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
Upon consideration of the applicant’s traversal of the restriction filed on 06/08/2026, and in light of the art that has appeared in the prior art search thus far, the examiner agrees that there was not a search burden for the claims as originally filed. As the same art has been found to read on both inventions, and is applied in much the same way, there is little burden to the search. It should be noted that this is not necessarily the case, as the way in which art is applied to method claims and the way it is applied to product claims can be substantially different, even when the text of the claims is nearly identical. However, in this case, it was found that the same art can read on both.
The restriction requirement has therefore been withdrawn, and claims 17-19 directed to invention II will be examined on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
• "a control circuit configured to control a resonant frequency of the frequency tunable device by controlling current flowing through the control line" in claim 1.
• “control circuit is configured to reverse a magnetization alignment direction of the ferromagnetic structure by applying a current exceeding a predetermined threshold to the control line to induce a spin-orbit torque (SOT) phenomenon in the ferromagnetic structure” in claim 3
• “control circuit is configured to apply the current exceeding the predetermined threshold in the form of a pulse only once” in claim 4
• “control circuit is configured to apply the current exceeding the predetermined threshold value in an opposite direction to a direction of a current during the formation of the magnetization alignment direction to reverse the formed magnetization alignment direction of the ferromagnetic structure” in claim 5
• “control circuit is configured to change a magnetic flux of the frequency tunable device based on the reversal of the magnetization alignment direction” in claim 6
• “control circuit is configured to obtain a resonant frequency corresponding to the changed magnetic flux using a model that defines the relationship between the magnetic flux and the resonant frequency.” in claim 7
• “control circuit is configured to control the resonant frequency in two states including coupling on and coupling off” in claim 8
• “control circuit is configured to control the resonant frequency to be coupling-on frequency by setting the resonant frequency of the frequency tunable device to be similar to resonant frequencies of coupled qubits” in claim 9
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For the purpose of examination, the “control circuit” was interpreted as a generic processor.
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 1-16 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.
Claim limitation “a control circuit configured to control a resonant frequency of the frequency tunable device by controlling current flowing through the control line” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In the specification, the "control circuit" lacks any structure, with any mention of it purely relating to its function and what it does. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The additional limitations regarding the control circuit in claims 3-9 (see 112f claim interpretation above), similarly lack structure and thus are rejected the same.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2, and 10-16 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, this claim is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because of the limitation “the current exceeding the predetermined threshold value in an opposite direction to a direction of a current during the formation of the magnetization alignment direction to reverse the formed magnetization alignment direction of the ferromagnetic structure.” It is unclear exactly which direction the current needs to be opposite to in this claim. It seems to be stating that the current used to switch the magnetization can be reversed, which would cause the magnetization to switch back, presumably both processes being through the spin-orbit toque phenomenon introduced in claim 3. However, this is not necessarily the case, and the limitation could be referring to any current that can be used to form a magnetization in the ferromagnetic structure. Therefore, it is unclear exactly what the scope of the claim is, rendering it indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, this was interpreted to mean that the current can be applied in a direction opposite to any direction that also can impart a magnetization.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of controlling the current through the control line, as well as functions of claims 3-9. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
425
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
316
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3, 6, 11-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz et al. (WO 2024062151 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Yilmaz".
Regarding claim 1, Yilmaz discloses a superconducting device comprising: a frequency tunable device (101 in figure 6. See paragraph 0111 “the frequency of the quantum device 101 can be adjusted from an initial value to a required value by tuning the spintronic device 602”) comprising
Yilmaz does not explicitly recite “a first conductive pad” and “a second conductive pad”, nor does Yilmaz explicitly label the magnetic free layer as “ferromagnetic”.
However, Yilmaz teaches a superconducting quantum interference device comprising two Josephson junctions in parallel. In order to couple 2 Josephson Junctions together in parallel, there must be some sort of conductive material on each side, which would act as the first and second conductive pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the device of Yilmaz would comprise a first conductive pad and a second conductive pad.
Furthermore, the magnetic free layer in Yilmaz “generates a persistent magnetic field even when no current is applied to the electrodes” [paragraph 0115]. As known in the art, ferromagnetic materials exhibit permanent magnetic fields, and therefore would be an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Yilmaz discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yilmaz further discloses the frequency tunable device comprises either one or both of a tunable qubit coupler and a tunable qubit (it is a qubit or a tunable coupler, see paragraphs 0053 and 0054).
Regarding claim 3, Yilmaz discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yilmaz further discloses that the control circuit is configured to reverse a magnetization alignment direction of the ferromagnetic structure by applying a current exceeding a predetermined threshold (the current applied by Yilmaz is a nonzero current, and thus would exceed a predetermined threshold of 0 current) to the control line to induce a spin-orbit torque (SOT) phenomenon in the ferromagnetic structure (paragraph 0121).
Regarding claim 6, Yilmaz discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Yilmaz further discloses that the control circuit is configured to change a magnetic flux of the frequency tunable device based on the reversal of the magnetization alignment direction (See figure 7: free layer 704 is depicted having its magnetization to be change from up to down or down to up, which is reversal. Also, it is the orientation of the layer that determines the state of the spintronic device, see paragraph 0116).
Regarding claim 12, Yilmaz discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yilmaz further discloses that a magnetic field is applied to the ferromagnetic structure to break a horizontal symmetry (paragraph 0121 “The in-plane magnetised fixed layer 705 is used to break the symmetry of switching, enabling the tuning of the free layer 704 in either direction”).
Regarding claim 13, Yilmaz discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yilmaz does not explicitly teach that the first conductive pad and the second conductive pad are made of a superconducting material.
However, Yilmaz does disclose a superconducting quantum interference device (see paragraph 0058 “the quantum device 101 can be a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID). In particular, the quantum device 101 may comprise at least two Josephson Junctions coupled in parallel.”), and it is known that a superconducting quantum interference device needs to have superconducting electrodes/pads in order to function. Yilmaz also explicitly points out superconductive electrodes in the MJJ in paragraph 0089. It would therefore be obvious to have the pads be made of a superconducting material.
Regarding claim 15, Yilmaz discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yilmaz further discloses that the control line is made of a heavy metal (the control line, electrode 701, can be a heavy metal such as platinum, paragraph 0115 “made of superconducting and/or heavy metal”, paragraph 0124 “which may consist of platinum”).
Regarding claim 16, Yilmaz discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yilmaz further discloses that the control line, the ferromagnetic structure, and the frequency tunable device are stacked from bottom to top (see figures 6 and 7. The control line 701 is depicted above the ferromagnetic structure 704, and the whole tunable spintronic device 602 is shown above the frequency tunable device 101. As this device would work upside-down as well, this is functionally the same as the reverse, where 701 is below 704, which is below 101, which is those stacked from bottom to top).
PNG
media_image3.png
804
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Gosavi et al. ("Experimental demonstration of efficient spin–orbit torque switching of an MTJ with sub-100 ns pulses."), hereinafter referred to as "Gosavi".
Regarding claim 4, Yilmaz discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Yilmaz further discloses that the applied current is “a non-persistent current” in the singular, which suggests that it is a singular pulse. However, Yilmaz does not go into further detail.
Gosavi teaches switching the magnetization of a layer by spin-orbit torque, where the applied current in the form of a pulse only once (See Gosavi figure 4 A. Each pulse to change the magnetization is only one pulse; there is a single write pulse, followed by a single read pulse. This process is shown four times in the graph). Using a single pulse is simpler than using multiple pulses, and thus increases the efficiency of the process by requiring fewer steps.
Therefore, 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 single pulse as in Gosavi in order to simplify the process and increase efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, Yilmaz in view of Gosavi teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Yilmaz further teaches that the current reverses the formed magnetization alignment direction of the ferromagnetic structure (See figure 7: free layer 704 is depicted having its magnetization to be change from up to down or down to up, which is reversal. Also, it is the orientation of the layer that determines the state of the spintronic device, see paragraph 0116).
Yilmaz does not explicitly disclose that this is accomplished by a current in the opposite direction of a current that would form that alignment.
Gosavi teaches that reversing the magnetization is accomplished by applying a current in the opposite direction (Gosavi page 3, last paragraph, and page 4 first line. See also the sign of the current pulses of figure 4). The technique of applying the current in the opposite direction is therefore a known technique that has already been applied to the switching of the magnetization of a ferromagnetic layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of reversing the current to reverse the magnetization as taught by Gosavi in order to reliably achieve the result of switching the magnetization already taught by Yilmaz.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Satzinger et al. (US 12260157 B1), hereinafter referred to as "Satzinger".
Regarding claim 7, Yilmaz discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Yilmaz does not explicitly disclose using a model to obtain the resonant frequency corresponding to the magnetic flux.
Satzinger teaches obtaining a resonant frequency corresponding to the changed magnetic flux using a model that defines the relationship between the magnetic flux and the resonant frequency (Satzinger column 1, lines 38-67, and column 2 lines 25-28). Using this would allow for the frequency information to be generated as part of the device instead of needing to do it elsewhere, which would increase efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the model as in Satzinger to increase efficiency.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Flinck et al. (US 20230401475 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Flinck".
Regarding claim 8, Yilmaz discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Yilmaz does not explicitly disclose that the two states that it switches between are coupling on and coupling off.
Flinck teaches controlling the resonant frequency of a qubit coupler between coupling on and coupling off states (Flinck paragraph 00038). Flinck also teaches that this allows the qubits to perform entanglement gate operations and allows simultaneous suppression of both static ZZ interactions and exchange interactions between the qubits.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the two states be coupling on and coupling off as in Flinck in order to allow the qubits to perform entanglement gate operations and have simultaneous suppression of both static ZZ interactions and exchange interactions between the qubits.
Regarding claim 9, Yilmaz in view of Flinck teaches all of the limitations of claim 8.
Flinck further teaches that controlling the resonant frequency to be coupling-on frequency is by setting the resonant frequency of the frequency tunable device to be similar to resonant frequencies of coupled qubits (Flinck paragraph 0070).
PNG
media_image4.png
248
274
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
328
298
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
205
224
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Camirand Lemyre et al. (US 20230155594 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Camirand Lemyre".
Regarding claim 10, Yilmaz discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yilmaz further discloses that the frequency tunable device comprises two Josephson junctions (see paragraph 0058 “the quantum device 101 may comprise at least two Josephson Junctions coupled in parallel”).
Yilmaz does not explicitly disclose the location of the ferromagnetic structure in relation to the two Josephson Junctions.
Camirand Lemyre teaches a SQUID loop with 2 Josephson junctions (Camirand Lemyre figure 1C) with a ferromagnetic structure (212 and 218 in Camirand Lemyre figures 2B and 2D) where a ferromagnetic structure is located between the two Josephson junctions (Camirand Lemyre figure 2B) or on an outer side of one of the two Josephson junctions (Camirand Lemyre figure 2D). Camirand Lemyre also teaches that these positioning allow for control of the magnetic flux through the superconducting loop (Camirand Lemyre paragraph 0089). It is also well known that the magnetic field lines of a typical ferromagnetic structure are more concentrated and generally more aligned closer to the magnet, so centering the magnet in the loop, and thus between the Josephson junctions allows for more precise control over what the magnetic flux through the loop is.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the ferromagnetic structure between the Josephson junctions as in Camirand Lemyre in order to precisely control the magnetic flux through the superconducting loop.
Regarding claim 14, Yilmaz discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yilmaz does not explicitly disclose how the control line is disposed relative to the conductive pads.
Camirand Lemyre teaches a way to lay out the SQUID loop and magnetic structure relative to each other which has the advantage of allowing precise control over the magnetic flux through the superconducting loop, which would be obvious to implement for the same reasons given in the rejection of claim 10. In accomplishing this, it can be seen that the magnetic structure and the superconducting loop are arranged such that the plane of the loop is perpendicular to the magnetization of the magnet (Camirand Lemyre figure 2B). In Yilmaz figure 7, it can be seen that the control line 701 is perpendicular to the magnetization of the magnetic free layer, and would thus be parallel to the plane of the superconducting loop in this configuration. The control line being parallel to the plane of the loop will mean that it is parallel to at least one longitudinal direction of the conductive pads that make up the loop. Therefore, by incorporating the teachings of Camirand Lemyre, the control line of Yilmaz would be disposed in parallel to a longitudinal direction of the first conductive pad and the second conductive pad.
PNG
media_image7.png
261
556
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Safeer figure 1b. Free magnetic layer is shown with both up and down arrows.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Safeer et al. "Spin–orbit torque magnetization switching controlled by geometry", hereinafter referred to as "Safeer".
Regarding claim 11, Yilmaz discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Yilmaz further discloses that “The direction of tuning can also be determined using the shape of this magnetic element” (Yilmaz paragraph 0121).
Yilmaz does not specifically disclose what about the shape affects the tuning.
In the article the Yilmaz cites here, Safeer teaches a ferromagnetic structure that is formed with a structure in which horizontal symmetry is broken (Safeer figure 1b. The magnetic free layer has broken horizontal symmetry). Safeer also teaches that “the shape of the free layer determines the possible magnetization switching paths” (Figure 1 caption), which is consistent with the teaching of Yilmaz.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the ferromagnetic structure with a structure in which horizontal symmetry is broken, as in Safeer, in order to determine the possible switching paths and control the direction of switching.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz.
Regarding claim 17, Yilmaz discloses A method of controlling a resonant frequency of a frequency tunable device using a superconducting device, the superconducting qubit-based device comprising: a frequency tunable device (101 in figure 6. See paragraph 0111 “the frequency of the quantum device 101 can be adjusted from an initial value to a required value by tuning the spintronic device 602”) including
Yilmaz does not explicitly recite “a first conductive pad” and “a second conductive pad”, nor does Yilmaz explicitly label the magnetic free layer as “ferromagnetic”.
However, Yilmaz teaches a superconducting quantum interference device comprising two Josephson junctions in parallel. In order to couple 2 Josephson Junctions together in parallel, there must be some sort of conductive material on each side, which would act as the first and second conductive pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the device of Yilmaz would comprise a first conductive pad and a second conductive pad.
Furthermore, the magnetic free layer in Yilmaz “generates a persistent magnetic field even when no current is applied to the electrodes” [paragraph 0115]. As is known in the art, ferromagnetic materials exhibit permanent magnetic fields, and therefore would be an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Yilmaz discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. Yilmaz further discloses the frequency tunable device comprises either one or both of a tunable qubit coupler and a tunable qubit (it is a qubit or a tunable coupler, see paragraphs 0053 and 0054).
Regarding claim 19, Yilmaz discloses all of the limitations of claim 118. Yilmaz further discloses that the reversing of the magnetization alignment direction comprises reversing the magnetization alignment direction of the ferromagnetic structure by applying a current exceeding a predetermined threshold value (the current applied by Yilmaz is a nonzero current, and thus would exceed a predetermined threshold of 0 current) to the control line to induce a SOT phenomenon in the ferromagnetic structure (paragraph 0121).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz in view of Camirand Lemyre.
Regarding claim 20, Yilmaz discloses a superconducting device comprising: a frequency tunable device (101 in figure 6. See paragraph 0111 “the frequency of the quantum device 101 can be adjusted from an initial value to a required value by tuning the spintronic device 602”) comprising two Josephson junctions (see paragraph 0058 “the quantum device 101 may comprise at least two Josephson Junctions coupled in parallel”), a ferromagnetic structure (spintronic device 602 in figure 6, which has magnetic free layer 704 in figure 7); and a control line (701 in figure 7), wherein a resonant frequency of the frequency tunable device is changed (paragraph 0109 and 0111) by reversing a magnetization alignment direction of the ferromagnetic structure (See figure 7: free layer 704 is depicted having its magnetization to be change from up to down or down to up, which is reversal. Also, it is the orientation of the layer that determines the state of the spintronic device, see paragraph 0116) by applying a current exceeding a predetermined threshold to the control line (a current is applied to the spintronic device 602 through the control line 701, see paragraph 0115; also, the current applied by Yilmaz is a nonzero current, and thus would exceed a predetermined threshold of 0 current).
Yilmaz does not explicitly label the magnetic free layer as “ferromagnetic”.
However, the magnetic free layer in Yilmaz “generates a persistent magnetic field even when no current is applied to the electrodes” [paragraph 0115]. As is known in the art, ferromagnetic materials exhibit permanent magnetic fields, and therefore would be an obvious choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Yilmaz does not explicitly disclose the location of the ferromagnetic structure in relation to the two Josephson Junctions.
Camirand Lemyre teaches a SQUID loop with 2 Josephson junctions (Camirand Lemyre figure 1C) with a ferromagnetic structure (212 and 218 in Camirand Lemyre figures 2B and 2D) wherein a ferromagnetic structure is located between the two Josephson junctions (Camirand Lemyre figure 2B) or on an outer side of one of the two Josephson junctions (Camirand Lemyre figure 2D). Camirand Lemyre also teaches that these positioning allow for control of the magnetic flux through the superconducting loop (Camirand Lemyre paragraph 0089). It is also well known that the magnetic field lines of a typical ferromagnetic structure are more concentrated and generally more aligned closer to the magnet, so centering the magnet in the loop, and thus between the Josephson junctions allows for more precise control over what the magnetic flux through the loop is.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the ferromagnetic structure between the Josephson junctions as in Camirand Lemyre in order to precisely control the magnetic flux through the superconducting loop.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)357-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 -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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at 408-918-7532. 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.
/DANIEL KURT ELLIOTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights