Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This office action is in response to communication filed on 08/17/2026. Claims 1, 15, 17 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending on this application.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1 and 15. Under remarks applicant argued: The Examiner's assertion "the rate of e of single flux pulse is always proportional to the intensity of an optical signal; Higher intensity = More photons = Higher pulse rate and Lower intensity = Fewer photons = Lower pulse rate" is incorrect or inapplicable. Currie does not involve non-binary modulation of an optical intensity optical intensity; and Currie does not disclose these limitations. Currie is directed to a system in which an optical pulse train is used as a sampling clock for an electrical input signal, not a system in which an optical signal itself is the information-bearing input to be digitized”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the following:
"the rate of single flux pulse is always proportional to the intensity of an optical signal; Higher intensity = More photons = Higher pulse rate and Lower intensity = Fewer photons = Lower pulse rate) in corrected because:
Light intensity (I), or irradiance, is defined in physics as the total energy delivered per unit area per unit time (Watts per square meter, W/m2).
Quantum flux rate (Φ), also known as photon flux density, is the number of photons hitting a unit area per unit time (measured in photons/m2
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/s or simply
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
photons/m2
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
/s).
The Physics Formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I = Φ × hc/λ
Where:
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I = Light Intensity (W/m2)
Φ = Quantum Flux Rate (photons/m2/s)
h = Planck's constant
𝒄 = Speed of light
λ = Wavelength of the light.
From above, Quantum Flux Rate (Φ) is proportional to light intensity (I); therefore,
Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 of Currie do involve non-binary modulation (analog domain EOM 140) of an optical intensity optical intensity (analog modulated optical signal160); Currie is directed to a system (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) in which an optical pulse train (120) is used as a sampling clock (Col. 3 lines 45-46 discloses “the pulse train from the laser is the sampling clock”) for an electrical input signal (130) and a system (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) in which an optical signal (160) itself is the information-bearing input (information of 160 is input to 150) to be digitized (Fig. 2 digitized LSB,NLSB, MSB from quantized pulse train 200).
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 20. Under remarks applicant argued” neither Shaver nor Currie teaches an SFQ pulse rate that varies dependently with optical intensity. Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 20, and the rejection must be withdrawn. Shaver nor Currie teaches an SFQ pulse rate that varies dependently with optical intensity, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness for claim 20, and the rejection must be withdrawn. Therefore, claim 20 is also distinguished from Currie by its conversion of an amplitude of the optical signal into a variable SFQ pulse rate. Shaver discloses a WDM technique to permit sub-Nyquist rate sampling [ 0014]. The output is not an SFQ signal having a pulse rate in excess of 1 GHz. Therefore, claim 20 is distinguished.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the following:
From previous office action mailed on 05/15/2026, claim 20 is anticipated by Shaver et al. not an obviousness rejection as argued by applicant.
Single Flux Quantum (SQF) is inherent to Josephson-Junction.
PNG
media_image2.png
568
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
From above; Fig. 1 of Shaver et al. discloses a plurality of optically-responsive superconductor circuits (ADC 170; paragraph 0031 discloses “ Superconducting ADC's use quantization of magnetic flux and ultrafast Josephson junction comparators), each respective superconductor circuit (each ADC 170) comprising a Josephson junction (paragraph 0031 discloses “ Superconducting ADC's use quantization of magnetic flux and ultrafast Josephson junction comparators) having single flux quantum pulse rate (single quantum flux is a fundamental property of superconducting Josephson junctions; see above “AI Overview ) in excess of 1 GHz (paragraph 0031 discloses “Superconducting ADC's use quantization of magnetic flux and ultrafast Josephson junction comparators integrated with more conventional back-end digital circuitry. Instantaneous input bandwidth of superconducting ADCs is projected at tens of GHz”).
From the reasons above, rejections of claims 1-20 are sustained from the same references applied to previous office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Currie U.S. patent No. 6,771,201.
Fig. 1 of Currie discloses an optically-responsive superconductor circuit (Fig. 1; lines 8-13) to generated Quantized Output 180 of single flux quantum (SFQ) pulses (Col. 3 lines 57-58).
Fig. 2a discloses a superconduct circuit configured to receive the Quantized Signal 200 to generate multibit digital binary presentation (LSB, NLSB, MSB; see Fig. 2b)
Regarding claim 1. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2a of Currie discloses an optically responsive superconducting device (Col. 3 Lines 8-13), comprising: an optically-responsive superconductor circuit (Fig. 1 Col. 3 lines 8-13) comprising a Josephson junction (170; Col. 4 lines 44-45), configured to produce a series of single flux quantum pulses (series of single flux quantum pulses 180; Col. 3 lines 57-58 disclose “single flux quantum (SFQ) pulses 180”) having a pulse rate (pulse rate of quantized output 180) proportionally dependent (the rate of single flux pulse is always proportional to the intensity of an optical signal; Higher intensity = More photons = Higher pulse rate and Lower intensity = Fewer photons = Lower pulse rate;
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I = Φ × hc/λ wherein I is intensity; Φ is Quantum Flux Rate) on an analog intensity of an optical signal (analog intensity of optical modulation signal 160; Col. 3 lines 53-54), the series of single flux quantum pulses (quantized output 180) being oversampled (oversampling Josephson junction by JTL ) with respect to a modulation of the optical signal (160; Col. 3 lines 53-54) having a bandwidth in excess of 1 GHz (Col. 3 lines 40-42 discloses frequency range of 10-20 GHz of clock signal MLFL 100 to generate a modulated optical signal 160 for digitizing ); and a superconducting circuit (Fig. 2a; Col. 5 lines 20-22) configured to determine a pulse rate of the series of single flux quantum pulses (pulse rate of Quantized Output 200 in Fig. 2a) with respect to a clock (Col. 2 lines 19-25 discloses “The T flip-flop circuit elements have been shown to operate up to 770 GHz, allowing for conversion rates above 100 giga-samples per second”) as a multibit digital representation (LSB, NLSB, MSB; in Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 2. The optically responsive superconducting device according to claim 1, Fig. 2a of Currie further discloses wherein the superconducting circuit (Fig.2a; Col. 5 lines 20-22) comprises a clocked synchronizer (T Flip-Flop 210, 220; Col. 2 lines 19-25 discloses “The T flip-flop circuit elements have been operating with 770 GHz rate) and a digital counter (“P” parity counter 230, 240, 250; Col. 4 lines 7-9 discloses “One type of counter for binary output is shown in FIG. 2a as a schematic block diagram of a 3-bit binary output, parallel parity counter circuit”).
Regarding claim 12. The optically responsive superconducting device according to claim 1, Fig. 1 of Currie further discloses optical waveguide (electro-optic modulator EOM 140 configured as an integrated optical waveguide device) and a microring resonant waveguide (waveguide rings between 140 and 150), wherein the optically-responsive superconductor circuit (170) is coupled (150) to the microring resonant waveguide (waveguide rings between 140 and 150).
Regarding claim 13. The optically responsive superconducting device according to claim 1, Fig. 1 of Currie further discloses wherein the superconducting circuit (170) comprises a plurality of Josephson junctions (JTL), configured to perform digital logic functions (logic quantized output signal 180) based on single-flux-quantum (SFQ) pulses (Col. 3 lines 56-59).
Regarding claim 15. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2a of Currie discloses a method of operating an optically responsive superconducting device (Col.3 Lines 8-13), comprising: interacting an analog amplitude modulated optical signal (analog amplitude of optical modulated signal 160) with an optically (optical modulated signal 160 -responsive superconductor circuit( Col. 3 lines 8-13) comprising a Josephson junction (JTL 170 Col. 4 lines 44-45); producing a series of single flux quantum pulses (Quantized output 180; Col. 3 lines 57-58 disclose “single flux quantum (SFQ) pulses 180”) by the superconducting circuit (JTL 170) having a pulse rate (pulse rate of 180) proportionally dependent on an intensity (the rate of e of single quantum flux pulse is always proportional to the analog intensity of an optical signal; Higher intensity = More photons = Higher pulse rate and Lower intensity = Fewer photons = Lower pulse rate) of the analog amplitude modulated optical signal (amplitude modulated analog optical signal 160), the series of single flux quantum pulses (180) being oversampled (oversampling pulses 180 by JTL of 170) with respect to a bandwidth in excess of 1 GHz (Col. 3 lines 40-42 discloses range of 10-20 GHz of MFLF 100); generating a multibit output (LSB, NLSB, MSB; Figs. 2a and 2b) representing a pulse rate of the series of single flux quantum pulses (pulse rate of 200 in Fig. 2a) with respect to a clock (Col. 2 lines 19-25 discloses “The T flip-flop circuit elements have been shown to operate up to 770 GHz, allowing for conversion rates above 100 giga-samples per second”) using a superconducting circuit (Fig. 2a; Col. 3 lines 1-2 discloses “superconducting electronics and photonic”).
6. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Shaver et al. Pub. No. 2013/0315597.
Fig. 1 of Shaver et al. discloses 20. a wavelength division multiplexed (WDM) optical signal receiver (paragraph 0002), comprising: an optical waveguide (MZM 140) ; a plurality of microring resonators (125) ; and a plurality of optically-responsive superconductor circuits (ADC 170; paragraph 0031 discloses “ Superconducting ADC's use quantization of magnetic flux and ultrafast Josephson junction comparators), each respective superconductor circuit (ADC 170) comprising a Josephson junction (paragraph 0031 discloses “ Superconducting ADC's use quantization of magnetic flux and ultrafast Josephson junction comparators) having single flux quantum pulse rate (single quantum flux is a fundamental property of superconducting Josephson junctions ) in excess of 1 GHz (paragraph 0031 discloses “Superconducting ADC's use quantization of magnetic flux and ultrafast Josephson junction comparators integrated with more conventional back-end digital circuitry. Instantaneous input bandwidth of superconducting ADCs is projected at tens of GHz”) dependent on an analog optical modulation (MZM 140) of a respective wavelength optical signal (respective wavelength of 125) of a wavelength divisional optical signal (wavelength divisional of 125) communicated through the optical waveguide (MZM 140) ; and at least one digital circuit (DSP 175) )configured to process the digital samples (output of ADC 170) of each respective optically-responsive superconductor circuit (170) into a multibit digital representation (OUTPUT).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 3, 5, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currie applied to claims 1 and 15 above in view of Hilton et al. U.S. patent No. 7,613,765.
Regarding claim 3. Currie applied to claim 1 does not disclose wherein the optical signal (signal of mode-lock fiber laser “MLFL” 100) is generated representing a quantum state of a qubit.
Fig. 1 of Hilton et al. discloses optically-responsive superconductor circuit (200; Col. 1 lines 48-49) comprising: superconducting Josephson junction (615) for an optical signal (Col. 1 lines 45-48) is generated representing a quantum state of a qubit (Qubits).
Currie and Hilton et al. are common subject matter of superconducting Josephson junction for optical signal; therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate Hilton et al. into Curries for the purpose of providing Superconducting Qubits; the qubit is a well-defined physical structure that (i) has a plurality of quantum states, (ii) can be coherently isolated from its environment, and (iii) permits quantum tunneling between two or more quantum states associated with the qubit (Col. 1 lines 35-40 of Hilton et al.).
Regarding claim 5. Currie applied to claim 1 does not disclose a quantum processor cell, configured to produce the optical signal modulated in dependence on a state of a respective qubit
Fig. 1 of Hilton et al. discloses optically-responsive superconductor circuit (200; Col. 1 lines 48-49) comprising: a quantum processor cell (Col. 1 lines 35-36 discloses “a quantum computer is based on quantum bits, known as "qubits”), configured to produce the optical signal modulated in dependence on a state of a respective qubit (Col. 1 lines 44-50 discloses “quantum electrodynamics (QED), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) based qubits, neutral atoms in an optical lattice, quantum dots, silicon based qubits, optical photons, and superconducting Josephson junction devices; the current physical systems from which qubits can be formed is found in Braunstein and Lo (eds.), 2001, Scalable Quantum Computers, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Berlin, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. In order for a physical system to support quantum computation, specific requirements must be satisfied: the physical system must be scalable and composed of well characterized qubits).
Currie and Hilton et al. are common subject matter of superconducting Josephson junction for optical signal; therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate Hilton et al. into Curries for the purpose of providing Superconducting Qubits; the qubit is a well-defined physical structure that (i) has a plurality of quantum states, (ii) can be coherently isolated from its environment, and (iii) permits quantum tunneling between two or more quantum states associated with the qubit (Col. 1 lines 35-40 of Hilton et al.).
Regarding claim 16. Currie applied to claim 15 does not disclose wherein the optical signal represents an operational state of a qubit.
Fig. 1 of Hilton et al. discloses optically-responsive superconductor circuit (200; Col. 1 lines 48-49) comprising: an optical signal (Col. 1 lines 45-48) representing a quantum state of a qubit (Qubits).
Currie and Hilton et al. are common subject matter of superconducting Josephson junction for optical signal; therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate Hilton et al. into Curries for the purpose of providing Superconducting Qubits; the qubit is a well-defined physical structure that (i) has a plurality of quantum states, (ii) can be coherently isolated from its environment, and (iii) permits quantum tunneling between two or more quantum states associated with the qubit (Col. 1 lines 35-40 of Hilton et al.).
9. Claims 4, 11, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currie applied to claims 1 and 15 above in view of La Cour et al. Pub. No. 2017/0286858.
Regarding claim 4. Currie applied to claim 1 above does not disclose a superconducting circuit receiving the multibit representation and generating a control signal to define a state of a qubit.
Fig. 11 of La Cour et al. discloses a superconducting circuit (paragraph 0006 discloses “Super conducting circuit”) receiving a multibit representation (X0, X1, X2) and generating a control signal (|X2 X1X0>) to define a state of a qubit (1130).
Currie and La Cour et al. are common subject matter of superconducting; therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate La Cour et al. into Currie. for the purpose of providing the digital signal may represent the transformed quantum state (paragraph 0009 of Cour et al.).
Regarding claim 11. Currie applied to claim 1 above does not disclose, a waveform generator configured to generate a quantum processor cell control signal dependent on the multibit digital representation.
Fig. 11 of La Cour et al. discloses a superconducting circuit (paragraph 0006 discloses “Super conducting circuit”) comprising: a waveform generator (1130) configured to generate a quantum processor cell control signal (|X2 X1X0>) dependent on a multibit digital representation (X0, X1, X2).
Currie and La Cour et al. are common subject matter of superconducting; therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate La Cour et al. into Currie. for the purpose of providing the digital signal may represent the transformed quantum state (paragraph 0009 of Cour et al.).
Regarding claim 17. Currie applied to claim 15 above does not disclose controlling a qubit with the multibit output
Fig. 11 of La Cour et al. discloses a superconducting circuit (paragraph 0006 discloses “Super conducting circuit”) controlling a qubit (130) with a multibit digital output representation (X0 X1 X2) of an information (wo, w1, w2).
Currie and La Cour et al. are common subject matter of superconducting; therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate La Cour et al. into Currie. for the purpose of providing the digital signal may represent the transformed quantum state (paragraph 0009 of Cour et al.).
Regarding claim 19. Currie applied to claim 15 above does not disclose generating an optical signal representing a quantum state of a qubit; and using the multibit representation to generate a control signal to define a subsequent state of the qubit.
Fig. 11 of La Cour et al. disclose generating an optical signal representing a quantum state (paragraph 0137 discloses optical processing or another mechanism to create the ensemble of signals for the initial quantum state) of a qubit (1130); and using the multibit representation (Xo, X1, X2) to generate a control signal (w0, w1, w2) to define a subsequent state (|X2X1X0>) of the qubit (1130).
Currie and La Cour et al. are common subject matter of superconducting; therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate La Cour et al. into Currie. for the purpose of providing the digital signal may represent the transformed quantum state (paragraph 0009 of Cour et al.).
10. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currie applied to claim 1 above in view of Nazarathy et al. U.S. patent No. 8,953,950.
Regarding claim 6. Currie applied to claim 1 above does not disclose wherein the optical signal is received as one of a plurality of wavelength division multiplexed signals from a common optical waveguide.
Fig. 15 of Nazarathy et al. discloses an optical signal (Col. 11 lines 26-27) is received as one of a plurality of wavelength division multiplexed signals (input signals of DEM MUX 1506) from a common optical waveguide (OCG).
Currie and Nazarathy et al. are common subject matter of Optical element; therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate Nazarathy et al. into Currie for the purpose of providing multiple photonic ADC variants with successively improved performance levels, enabling systems able to digitally capture electronic signals with bandwidths ranging from 1 GHz to 100 GHz and beyond. The novel ultra-high speed photonic-enabled A/D conversion techniques will also impact, at the application level, the fields of wireless, satellite, radar and cable television and terrestrial broadcast transmission, as the ability to real-time digitize entire ultra-broadband (up to 100 GHz) RF/microwave spectra, regardless of their spectral structure (Col. 11 lines 40-49 of Nazarathy et al.).
Regarding claim 7. Currie and Nazarathy et al. applied to claim 6 above, Fig. 15 of Nazarathy et al. further comprising an optical demultiplexer configured to demultiplex (WDM DEMUX) the plurality of wavelength division multiplexed signals (input signals of DEM MUX 1506).
11. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currie and Nazarathy et al. applied to claim 6 above in further view of Abdo et al. U.S. patent No. 9,735,776.
Regarding claim 8. Nazarathy et al. applied to claim 6 above does not discloses a plurality of qubits in a quantum processor cell, configured to produce a wavelength division multiplexed optical signal in the common optical waveguide, each of the wavelength division multiplexed signals representing a state of a respective qubit modulated on a different frequency light carrier wave.
Fig. 15 of Abdo et al. discloses Quantum systems such as superconducting qubits (col. 3 lines 26-28) comparing a plurality of qubits in a quantum processor cell (1520), configured to produce a wavelength division multiplexed optical signal (Transmission lines 30_1. 300_N) for Qubit in the common optical waveguide (Col. 3 lines 34-38), each of the wavelength division multiplexed signals (Transmission lines 30_1. 300_N) representing a state of a respective qubit (1555-1…1555_N) modulated on a different frequency light carrier wave (Col. 35 lines 36-43).
Currie/ Nazarathy et al. and Abdo et al. are common subject matter of superconducting circuit; therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of claimed invention to one ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate Abdo et al. into Currie/ Nazarathy et al for the purpose of provide quantum computing employs nonlinear superconducting devices called qubits to manipulate and store quantum information at microwave frequencies, and resonators (e.g., as a two-dimensional (2D) planar waveguide or as a three-dimensional (3D) microwave cavity) to read out and facilitate interaction among qubits (Col.1 lines 8-15 of Abdo et al.).
Regarding claim 9 Currie/ Nazarathy et al. and Abdo et al. applied to claim 8 above, Fig. 15 of Abdo et al. further discloses wherein the plurality of qubits (1520) comprise transmon qubits, flux qubits, or fluxonium qubits (Col. 27 lines 43-59).
12. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currie, Nazarathy et al. and Abdo et al. applied to claim 8 above in further view of Das et al. Pub. No. 2018/0102470.
Currie, Nazarathy et al. and Abdo et al. applied to claim 8 above do not disclose wherein the optically-responsive superconductor circuit is configured to operate at a temperature higher than a temperature of the plurality of qubits.
Das et al. discloses an optical circuit (paragraph 0112) comprising superconducting (paragraph 0045); the optically-responsive superconductor circuit is configured to operate at a temperature higher than a temperature of the plurality of qubits (paragraph 0369).
Currie, Nazarathy et al./ Abdo et al. and Das et al. are common subject matter of integrated circuit with Quantum Logic (Qubit); therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate Das et al. into Currie, Nazarathy et al./ Abdo et al. for the purpose of providing cryogenic electronic packages and assemblies, and approaches used to fabricate the described cryogenic electronic packages and assemblies, allow for a maximum number of superconducting semiconductor structures to fit in a given space (e.g., a cryogenic space ina cryogenic chamber). The foregoing provides for the ability to design circuitry (e.g., high performance computing circuitry) to fit in a given cryogenic space (e.g., a conventional cryogenic space), rather than adjusting or designing the space (e.g., cryogenic space) to fit the circuitry (paragraph 0007 of Das et al.).
13. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currie applied to claim 15 above in view of Shaver et al. Pub. No. 2013/0315597.
Currie applied to claim 15 above, Fig. 1 of Currie further discloses superconducting circuit (JTL 170) to product the series of single flux quantum pulses (180; Col. 3 lines 56-59).
However, Currie does not disclose demultiplexing a plurality of frequency-multiplexed information streams comprising the optical signal with a microring resonant waveguide to isolate the optical signal, the microring resonant waveguide having a respective optically-responsive superconductor circuit comprising the Josephson
Fig. 1 of Shaver et al. discloses demultiplexing (WDM 155) a plurality of frequency-multiplexed information streams (WDM 130) comprising the optical signal (110) with a microring resonant waveguide (125) to isolate the optical signa (isolation of microring 125), the microring resonant waveguide (125) having a respective optically-responsive superconductor circuit comprising the Josephson (ADC 170; paragraph 0031).
Currie. and Shaver et al. are common subject matter of optical analog-to- digital converter system; therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of claimed invention to one ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate Shaver et al. into Curie for the purpose of achieve both sampling and compression, enabling relatively-few high bit-depth ADCs to efficiently cover a large surveillance bandwidth that is sparsely occupied with signals of interest at any given instant (paragraph 0030 of Shaver et al.).
14. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Currie applied to claim 1 above, in view of TIMOFEEV ANDREY WO 2014/135749.
Currie applied to claim 1 above does not disclose wherein the optically-responsive superconductor (170) comprises a kinetic inductance bolometer.
Fig. 1 of TIMOFEEV ANDREY discloses the optically-responsive superconductor (2) comprises a kinetic inductance bolometer (Page 18 lines 9-15).
Currie and TIMOFEEV ANDREY are common subject matter superconductor of optical; therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of claimed invention to one ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate TIMOFEEV ANDREY into Currie for the purpose of providing a superconducting thermal detector (bolometer) utilizing kinetic inductance thermometry which is read out by a scattering parameter measurement which can be used to determine the amplitude or phase change in the resonator induced by impinging optical power and utilizes kinetic inductance thermometry and incorporates an impedance matching surface for efficient absorption of incident optical power (Page 18 lines 9-15 of TIMOFEEV ANDREY).
Conclusion
15. 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.
Contact Information
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Linh Van Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1810. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 – 5:00 Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Dameon E. Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (571-273-8300) for regular communications and (571-273-8300) for After Final communications.
09/25/20267
/LINH V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
