DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to communication filed on 04/07/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending on this application.
Response to Arguments
2. 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 claim 1. Under remarks applicant argued: “Currie fails to disclose the core requirement of claim 1: an optically-responsive superconductor circuit in which the SFQ pulse rate is proportionally dependent on the intensity of the optical signal as the information-bearing input to be digitized, with the multibit digital representation representing that optical signal intensity. Because Currie does not anticipate these independent claims, Currie likewise cannot anticipate the dependent claims 2, 12, and 13 that depend from claim 1.”.
Examiner respectful disagrees from the following:
Fig. 1 of Currie discloses an optically-responsive superconductor circuit (JTL of 70; Col. 3 lines 8-13) receive the optical signal 160 (Col. 3 lines 53-54) to generated series of single flux quantum (SFQ) pulses (180; Col. 3 lines 57-58) representing multibit digital signal (LSB, NLSB, MSB; see Fig. 2a and 2b)
Fig. 2a discloses a superconduct circuit (Col. 5 lines 19-22) configured to receive series of single flux quantum pules 200 to generate multibit digital binary presentation (LSB, NLSB, MSB; see Fig. 2b, Fig. 2b).
Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 of Currie discloses an optically-responsive superconductor circuit (170) in which the SFQ pulse rate (rate of series of single flux quantum pulse 180 ) is proportionally dependent on the intensity (the rate of a series of single flux pulses is an proportional to the intensity of an optical signal; Higher intensity = More photons = Higher pulse rate and Lower intensity = Fewer photons = Lower pulse rate) of the optical signal (modulation optical signal 160; Col. 3 lines 53-54); as the information-bearing input (information bearing input of amplitude modulation of optical input signal 160) of to be digitized (digitized by Fig. 2a to generated digital signal LSB, NLSB, and MSB), with the multibit digital representation (Fig. 2: output digital signal: leas-significant-bit “LSB”, next leas-significant-bit “NLSB”, and most-significant-bit “MSB”) representing that optical signal intensity (intensity is a fundamental characteristic of amplitude-modulated optical signal 160). Thus, Currie anticipated these independent claim 1, Currie likewise anticipated the dependent claims 2, 12, and 13 that depend from claim 1.
With respect to claims 15. Under remarks applicant argued: “Currie fails to disclose: interacting an amplitude modulated optical signal (amplitude of 160) with an optically-responsive superconductor circuit (150, 170) comprising a Josephson junction and "producing a series of single flux quantum pulses by the superconducting circuit having a pulse rate (pulse rate of 180) proportionally dependent on an intensity of the amplitude modulated optical signal.”.
Examiner respectful disagrees from the following:
Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 of Currie discloses interacting an amplitude modulated optical signal (amplitude of optical signal 160) with an optically-responsive superconductor circuit (Col. 3 lines 8-13) comprising a Josephson junction (JTL of 170) and producing a series of single flux quantum pulses (180; Col. 3 lines 57-58) by the superconducting circuit (170) having a pulse rate (pulse rate of series single quantum flux 180) proportionally (the rate of a series of single flux pulses 180 is proportional to the intensity of an optical signa 160l; because in optical signal: Higher intensity = More photons = Higher pulse rate and Lower intensity = Fewer photons = Lower pulse rate) dependent on an intensity of the amplitude modulated optical signal (an intensity of amplitude of optical modulation signal 160). Thus, Currie anticipated these independent claim 15.
With respect to claim 12. Under remarks applicant argued: “a review of Currie's specification and figures reveals no disclosure of a microring resonant waveguide. Currie's Fig. 1 depicts an EOM 140, a fiber spool, and an MSM photodetector 150. The Examiner's assertion that microrings exist "between 140 and 150" lacks evidentiary support in the cited reference. Currie does not describe, illustrate, or suggest a microring resonant waveguide at any point in its disclosure. Accordingly, claim 12 is independently not anticipated by Currie for this additional reason”.
Examiner respectful disagrees from the following:
Fig. 12 of application discloses a microring waveguide comprising a pluralities of ring to waveguide an optical signal.
Fig. 1 of Currie discloses a pluralities of ring (rings between 140 and 150) to wave guide an optical signal (modulation optical signal 160; Col. 3 lines 53-54). Accordingly, claim 12 is independently anticipated by Currie for this reason”.
With respect to claim 20. Under remarks applicant argued: “Because neither 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”.
Examiner respectful disagrees because Fig. 1 of Currier discloses a series of single flux quantum (180) and the rate of a series of single flux pulses (rate of SQF 180) that varies dependently (the rate of single flux pulse is always proportional to the intensity of an optical signal; because Higher intensity = More photons = Higher pulse rate and Lower intensity = Fewer photons = Lower pulse rate) with optical intensity of the optical signal (intensity of modulation optical signal 160; Col. 3 lines 53-54); therefore, Shaver combined with Currie established a prima facie case of obviousness by incorporate the superconducting optical ADC having Josephson junction, having a single flux quantum pulse rate of Currie into superconducting ADCs of Shaver.
However, in this office action, a new ground of rejection to claim 20 because the subject matter “single quantum flux” is a fundamental property of superconducting Josephson junctions. It arises because the phase difference across a junction is tied to the quantization of magnetic flux in superconducting loops.
From above, rejections of claims 1-20 are sustained from the same references applied to previous office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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 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) on an intensity of an optical signal (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 amplitude modulated optical signal (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 intensity of an optical signal; Higher intensity = More photons = Higher pulse rate and Lower intensity = Fewer photons = Lower pulse rate) of the amplitude modulated optical signal (amplitude modulated 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”).
4. 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 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
5. 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.
6. 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.).
7. 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 digital representation of the information.
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 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 discloses 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).
8. 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).
9. 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.).
10. 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.).
11. 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).
Contact Information
14. 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.
05/21/2026
/LINH V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights