DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to RCE filed September 22, 2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0037] of current application, Applicants originally disclosed that “Barrier 14 covers top and side surfaces of the semiconductor 12”; however, the element 12 should be labeled as a superconductor as Applicants stated in paragraph [0036] of current application.
In paragraph [0042] of current application, Applicants originally disclosed that “In this configuration, both the protective layer 18 and the air gap serve to prevent a flow of current from the gate electrode 16 into the superconductor 10 and semiconductor 12”; however, the element 10 should be labeled as a semiconductor and the element 12 should be labeled as a superconductor as Applicants stated in paragraphs [0036], [0038] and [0040] of current application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 6 should be identified as a withdrawn claim rather than an original claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 7-13 and 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(1) Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “a barrier thickness is configured to provide an optimized topological gap” recited on line 13 refers to, because (a) it is not clear whose “topological gap” is optimized to be the claimed “optimized topological gap”, (b) a topological gap is commonly defined as an energy range in a quantum system's band structure that separates the ground state from excited states, specifically within materials hosting topological phases of matter, such as topological insulators or superconductors, (c) therefore, it is not clear whether the “topological gap” refers to (i) a topological gap of the semiconductor nanowire, (ii) a topological gap of the superconductor material, (iii) a topological gap of the barrier, (iv) a topological gap of the sub-structure, (v) a topological gap of a combined structure of the semiconductor nanowire and the superconductor material, (vi) a topological gap of a combined structure of the semiconductor nanowire, the barrier and the superconductor material, (vii) a topological gap of a combined structure of the semiconductor nanowire, the barrier, the superconductor material and the sub-structure, and so on, and (c) depending on which “topological gap” that should be optimized refers to, the claimed barrier thickness should vary.
(2) Further regarding claim 1, even if arguendo the optimized “topological gap” refers to one of the materials listed above, single or combined, it is not clear which excited state or which excited states the “topological gap” is associated with, because (a) as stated above, a topological gap is commonly defined as an energy range in a quantum system's band structure that separates the ground state from excited states, specifically within materials hosting topological phases of matter, such as topological insulators or superconductors, (b) for example, Sarma et al. (“Majorana zero modes and topological quantum computation,” npj Quantum Information 1 (2015) 15001) disclose certain modes of a qubit, (c) therefore, it appears that there should be a plurality of modes for one or more of the claimed component layers of the semiconductor-superconductor structure, (d) in this case, unless Applicants can provide a substantiating evidence that the optimized topological gap corresponds to a single barrier thickness regardless of which topological gap it is, the amended claim 1 would be indefinite since, if a barrier thickness optimizes one topological gap corresponding to one mode, while deoptimizing another topological gap corresponding to another mode, it is not clear whether this barrier thickness satisfies the claim limitation recited on line 13.
Claims 2-5 and 7-13 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-5 and 7-13 are also indefinite.
(3) Regarding claim 18, claim 18 including the limitation “the barrier is configured to provide an optimized topological gap” recited on line 6 is also indefinite for the same reasons stated above; i.e. the difference between the last line of the amended claim 1 and the limitation cited above is primarily the terms “a barrier thickness” and “the barrier”, and therefore, substantially identical points can be made with regard to claim 18 where (a) depending on which “topological gap” that should be optimized refers to, the claimed barrier should vary, and (b) if a barrier optimizes one topological gap corresponding to one mode, while deoptimizing another topological gap corresponding to another mode, it is not clear whether this barrier satisfies the claim limitation recited on line 6.
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 18, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 7,212,433) in view of Kuroda et al. (US 4,961,194)
Johnson et al. disclose a (semiconductor-superconductor) structure (Fig. 2), comprising: a semiconductor material (180; InGaAs); a Schottky gate electrode (174); and a barrier (178; InAlAs) between the Schottky gate electrode and the semiconductor material; wherein the barrier is configured to provide an optimized topological gap, which is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, with the Schottky gate electrode 174 in a superconducting state in Johnson in view of Kuroda et al.
Johnson differs from the claimed invention by not showing that the Schottky gate electrode is a superconductor material that exhibits superconducting behavior when cooled to a temperature that induces superconducting behavior.
Kuroda et al. disclose a semiconductor-superconductor structure (Fig. 5) where an Al gate electrode (19G) is employed (col. 5, lines 2-5 and 10-11).
Since both Johnson and Kuroda et al. teach a device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the Schottky gate electrode 174 disclosed by Johnson can be formed of Al as disclosed by Kuroda et al., because (a) Al has been one of the commonly employed gate electrode materials in combination with GaAs-based or GaAs-related semiconductor materials, (b) Al is one of the metal elements that are not expensive, whiling being easy to use in a semiconductor manufacturing process and having a high conductivity, and (c) it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In this case, the combined structure of Johnson in view of Kuroda et al. is a semiconductor-superconductor structure since the combined device comprises all the claimed structural and material limitations; also, the barrier should inherently be configured to provide an optimized topological gap with the superconductor material 174 of Johnson in view of Kuroda et al. in a superconducting state, because (a) Johnson in view of Kuroda et al. disclose all the claim limitations, and (b) if Johnson in view of Kuroda et al. do not teach the limitation “the barrier is configured to provide an optimized topological gap with the superconductor material in a superconducting state”, then claim 18 would further be indefinite for not claiming an essential or critical feature to the practice of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1 and 18 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Das et al., “Evidence of Majorana fermions in an Al - InAs nanowire topological superconductor,” arXiv:1205.7073 (2012).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached on (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 February 18, 2026