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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I in the reply filed on 10/02/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 15-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/02/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Republic of Korea on 09/19/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2022-0118152 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 7-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “are different from each other equal to or more 5 times” in line lines 5-6 however it is unclear what this language is intended to require for example if it is meant to mean --are different from each other equal to each other or more than 5 times one another-- or for example --are different from each other by 5 times or greater--.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “are different from each other equal to or more 10 times” in line 2 however it is unclear what this language is intended to require for example if it is meant to mean --are different from each other equal to each other or more than 10 times one another-- or for example --are different from each other by 10 times or greater--.
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 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) 1-4 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hubert et. Al. (WO 2019117929 A1 hereinafter Hubert).
Regarding claim 1, Hubert teaches in Figs. 5E with associated text a Josephson junction device comprising: a substrate 522 having a first surface (upper surface) and a trench 529 recessed below the first surface (Figs. 5C and 5E, [0073], wherein sidewalls of the substrate define sidewalls of the trench (Fig. 5E); a first superconducting electrode (524 and 532) formed on the first surface of the substrate to be adjacent to the trench (Fig 5E, [0073]); a tunneling thin film 528 formed over the sidewalls of the substrate and over a side surface of the first superconducting electrode adjacent to the trench (Fig. 5E, [0082]); and a second superconducting electrode 530 formed in the trench in contact with the tunneling thin film and with a top surface above the first surface of the substrate (Fig. 5E, [0089]), wherein a superconducting tunnel junction 541 is formed between the first superconducting electrode and the second superconducting electrode through the tunneling thin film (Fig. 5E, [0090]).
Regarding claim 2, Hubert teaches a depth of the trench from the first surface of the substrate to a bottom surface of the second superconducting electrode is D1, a distance from the first surface to the top surface of the first superconducting electrode is D2 (distance from bottom of 524 and 532), a vertical thickness of the second superconducting electrode is D3, and the second superconducting electrode satisfies D1< D3 <= D1+D2 (Fig. 5E).
Regarding claim 3, Hubert teaches a protective layer of material protecting the tunneling thin film above the first superconducting electrode (partially completed device wherein portion of 530 formed over surface 539 not shown [0088]) .
Regarding claim 4, Hubert teaches the protective layer is formed together with the second superconducting electrode [0088].
Regarding claim 5, Hubert teaches the trench sidewalls include a first sidewall (left sidewall) and a second sidewall (right sidewall) facing each other, a first junction formed by the tunneling thin film (junction between 524 and 528) on the first sidewall, and a second junction formed by the tunneling thin film on the second sidewall (junction between 530 and 528), wherein junction areas of the first junction and the second junction are different from each other (Fig. 5E).
Regarding claim 9, Hubert teaches the junction area of the first junction is less than the junction area of the second junction so that the first junction functions as a main junction and the second junction functions as a sub junction (Fig. 5E).
Regarding claim 11, Hubert teaches the first superconducting electrode or the second superconducting electrode has a vertical thickness less than or equal to about 200 nm (the first superconducting electrode has a thickness of 6 to 10 nm [0074]).
Regarding claim 12, Hubert teaches the first superconducting electrode or the second superconducting electrode includes titanium nitride, niobium, niobium nitride, or titanium niobium nitride ([0074).
Regarding claim 13, Hubert teaches the tunneling thin film includes a metal, a semiconductor, or an insulator ([0083]).
Regarding claim 14, Hubert teaches the tunneling thin film includes aluminum oxide (AIO), hafnium oxide (HfO), silicon nitride (SiN), or aluminum nitride (AIN) (AlO or HfO [0083]).
.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubert as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Hart et. Al. (US 20200321508 A1 hereinafter Hart).
Regarding claim 10, Hubert teaches the Josephson junction device of claim 9.
Hubert does not specify a conductive layer formed by doping a part of the substrate on the side of the second sidewall to reinforce concentration of a load on the main junction
Hart discloses in Figs. 7 with associated text a conductive layer formed by doping a part of the substrate (doping layer not shown [0086]) on the side of the second sidewall to reinforce concentration of a load on the main junction (Fig. 7, [0086] the claim would not necessarily require the doping to be on only the second sidewall).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a conductive layer similar to that taught by Hart in the device on Hubert because according to Hart because according to dopants may be used to control the carrier density in the JJ switch [0086].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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:
After completing a thorough search of dependent claim 6, the prior art of record, alone or in combination does not disclose, teach or fairly suggest a horizontal width of the second superconducting electrode contacting the tunneling thin film on the first sidewall is different from a width of the second superconducting electrode contacting the tunneling thin film on the second sidewall, so that the junction areas of the first junction and the second junction are different from each other in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Claims 30-32 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
After completing a thorough search of independent claim 30, the prior art of record, alone or in combination does not disclose, teach or fairly suggest a linear groove having a left wall comprised of a left portion of the planar substrate and a left portion of the first superconducting electrode, the linear groove also having a right wall comprised of a right portion of the planar substrate and a right portion of the first superconducting electrode; a tunneling film comprising a left portion lining the left wall of the linear groove and comprising a right portion lining the right wall of the linear groove; a second superconducting electrode in the linear groove having a left end with a first contact area with the left portion of the tunneling film and having a right end with a second contact area with the right portion of the tunneling film, the second contact area larger than the first contact area in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Claims 31-32 are also allowed being dependent on allowable claims 30.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tokunari (US-20230180630-A1), Tanaka (US-5354734-A) and Adiga (US-20210151659-A1) generally disclose josephson junctions formed in trenches.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Toledo Fernando can be reached on 5712721867. 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.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897