarding claim 14, it is known to provide a mating sleeve when butt coupling wires. Claim (s) 2, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110350077 in view of US 2021381884 and WO 2014/026724 and Zadeh . 077 teaches a product and method as described above in claims 1 and 12, but fails to teach butt coupling the free end of the small fiber to the superconducting nanowire. 884, however, teaches that there are various coupling options for coupling photon detectors with optical fibers (para. 0016). 724 additionally teaches that different a single photon detector is butt coupled to the optical fiber (page 4, paragraph 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the single photon detector of 077 butt coupled with the small optical fiber in order to provide a known alternative means of coupling single photon detectors as taught by 884 and 724. Regarding claim 14, it is known to provide a mating sleeve when butt coupling wires. Claim (s) 5 , 7-8, 15-16 , 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110350077 in view of Preble (“UHNA fiber-efficient coupling to silicon waveguides”) and Zadeh . 077 teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach the small fiber is from the UHNA family. Preble, however, teaches a UHNA fiber for the purpose of low loss coupling to electronic components (page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a UHNA fiber in 077 in order to provide low loss coupling as taught by Preble. Regarding claims 7-8, 15-16; Preble teaches splicing UHNA fibers with a SMF28 for the purpose of providing an adiabatic splice and a smoother transition at the splice (page 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide UHNA fibers spliced with SMF28 fibers in 077 in order to provide an adiabatic splice and smooth transition at the splice as taught by Preble. Regarding claims 19-20, the limitations of these claims are well known steps in splicing fibers together in the electronic art. Claim (s) 5, 7-8, 15-16, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110350077 in view of Preble (“UHNA fiber-efficient coupling to silicon waveguides”) . 077 teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach the small fiber is from the UHNA family. Preble, however, teaches a UHNA fiber for the purpose of low loss coupling to electronic components (page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a UHNA fiber in 077 in order to provide low loss coupling as taught by Preble. Regarding claims 7-8, 15-16; Preble teaches splicing UHNA fibers with a SMF28 for the purpose of providing an adiabatic splice and a smoother transition at the splice (page 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide UHNA fibers spliced with SMF28 fibers in 077 in order to provide an adiabatic splice and smooth transition at the splice as taught by Preble. Regarding claims 19-20, the limitations of these claims are well known steps in splicing fibers together in the electronic art. Claim (s) 11 and 1, 3, 6, 10, 12, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110350077 in view of Zadeh (“Efficient Single-photon detection…”) . 077 teaches a product as described above in claim 1, but fails to teach the nanowire has a diameter of 4-10 micrometers. Zadeh, however, teaches a sspd having a diameter of about 10 micrometers (fig. 2b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the superconducting wire ( sspd ) with a diameter of 10 micrometers in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Zadeh. Regarding claim 1, it appears that the surface area taught by Zadeh meets the limitation of having a surface area configured to receive all photons from the optical fiber. Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110350077 in view of Preble (“UHNA fiber-efficient coupling to silicon waveguides”) and JP 2013-109120 . 077 teaches a method as described above in claim 16, but fails to teach fusion splicing the fibers with an arc time between 5000-8000 ms. 120, however , teaches a method splicing optical fibers (para. 0001) wherein optical are fusion spliced together with a discharge (arc) time of about 7500 ms (para. 0065). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the optical fibers of 077 are fusion spliced with a discharge (arc) time of about 7500 ms in order to provide a process parameter known in the art as taught by 120. Claim (s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110350077 in view of Preble (“UHNA fiber-efficient coupling to silicon waveguides”) and DE 60312465 . 077 teaches a method as described above in claim 16, but fails to teach testing the splice for transmission loss. 465, however, teaches a method of testing optical fibers (abstract) wherein transmission lines are tested for splice loss (transmission loss; para. 0045). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to test the splice of 077 for transmission loss in order to provide a process parameter known in the art as taught by 465 . Claim (s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110350077 in view of US 2021381884 and WO 2014/026724 and Hu (US 6642608) and Nam (US 20140087952) . 077 teaches a method as described above in claim 12, but fails to teach sputtering a superconducting material onto a silicon wafer, the wafer being coated with dielectric materials to form a cavity and etching the nanowire in the cavity and etching the silicon wafer into key hole shed chips containing the nanowire. Hu, however, teaches a method of making a superconductor integrated circuit (abstract) comprising sputtering a superconducting material onto a silicon wafer, the wafer being coated with dielectric materials to form a cavity and etching the nanowire in the cavity (col. 2, lines 20-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide sputtering a superconducting material onto a silicon wafer, the wafer being coated with dielectric materials to form a cavity and etching the nanowire in the cavity in 077 in order to provide a process parameter known in the art as taught by Hu. Additionally, Nam teaches a method of producing a single photon detector (abstract) comprising etching a silicon wafer to produce a key hole integrated circuit based on the end use of the product (para. 0054). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to etch the silicon wafer to produce a key hole integrated circuit based in 077 based on the end use of the product as taught by Nam. Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110350077 in view of Preble (“UHNA fiber-efficient coupling to silicon waveguides”) and JP 2013-109120 and Zadeh . 077 teaches a method as described above in claim 16, but fails to teach fusion splicing the fibers with an arc time between 5000-8000 ms. 120, however , teaches a method splicing optical fibers (para. 0001) wherein optical are fusion spliced together with a discharge (arc) time of about 7500 ms (para. 0065). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the optical fibers of 077 are fusion spliced with a discharge (arc) time of about 7500 ms in order to provide a process parameter known in the art as taught by 120. Claim (s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110350077 in view of Preble (“UHNA fiber-efficient coupling to silicon waveguides”) and DE 60312465 and Zadeh . 077 teaches a method as described above in claim 16, but fails to teach testing the splice for transmission loss. 465, however, teaches a method of testing optical fibers (abstract) wherein transmission lines are tested for splice loss (transmission loss; para. 0045). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to test the splice of 077 for transmission loss in order to provide a process parameter known in the art as taught by 465. Claim (s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 110350077 in view of US 2021381884 and WO 2014/026724 and Hu (US 6642608) and Nam (US 20140087952) and Zadeh. 077 teaches a method as described above in claim 12, but fails to teach sputtering a superconducting material onto a silicon wafer, the wafer being coated with dielectric materials to form a cavity and etching the nanowire in the cavity and etching the silicon wafer into key hole shed chips containing the nanowire. Hu, however, teaches a method of making a superconductor integrated circuit (abstract) comprising sputtering a superconducting material onto a silicon wafer, the wafer being coated with dielectric materials to form a cavity and etching the nanowire in the cavity (col. 2, lines 20-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide sputtering a superconducting material onto a silicon wafer, the wafer being coated with dielectric materials to form a cavity and etching the nanowire in the cavity in 077 in order to provide a process parameter known in the art as taught by Hu. Additionally, Nam teaches a method of producing a single photon detector (abstract) comprising etching a silicon wafer to produce a key hole integrated circuit based on the end use of the product (para. 0054). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to etch the silicon wafer to produce a key hole integrated circuit based in 077 based on the end use of the product as taught by Nam. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PAUL A WARTALOWICZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5957 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Walker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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