picture like, H$_{I}$ = ∑ i ϵ$_{i}$c † $_{i}$c$_{i}$ + ∑ <ij> t$_{ij}$ ( c † $_{i}$c$_{j}$ e iθ$_{ij}$ + c † $_{j}$c$_{i}$ e − iθ$_{ij}$ ) (5) interferometer-electrode interfaces, and it is exam- ined that under such an assumption the I - V char- acteristics do not change their qualitative features. All the results in this communication are de- termined at absolute zero temperature, but they should valid even for some finite (low) tempera- tures, since the broadening of the energy levels of the interferometer due to its coupling to the elec- trodes becomes much larger than that of the ther- mal broadening [46]. On the other hand, at high temperature limit, all these phenomena completely disappear. This is due to the fact that the phase coherence length decreases significantly with the rise of temperature where the contribution comes mainly from the scattering on phonons, and accord- ingly, the quantum interference effect vanishes. Our unit system is simplified by choosing c = e = h = 1. In this Hamiltonian ϵ$_{i}$ gives the on-site energy for the atomic site i , where i runs from 1 to 4, c † i ( c$_{i}$ ) is the creation (annihilation) operator of an elec- tron at the site i and t$_{ij}$ is the hopping integral between the nearest-neighbor sites i and j . For the sake of simplicity, we assume that the magni- tudes of all hopping integrals ( t$_{ij}$ ) are identical to t . The phase factor θ$_{ij}$ , associated with the hop- ping integral t$_{ij}$ , comes due to the fluxes φ$_{1}$ and φ$_{2}$ in the two sub-rings. The phase factors ( θ$_{ij}$ ) are chosen as, θ$_{12}$ = θ$_{23}$ = θ$_{34}$ = θ$_{41}$ = 2 πφ/ 4 φ$_{0}$ , θ$_{24}$ = 2 π Δ φ/ 2 φ$_{0}$ , where φ = φ$_{1}$ + φ$_{2}$ , Δ φ = φ$_{1}$ − φ$_{2}$ and φ$_{0}$ = ch/e is the elementary flux-quantum. Ac- cordingly, a minus sign is used for the phases when the electron hops in the reverse direction. For the two 1D electrodes, a similar kind of tight-binding Hamiltonian is also used, except any phase fac- tor, where the Hamiltonian is parametrized by con- stant on-site potential ϵ$_{0}$ and nearest-neighbor hop- ping integral t$_{0}$ . The hopping integral between the source and interferometer is τ$_{S}$ , while it is τ$_{D}$ be- tween the interferometer and drain. The parame- ters Σ$_{S}$ and Σ$_{D}$ in Eq. (4) represent the self-energies due to the coupling of the interferometer to the source and drain, respectively, where all the infor- mation of this coupling are included into these self- energies [46]. Before going into the discussion, let us first assign the values of different parameters those are used for our numerical calculation. The on-site energy ϵ$_{i}$ of the interferometer is taken as 0 for all the four sites i , and the nearest-neighbor hopping strength t is set to 3. On the other hand, for two side attached 1D electrodes the on-site energy ( ϵ$_{0}$ ) and nearest- neighbor hopping strength ( t$_{0}$ ) are fixed to 0 and 4, respectively. The equilibrium Fermi energy E$_{F}$ is set to 0. The current passing through the interferometer is depicted as a single-electron scattering process between the two reservoirs of charge carriers. The current I can be computed as a function of the ap- plied bias voltage V by the expression [46], 3 Numerical results and dis- cussion Throughout the analysis we present the basic fea- tures of electron transport for two distinct regimes of electrode-to-interferometer coupling. Case 1: Weak-coupling limit This limit is set by the criterion τ$_{S}$$_{(}$$_{D}$$_{)}$ << t . In this case, we choose the values as τ$_{S}$ = τ$_{D}$ = 0 . 5. Case 2: Strong-coupling limit I ( V ) = e π ¯ h E$_{F}$ + eV/ 2 ∫ E$_{F}$ − eV/ 2 T ( E ) dE (6) This limit is described by the condition τ$_{S}$$_{(}$$_{D}$$_{)}$ ∼ t . In this regime we choose the values of hopping strengths as τ$_{S}$ = τ$_{D}$ = 2 . 5. where E$_{F}$ is the equilibrium Fermi energy. Here we assume that the entire voltage is dropped across the 4