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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/07/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-35 and 48 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/22/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/07/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection on 01/14/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the combination of references not being proper, However, the examiner uses Hanafi to show the applicant that “a largest distance between any two points of the first quantum dot in the quantum component is less than or equal to two times of an exciton Bohr radius of the material of the first quantum dot” is a convention choice in the art to induce quantum confinement. However, to better align the prior art rejection to the current invention, the examiner is providing a new rejection using Andreev et al. (EP 1860600 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20190058117 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreev et al. (EP 1860600 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20190058117 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Andreev discloses a quantum device, comprising:
a substrate (42) with an insulation surface (41); and
at least one quantum component (10) disposed on the insulation surface (41) of the substrate (42) comprising:
a first plateau member (28);
a second plateau member (29) separated from the first plateau member (28) and disposed at an angle against the first plateau member (28);
a first quantum dot (20) formed within a first insulation body (40) and disposed at an included-angle location of the first plateau member (28) and the second plateau member (29), the first quantum dot (20) comprising semiconductor materials; (“The first system may be for providing a first quantum dot… The first system may comprise a first semiconductor region…”) (Fig. 1-2)
Andreev does not disclose:
wherein a largest distance between any two points of the first quantum dot in the quantum component is less than or equal to two times of an exciton Bohr radius of the material of the first quantum dot.
However, Li discloses:
“when the radius of the quantum dot is smaller than the exciton Bohr radius (the exciton Bohr radius is the average distance between the electron in the conduction band of the semiconductor and the hole it leaves behind in the valence band of the semiconductor), there is quantization of the energy levels according to Pauli's exclusion principle. The discrete, quantized energy levels of quantum dots relate their behavior more closely to atoms than bulk materials. Generally, as the size of the quantum dot decreases, the difference in energy between the highest valence band and the lowest conduction band increases.” (Li, [0018])
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Andreev and Li for a largest distance between any two points of the first quantum dot in the quantum component is less than or equal to two times of an exciton Bohr radius of the material of the first quantum dot because “at the nanoscale, electron transport through devices is strongly influenced by the discrete energy spectrum and interference effect, which may even emerge at room temperature in certain molecules. It is therefore crucial to understand the non-classical behavior that emerges in nanoscale… systems.” (LI, [0008])
Regarding claim 2, Andreev discloses the quantum device of claim 1, wherein
the at least one quantum component (10) is a single electron transistor (SET) (“The device 1 also includes first and second electrometers, in the form of single-electron transistors 10, 11,”) or a single hole transistor (SHT) and further comprises:
a first insulating layer (37) formed on the first plateau member (28) and the second plateau member (29); (“ flanking regions of silicon dioxide 36, 37.”, Fig. 1)
a first plunger gate (32) disposed, in a self-aligned process, adjacent to the first quantum dot (20) and between the first plateau member (28) and the second plateau member (29); (“Each single-electron transistors 10, 11 also includes a gate 32”, Fig. 1) wherein
the first quantum dot (20) is formed in approximately a spherical shape; (Fig. 1) and wherein the first plateau member (28), the second plateau member (29), and the first plunger gate (32) are electrically conductive. (“Conductive regions of the device 1 are laterally defined by etched sidewalls 34, 35 and flanking regions of silicon dioxide 36, 37.”, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 3, Andreev discloses the quantum device of claim 2, wherein the first plateau member (28) and the second plateau member (29) comprise semiconductor materials. (“ leads 28, 29, 30, 31 are formed in an etched layer 39 of n-type polycrystalline silicon”)
Regrading claim 4, Andreev discloses the quantum device of claim 3, wherein the first plateau member (28) and the second plateau member (29) comprise silicon, the first quantum dot (20) comprises germanium, and the first insulation body (37) comprises silicon dioxide. (“leads 28, 29, 30, 31 are formed in an etched layer 39 of n-type polycrystalline silicon”, “other semiconducting and insulating materials can be used. For example, other silicon-based semiconducting materials, such as silicon-germanium, may be used” and “ silicon dioxide regions 37” )
Regarding claim 5, Andreev discloses the quantum device of claim 4, wherein a diameter of the first quantum dot is less than approximately 25 nm. (“quantum dots 2.sub.1, 2.sub.2, 3.sub.1, 3.sub.2 having a width, w.sub.1, and length, 1.sub.1, of about 25 nm”)
Claims 36-38, 40, 41, 43-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreev et al. (EP 1860600 A1), hereinafter Andreev600, in view of Andreev et al. (US 20170288076 A1), hereinafter Andreev076.
Regarding claim 36, Andreev600 discloses a quantum device, comprising:
a substrate (42) with an insulation surface (41); and
at least one quantum component (10) disposed on the insulation surface (41) of the substrate (42) comprising:
multiple plateau members (28 and 29), each of which is disposed at an angle against an adjacent plateau member (28 or 29), (Fig. 1)
at least one quantum dot (20), each of which is formed within an insulation body (40) and disposed at an included-angle location of two adjacent plateau members (28 and 29) of the multiple plateau members, each of the quantum dot (20) comprising semiconductor materials; (“The first system may be for providing a first quantum dot… The first system may comprise a first semiconductor region…”) (Fig. 1-2)
Andreev600 does not disclose
the at least one quantum component is operable at a temperature above 4 K.
However, Andreev076 discloses:
the at least one quantum component is operable at a temperature above 4 K. ([0017], Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Andreev600 and Andreev076 for the at least one quantum component is operable at a temperature above 4 K in order “to increase intervalley splitting in a silicon-based quantum dot device” (Andreev, [0004])
Regarding claim 37, Andreev076 discloses the quantum device of claim 36 wherein the at least one quantum component is operable at a temperature above 77 K (per [0003])
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Andreev076 for reasons similar as stated above.
Regrading claim 38, Andreev600 discloses the quantum device of claim 36, wherein at least one
quantum dot (20) has approximately a spherical shape; (Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 40, Andreev600 discloses the quantum device of claim 38, wherein the at least
one quantum dot (20) comprises germanium. (“For example, other silicon-based semiconducting materials, such as silicon-germanium, may be used”)
Regarding claim 41, Andreev600 discloses the quantum device of claim 39, wherein the at least
one quantum dot has a diameter less than 25 nm. (“quantum dots 2.sub.1, 2.sub.2, 3.sub.1, 3.sub.2 having a width, w.sub.1, and length, 1.sub.1, of about 25 nm”)
Regarding claim 43, Andreev600 discloses the quantum device of claim 36, wherein the at least
one quantum dot (20) is formed by thermal oxidation of semiconductor-alloyed material. (“Low-temperature oxidation, at 900 °C in dry oxygen, is used to covert exposed regions 105 of the silicon layer 40', adjacent to the sidewalls 34, 36, into corresponding regions 35, 37 of silicon dioxide and thereby defining, for example, silicon gate regions 6, 28 and silicon quantum dot regions 13, 22. “)
Regarding claim 44, Andreev600 discloses the quantum device of claim 36, wherein the at least one quantum component further comprises a plunger gate (32) formed by a self-aligned process for each quantum dot (20). (“ Each single-electron transistors 10, 11 also includes a gate 32, 33 for applying an electric field so as to adjust an electrochemical potential of the quantum dot 20, 21.”, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 45, Andreev600 discloses the quantum device of claim 36, wherein each quantum component is independently addressable. (“When the qubits 4, 5 (Figure 1) are decoupled, they can be independently measured. “)
Regarding claim 46, Andreev600 discloses the quantum device of claim 40 wherein a distance between two adjacent quantum dots of the multiple quantum dots is less than 20 nm. (“a length l.sub.2 of about 5 nm.”, Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 47, Andreev600 discloses the quantum device of claim 36, wherein the at least one quantum component (10) comprises at least one of a single electron transistor (SET), a single hole transistor (SHT), a single electron transistor invertor (SETI), a single hole transistor inverter (SHTI), a qubit, and a double qubit. (“single-electron transistors 10,”…” Figure 1 providing two coupled qubits;”)
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreev et al. (EP 1860600 A1), hereinafter Andreev600, as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 20190058117 A1).
Regarding claim 39, Andreev600 discloses the quantum device of claim 38. Andreev600 does not disclose wherein the at least one quantum dot has a diameter less than an exciton Bohr radius of the material of the quantum dot.
However, Li discloses:
“when the radius of the quantum dot is smaller than the exciton Bohr radius (the exciton Bohr radius is the average distance between the electron in the conduction band of the semiconductor and the hole it leaves behind in the valence band of the semiconductor), there is quantization of the energy levels according to Pauli's exclusion principle. The discrete, quantized energy levels of quantum dots relate their behavior more closely to atoms than bulk materials. Generally, as the size of the quantum dot decreases, the difference in energy between the highest valence band and the lowest conduction band increases.” (Li, [0018])
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Andreev and Li for the at least one quantum dot has a diameter less than an exciton Bohr radius of the material of the quantum dot because “at the nanoscale, electron transport through devices is strongly influenced by the discrete energy spectrum and interference effect, which may even emerge at room temperature in certain molecules. It is therefore crucial to understand the non-classical behavior that emerges in nanoscale… systems.” (LI, [0008])
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreev et al. (EP 1860600 A1), hereinafter Andreev600, as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Chan et al. (US 20150236284 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Andreev600 discloses the quantum device of claim 40. Andreev600 does not disclose wherein the at least one quantum dot comprises approximately 100% germanium.
However, Chan discloses:
the at least one quantum dot (38) comprises approximately 100% germanium (per [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Pioro-Ladriere and Chan for the at least one quantum dot comprises approximately 100% germanium in order to “improve charge retention in the core material” (Chan, [0039]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY BLACKWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-1600.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469-295-9060. 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.
/ASHLEY NICOLE BLACKWELL/
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights