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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-10, & 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chow et al. (US 20160364653).
Regarding claim 1, Chow discloses that a superconductor-constriction-superconductor Josephson junction (ScS JJ) qubit 1. device for use in a quantum information processing environment, the qubit device comprising:
a substrate 101 (Fig. 4);
a first superconducting pad 404 (para. 0053, note: a super conducting material) formed on the substrate 101; and
a second superconducting pad 404 formed on the substrate, the second superconducting pad coupled to and coplanar with the first superconducting pad 404 (Fig. 4)
and a thin bridge of superconducting material 402 or 403 coupling the first superconducting pad 401 or 404 to the second superconducting pad (other side of pad shown in Fig. 4 or 404), wherein the first superconducting pad 401 or 404, the second superconducting pad (other side of pad or 404), and the thin bridge are coplanar (coplanar in Z direction) and comprised of the same thin film superconducting material (Fig. 4)
Reclaim 2, Chow discloses that the substrate is selected from the group consisting of a semiconductor substrate, an insulator substrate, and a dielectric substrate (para. 0040, silicon, sapphire).
Reclaim 5, Chow discloses that the thin film superconducting material is selected from the group consisting of Al, Nb, Ta, TiN, NbN, CoSi2, PtSi, V3Si and the like (para. 0031).
Regarding claim 6, Chow discloses that a superconducting qubit device for use in a quantum computing environment, the superconducting qubit device comprising:
a substrate 101;
a superconductor-constriction-superconductor Josephson junction 403 (ScS JJ) qubit device formed on the substrate 101, the ScS JJ qubit device including at least a construction comprising a thin bridge 402 (note: specified meaning of a bridge has not defined in the body of claim yet, so a bridge is considered as a connection from the first pad to the second pad, and also see modified Fig. 4 below for detail);
a shunting capacitor 404 (para. 0047, note: a coupling capacitor pad) formed on the substrate and in communication with the ScS JJ qubit device;
a microwave resonator 402 formed on the substrate and in communication with at least one of the shunting capacitor 404 and the ScS JJ qubit device; and
a microwave waveguide 402 formed on the substrate and in communication with the microwave resonator (para. 0027).
Reclaim 7, Chow discloses that the ScS JJ qubit device, the shunting capacitor, the microwave resonator 402, and the microwave waveguide (para. 0027) are coplanar with each other on the substrate 101.
Reclaim 8, Chow discloses that the ScS JJ qubit device comprises a first superconducting pad formed on the substrate 404 and a second superconducting pad 404 formed on the substrate 101, the second superconducting pad coupled to and coplanar with the first superconducting pad (Fig. 4).
Reclaim 9, Chow discloses that the first superconducting pad is coupled to the second superconducting pad via a thin bridge of superconducting material 403 coplanar with the first superconducting pad and the second superconducting pad (Fig. 4).
Reclaim 10, Chow discloses that the first superconducting pad 404, the second superconducting pad 404, and the thin bridge 403 are comprised of the same thin film superconducting material (Fig. 4).
Reclaim 12, Chow discloses that the thin film superconducting material is selected from the group consisting of Al, Nb, Ta, TiN, NbN, CoSi₂, PtSi, V₃Si, (para. 0031).
Reclaim 13, Chow discloses that the superconducting qubit device is selected from the group consisting of a transmon qubit, a fluxonium qubit, a phase qubit (para. 0031).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al. (US 20160364653).
Reclaim 11, Chow fails to specify that the thin bridge having a coherence length of about 100 nm .
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain length of bridge, because it would have been to obtain a certain length of bridge to achieve sufficient length to detect electron or qubits.
Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow et al. (US 20160364653) in view of Tuckerman (US 20180261932).
Regarding claim 14, Chow discloses that a method of forming a superconducting device including a superconductor-constriction-superconductor Josephson junction (ScS JJ) qubit device for use in a quantum information processing environment, the method comprising:
depositing a featureless superconducting film (para. 0031) on a semiconductor substrate;
casting a pattern resist of the superconducting device including the ScS JJ over the superconducting film (para. 0111);
transferring the pattern resist to the superconducting film (para. 0111); and
removing any residual pattern resist forming the superconducting device (para 0111).
Chow fails to teach that the ScS JJ qubit device having at least a construction comprising a thin bridge over the superconducting film.
However, Tuckerman suggests that different shape including a thin bridge 22 over the superconducting film 14 & 18 (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Chow with a thin bridge over the superconducting film as taught by Tuckerman in order to enhance variation of connectivity and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Reclaim 15, Chow & Tuckerman disclose that the superconducting film is selected from the group consisting of Al, Nb, Ta, TiN, NbN, CoSi₂, PtSi, V3Si, and the like (Chow, para. 0031).
Reclaim 16, Chow & Tuckerman disclose that the ScS JJ includes a first superconducting pad, a second superconducting pad coplanar with the first superconducting pad, and a thin bridge of superconducting material 403 coupled to and coplanar with the first superconducting pad 404 and the second superconducting pad 404 (Chow, Fig. 4).
Reclaim 17, Chow & Tuckerman disclose that forming the superconducting device pattern in the pattern resist by using one of a group consisting of photolithography, e-beam lithography, and direct laser writing (Chow, para. 0111).
Reclaim 18, Chow & Tuckerman disclose that the superconducting device pattern includes a pattern of the ScS JJ qubit device, a shunting capacitor, a microwave resonator, and a microwave waveguide formed on the semiconductor substrate such that the ScS JJ qubit device, a shunting capacitor, a microwave resonator, and a microwave waveguide and in communication with the microwave resonator (Chow, Fig. 4).
Reclaim 19, Chow & Tuckerman disclose that the pattern resist is transferred to the superconducting film using a method selected from the group consisting of wet chemical etching, reactive ion etching, and ion milling (Chow, para. 0110-0111).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenei et al. (US 20220359808) in view of Yang et al. (US 6420092).
Regarding claim 20, Jenei discloses that a method of forming a superconducting device including a superconductor-constriction-superconductor Josephson junction (ScS JJ) qubit device for use in a quantum computing environment, the method comprising:
applying a pattern resist 103 directly onto an unetched surface of a semiconductor substrate 101 with [[a]] the pattern resist defining openings 101 corresponding to a pattern of the ScS JJ qubit device depositing a thin film superconducting material 104 over the pattern resist and into the openings; and the semiconductor substrate in a solvent to dissolve the pattern resist, thereby lifting off the thin film superconducting material deposited on the pattern resist and leaving the superconducting device formed in the openings on the unetched surface of the substrate (para. 0044).
Jenei fails to specify that submerging the semiconductor substrate in a solvent.
However, Yang suggests that submerging the semiconductor substrate in a solvent (col.6, lines 25-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Jenei with submerging the semiconductor substrate in a solvent as taught by Yang in order to enhance expediting lift off process and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “ Chow does not teach a thin bridge of superconducting material coupling the first superconducting pad to the second superconducting pad, wherein the first superconducting pad, the second superconducting pad, and the thin bridge are coplanar and comprised of the same thin film superconducting material of claim 1”.
However, Chow discloses that a thin bridge of superconducting material coupling the first superconducting pad to the second superconducting pad, wherein the first superconducting pad, the second superconducting pad, and the thin bridge are coplanar and comprised of the same thin film superconducting material as shown modified Fig. 4 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant does not clearly define a meaning of bridge and the bridge can be considered connecting from one point to other point as Chow disclose an element 402.
Applicant further argues that “Chow is not a proper 102 reference”.
Chow discloses every limitation that applicant claim and it is proper 102 reference.
Also, applicant argues “Chow’s teaches a modular, vertically integrated, multi-chip architecture”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a modular, vertically integrated, multi-chip architecture) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-2, 5-10, & 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is deemed proper.
In addition, for the rejection of claim 11, the prima facie case of obviousness has been met and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is deemed proper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14-19 & 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:00.
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.
/SU C KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights