Notice of 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preisser (US 2010/0206737 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0136783 A1), Abraham et al. (US 2018/0350749 A1) and Das et al. (US 20180102470 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1: Preisser teaches (e.g., Fig. 1-9) a method for forming superconducting through substrate vias in a substrate, the method comprising:
etching one or more openings ([0174]: 120c, 120b, 120a) in the substrate ([0175] 104), the etched openings extending from a first side of the substrate ([0176]: upper side of the substrate 104) partially through the substrate (104) towards a second side of the substrate (backside of the substrate 104);
depositing a seed layer ([0177]: 126) on the first side of the substrate and interior surfaces of the one or more etched openings in the substrate (104),
thinning the substrate by removing material from the second side of the substrate ([0181]) until the deposited seed layer is exposed on the second side of the substrate (bottom side of the substrate);
wherein the substrate is silicon substrate ([0174]-[0175]: 104).
Preisser does not expressly teach
depositing a seed layer over the first side of the substrate;
forming a resist or hardmask on the first side of the substrate above the seed layer, such that the resist or hardmask comprises one or more openings aligned with the etched openings in the substrate;
wherein the one or more openings in the resist or hardmask are aligned with the etched openings in the substrate such that the edges of the resist or hardmask are aligned with the edges of the seed layer and only the areas of the seed layer that lie within the openings in the substrate are exposed;
filling the etched openings in the substrate with a superconducting filler material by electroplating via the one or more openings in the resist or hard mask;
wherein the substrate is silicon substrate, and the superconducting filler material is rhenium.
Lee teaches (e.g., Figs. 1A-1D) a method comprising
depositing a seed layer ([0017]: 13) over a first side of a substrate ([0017]: upper side of substrate 10);
forming a resist or hardmask ([0017]: 14) on the first side of the substrate above the seed layer, such that the resist or hardmask comprises one or more openings aligned with etched openings ([0017]: 15) in the substrate (10);
wherein the one or more openings in the resist or hardmask (14) are aligned with the etched openings in the substrate (10) such that the edges of the resist or hardmask (14) are aligned with the edges of the seed layer (13) and only the areas of the seed layer that lie within the openings (15) in the substrate are exposed (shown in Fig. 1C);
filling the etched openings in the substrate with a conducting filler ([0017]: 16) material by electroplating ([0017]) via the one or more openings in the resist or hard mask (14);
Applicant is reminded that "If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method of Preisser, the method of depositing a seed layer over the first side of the substrate; forming a resist or hardmask on the first side of the substrate above the seed layer, such that the resist or hardmask comprises one or more openings aligned with the etched openings in the substrate;
wherein the one or more openings in the resist or hardmask are aligned with the etched openings in the substrate such that the edges of the resist or hardmask are aligned with the edges of the seed layer and only the areas of the seed layer that lie within the openings in the substrate are exposed; and filling the etched openings in the substrate with a conducting filler material by electroplating via the one or more openings in the resist or hard mask, as taught by Lee, for the benefits of controlling the interconnection formation process and reducing additional polishing process or the time required for additional polishing process; thus, improving manufacturing throughput while using less material.
Abraham teaches (e.g., Figs. 1-5) a method comprising a filling etched openings ([0020] and [0045]: 20) in a substrate ([0041]: 18) with a superconducting filler material by electroplating ([0044]-[0045]: superconducting filler material 24 is deposited by electroplating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method of Preisser, as modified by Lee, the method of filling the etched openings in the substrate with a superconducting filler material by electroplating, as taught by Abraham, for the benefits of increasing signal speed, thus improving device processing power.
Das teaches (e.g., Fig. 1) a method comprising forming a superconducting filler material being rhenium ([0082]: rhenium).
It is noted that rhenium is an art recognized material suitable for use as a superconducting material filler.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.
"Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). MPEP 2144.07.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the device of Preisser as modified by Lee and Abraham, the method of forming a superconducting filler material being rhenium, as taught by Das, for the benefits of achieving the intended purpose, and for the following benefits: rhenium exhibits type-II superconductivity at lower temperatures, with an upper critical field on the order of 2.5 T. This property is beneficial for applications requiring high-temperature superconductors; Low-Loss at Radio Frequency: Rhenium films can be integrated into low-loss rf resonators, which are essential for qubit circuits in quantum computing systems.
Regarding claim 2: Preisser, Lee, Abraham and Das teach the claim limitation of the method of claim 1, on which this claim depends,
wherein the electroplating is DC or pulse electroplating (Preisser: [0135]-[0140]: pulse electroplating using pulse current).
Regarding claim 3: Preisser, Lee, Abraham and Das teach the claim limitation of the method of claim 1, on which this claim depends,
wherein filling the etched opening with superconducting filler material is performed by electrodeless electroplating (Preisser: [0050], [0149] and [0156]).
Regarding claim 4: Preisser, Lee, Abraham and Das teach the claim limitation of the method of claim 1, on which this claim depends,
wherein filling the etched opening with the superconducting filler material is performed using an anode formed of the superconducting filler material (Abraham: [0093]).
Regarding claim 7: Preisser, Lee, Abraham and Das teach the claim limitation of the method of claim 1, on which this claim depends,
wherein removing material from the second side of the substrate is carried out by chemical mechanical polishing, dry blanket etching, physical grinding, or chemical etching (Preisser: [0181]: chemical mechanical polishing).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preisser (US 2010/0206737 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0136783 A1), Abraham et al. (US 2018/0350749 A1) and Das et al. (US 20180102470 A1) as applied above and further in view of Chatterjee et al. (US 2008/0299759 A1).
Regarding claim 6: Preisser, Lee, Abraham and Das teach the claim limitation of the method of claim 1, on which this claim depends,
Preisser as modified by Lee, Abraham and Das does not expressly teach that before etching the one or more openings in the substrate, the method further comprises
forming a second resist or second hardmask, the second resist or second hardmask comprising one or more openings through which the substrate is exposed, wherein the one or more openings in the substrate are etched via the one or more openings in the second resist or second hardmask.
Chatterjee teaches (e.g., Figs. 6-9) a method for forming a through substrate vias in a substrate ([0028]: 203);
Chatterjee further teaches that the method further comprises forming a second resist or second hard mask ([0027]: 210), the second resist or second hard mask comprising one or more openings ([0030]: 213) through which the substrate (203) is exposed,
wherein the one or more openings ([0031]: 215) in the substrate are etched via the one or more openings (213) in the second resist or second hard mask (210).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the method of Preisser as modified by Lee and Abraham, the method comprising before etching the one or more openings in the substrate, the method further comprises forming a second resist or second hard mask, the second resist or second hard mask comprising one or more openings through which the substrate is exposed, wherein the one or more openings in the substrate are etched via the one or more openings in the second resist or second hard mask, as taught by Chatterjee, for the benefits of more efficiently controlling the direction of the etching process.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preisser (US 2010/0206737 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0136783 A1) , Abraham et al. (US 2018/0350749 A1) and Das et al. (US 20180102470 A1) as applied above and further in view of Rigetti et al. (US 9,971,970 B1).
Regarding claim 8: Preisser, Lee, Abraham and Das teach the claim limitation of the method of claim 7, on which this claim depends,
Preisser as modified by Lee and Abraham does not expressly teach that thinning the substrate comprises:
bonding the first side of the substrate to a second substrate;
performing chemical mechanical polishing of the second side of the substrate until the deposited seed layer is exposed on the second side of the substrate; and
debonding the substrate from the second substrate to expose the seed layer and filler material on the first side of the substrate.
Rigetti teaches (e.g., Figs. 13A-13B; Col. 37; Lines 19-67 and Col. 38, Lines 1-67 and Col. 39, Lines 1-65) a method for forming superconducting through substrate vias in a substrate (Col. 38, Lines 35-61), the method comprising:
thinning the substrate by removing material from the second side of the substrate (Col. 28 Lines 40-47: bottom side of the substrate is thinned, thus exposing bottom surface 1346 of the substrate; Col. 38, Lines 35-61) until the deposited seed layer (Fig. 13A; # 1312/1313) is exposed on the second side of the substrate (Fig. 13A; 916; last stage shows thinning process resulting in a thinner substrate; Col. 38, Lines 35-61);
Rigetti further teaches that thinning the substrate comprises:
bonding the first side of the substrate (Col. 28 Lines 40-47; bonding upper side of the substrate; Col. 38, Lines 35-61) to a second substrate (Col. 28 Lines 40-47; #1342; Col. 38, Lines 35-61);
performing chemical mechanical polishing of the second side of the substrate until the deposited seed layer (Rigetti: Fig. 13A: #1312/1313; Col. 38, Lines 35-61) is exposed on the second side of the substrate (Rigetti: Col. 28 Lines 40-47; bottom side of the substrate; Col. 38, Lines 35-61); and
debonding the substrate from the second substrate to expose the seed layer and filler material on the first side of the substrate (Rigetti: Fig. 13A; Col. 38, Lines 35-52; Col. 39, Lines 13-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the method of Preisser as modified by Lee and Abraham, the method of thinning the substrate comprising bonding the first side of the substrate to a second substrate; performing chemical mechanical polishing of the second side of the substrate until the deposited seed layer is exposed on the second side of the substrate; and debonding the substrate from the second substrate to expose the seed layer and filler material on the first side of the substrate, as taught by Rigetti, for the benefits or reducing the total thickness of the device, and thus manufacturing more compact devices.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preisser (US 2010/0206737 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0136783 A1) and Abraham et al. (US 2018/0350749 A1) and Das et al. (US 20180102470 A1) as applied above and further in view of Sweeny (US 4,660,061 A).
Regarding claim 9: Preisser, Lee, Abraham and Das teach the claim limitation of the method of claim 1, on which this claim depends,
wherein following thinning the substrate, the method further comprises depositing a base metal layer on the first or second side of the substrate (Preisser: [0182]-[0183]: base metal layer 112a/116 on the second side of the substrate).
Should the base metal intended to be deposited on the first side of the substrate,
Sweeny teaches the base metal as follows:
Moreover, Sweeny teaches (e.g., Figs. 2a-2e) a method comprising forming a base metal layer (Figs. 2b-2c; Col. 11, Lines 27-47) on a first or second side of a substrate (Col. 9, Lines 5-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the method of Preisser as modified by Chen, Chopra, Wang and Abraham, the method of depositing a base metal layer on the first or second side of the substrate, as taught by Sweeny, for the benefits of integrating the quantum device to external devices and thus increasing device density and functionality.
Regarding claim 10: Preisser, Lee, Abraham, Das and Sweeny teach the claim limitation of the method of claim 9, on which this claim depends.
Preisser, Lee, Abraham, Das and Sweeny teaches that following depositing the base metal layer, the method further comprises:
patterning the base metal layer (Sweeny: Figs. 2b-2c; Col. 11, Lines 27-47),
wherein patterning the base metal layer comprises depositing a resist on the base metal layer by spin coating (Sweeny: Figs. 2b-2c; Col. 10, Lines 51-55).
Regarding claim 11: Preisser, Lee, Abraham, Das and Sweeny teach the claim limitation of the method of claim 9, on which this claim depends.
Preisser as modified by Lee, Abraham, Das and Sweeny teaches that following depositing the base metal layer (Sweeney: Col. 10, Lines 25-67), the method further comprises
patterning the base metal layer (Sweeny: Col. 10, Lines 25-67 and Col. 11, Lines 1-47),
wherein patterning the base metal layer comprises forming components of a quantum processing unit (Sweeny: Col. 10, Lines 25-67 and Col. 11, Lines 1-47; Col. 12, Lines 33-40; Josephson device is a components of a quantum processing unit).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied of combination of references in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument or the newly added limitation.
Applicant argued that Examiner did not articulate the differences between claim 1 and any of the secondary references; however, it appears that Applicant is referring to MPEP 2141(II)(B): ”(B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art”. Examiner respectfully, disagree with Applicant’s assessment because, Examiner, specifically stated what the primary reference does not teach and proceeded to use secondary references to teach the missing limitations.
In the first point:
Examiner, considers the limitation “over” as referring to the top surface of the substrate, so this limitation is clearly not taught by the primary reference, this is clarified by using a secondary reference that specifically teaches this missing limitation; thus, the first use of the word “over” was rather meant for the word “on”. The latter, is more logical and consistent with Applicant’s specification. Therefore, this does not rise to the lack of determination of the scope; moreover, it is noted that where a limitation is already taught by the primary reference, Examiner did not use a secondary reference to teach the same limitation.
In a second point: Examiner did provide secondary references to fill in the missing limitations. References may overlap in what they teach individually.
In response to applicant's argument that it appears that multiple references are provided that teach overlapping limitations, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In Applicant’s remarks, in pages 1-3, Applicant has requested clarification of first point to fourth points and a final point to support the obviousness conclusion; in response, Examiner would like to clarify that the obviousness conclusions and motivation are based on known processes and known motivations that one of ordinary skill in the art would be drawn to; and the obviousness conclusions and motivations are based on common knowledge and common sense, as stated in MPEP 2143.
In addition, the examiner would like to remind Applicant that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
MPEP does not require Examiners to provide evidence of the motivations or conclusions related to what one of ordinary skill in the art would have been expected to know or understand before the effective filling date of the Application.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2606. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 08:30 AM-5:30 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, DAVIENNE MONBLEAU can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights