Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Mergrant (WO 2018052414, see US 2019/0207075 for citations).
Mergrant teaches a method (abstract) comprising preparing a device for removal of a dielectric, removing the dielectric layer from the surface of the device (removal of native oxides on the surface of niobium; para. 0021, 0036, 0037), and preventing development of a dielectric by adding a capping layer to the surface of the device (a capping layer is disposed on the surface of the device (cap layer disposed on the surface of the device via bonding (204); fig. 2A, #202; para. 0038-0039).
Additionally, it appears that the application of the cap layer in Mergrant would prevent development of a new dielectric layer by preventing an interaction between the surface of the device and atmospheric gases (creating a vacuum cavity (250); para. 0038) and would therefore provide reducing TLS degradation of the device.
Regarding claim 5-6, Mergrant teaches niobium is formed on the surface of the device (fig. 2A, #100; para. 0035-36).
Regarding claims 7, 10, Mergrant teaches the capping layer comprises titanium (para. 0012).
Regarding claim 8, Mergrant teaches the device is a quantum circuit (para. 0003).
Regarding claim 9, Mergrant teaches that the substrate is silicon (para. 0036).
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Myneni (US 7151347).
Myneni teaches a method of preparing a device for removal of a dielectric layer from on an inner surface of the device (preparing is met by any step contemplated by Myneni such as placing the device in a position to have the dielectric layer removed), removing the dielectric layer from the inner surface of the device (removing surface oxides (dielectric layer), abstract), preventing the development of a new oxide layer (dielectric layer) on the inner surface of the device by preventing an interaction between the inner surface of the device and atmospheric gasses (abstract).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, the passivating layer of Myneni is disclosed as NbN (abstract). Similarly, the instant invention teaches that the capping (passivating) layer comprises NbN. See applicant’s specification at page 14, paragraph 0067. As the material of the passivating layer of Myneni is substantially similar to that disclosed by applicant, it appears that the properties of the passivating layer of Myneni would be substantially similar to the passivating layer of applicant including properties regarding TLS.
Regarding claim 1, Myneni teaches the removal of hydrogen or other gases that may be entrained in the bulk of the niobium through temperature and vacuum driven outgassing (preventing the introduction of atmospheric gases into the interior volume of the device; col. 2, lines 45-58).
Regarding claim 2, Myneni teaches wherein the removing step includes removal of gases absorbed in the niobium by heating (col. 2, lines 20-35).
Regarding claim 8, Myneni teaches that the device is a superconducting radio frequency cavity comprised of niobium (abstract). It appears that the cavity of Myneni would be able to be provided for quantum computing or quantum sensing absent a showing to the contrary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myneni (US 7151347) in view of Cooper (US 9343649) and Halbritter (US 4857360).
Myneni teaches a process as described above in claim 2, but fails to teach the process of claims 3-4.
Cooper teaches a method of preparing superconductor cavities (abstract) wherein the heating process to remove hydrogen and other gases include a ramp up, hold and ramp down in temperature for the purpose of carrying out gas removal from the cavity (col. 8, line 56-col. 9, line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the heating process to remove hydrogen and other gases of Myneni to include a ramp up, hold and ramp down in temperature in order to carry out gas removal from the cavity as taught by Cooper.
Additionally, Halbritter teaches a method of making a superconductor niobium cavity (col. 2, lines 20-35) wherein the temperature of heating the niobium cavity is 300-1800 C (col. 2, lines 45-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the temperature of heating the niobium cavity is 300-1800 C in Myneni in order to provide a process parameter known in the art as taught by Halbritter.
Regarding claim 4, Cooper teaches that the hold time is 12-18 hours (col. 8, lines 60-65).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A WARTALOWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights