DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/4/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The remarks argue that the 5 μm overhang of Munoz is in direct conflict with Genter’s preferred geometry and would not be an obvious modification. The remarks cite to Genter’s discussion of “at least 10 μm” which is based on the distance from the ions to the electrode, and also cites to the Applicant’s arguments in 1/29/26 that the substrate recession is particularly advantageous. Genter states “The electrodes can protrude beyond the substrate recess by at least 10 μm, for example by approximately the distance between the ions and the DC and HF electrodes.” However, this appears to further support the position of the previous office action, which was that PHOSITA would have recognized that a 5 μm overhang was known to be effective for at least the scales used by Munoz, while also permitting the ability to use vertical metal deposition.
Even if, arguendo, Genter were understood to want “at least 10 μm” as a preferred embodiment, it is noted that this does not teach away from use of smaller overhangs as a general matter. Genter never says the advantageous effects are inoperable at the claimed dimensions.
MPEP 2123 states
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have "relatively acceptable dimensional stability" and "some degree of flexibility," but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since "Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art." Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Finally, it is noted that the claim language of “less than 10 micrometers” is recognized to be an obvious variation of “at least 10 micrometers”, since a skilled artisan would have understood that given e.g. manufacturing variations, they are so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 22, the remarks argue that Genter teaches the adhesion mediation layer 40 is Ti, TiW, or Cr, and does not disclose these materials being unsuitable as also being a diffusion barrier, so there is no motivation to use any other material besides the three examples. However, Ti, TiN, TiW, and Cr are well understood to be known effective barrier and adhesion promoting layer materials. A skilled artisan would have understood that these were suitable equivalents for the purpose of providing both adhesion promoting and barrier layer functionality. See MPEP 2144.06(II) (substituting equivalents for same purpose); 2144.07 (art recognized suitability for intended purpose); 2143 (simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results).
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-11, 14-17, 22-26 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-11, 14-17, 22-26 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 –
PNG
media_image1.png
281
1244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Blain et al. (US 6870158 B1) [hereinafter Blain].
Regarding claim 22, Blain teaches a device for controlling trapped ions, the device comprising:
one or more electrodes (fig 9: 272, 260, 230, 250) disposed over a substrate (see 276) and configured to trap ions in a space above the substrate,
wherein the one or more electrodes are formed of a multilayer stack (fig 9: 272, 260, 230, 250) comprising an electrically conductive layer of a first material (e.g. electrode, 230, TiN, claim 4) and a mechanical stabilization layer of a second material (see TiN, claim 4),
wherein the second material comprises TiN (see claim 4).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Genter et al. (WO2020207801A1) [hereinafter Genter].
Regarding claim 26, Genter teaches a device for controlling trapped ions, the device comprising:
one or more electrodes (see including e.g. fig 1: 46, 48, [0040]) disposed over a substrate (see 22) and configured to trap ions in a space above the substrate (see fig 1),
wherein the one or more electrodes are formed of a multilayer stack (including 12, 46, 48) comprising an electrically conductive layer of a first material (e.g. 46, 48 are formed from Au, [0040]) and a mechanical stabilization layer (e.g. diffusion barrier, 40, also referred to as adhesion mediation and diffusion barrier, e.g. 140) of a second material (e.g. Ti, [0040]), wherein the multilayer stack comprises a first side (bottom side in fig 1) that is proximal to the substrate (see 22), and an opposite second side (top side in fig 1) that is distal to the substrate,
wherein the second material comprises Ti and/or TiW (see [0040]), and
wherein the mechanical stabilization layer (see top diffusion barrier, 40) is formed at the second side of the multilayer stack (including 12, 26, 48) that forms the one or more electrodes (see [0100]).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image2.png
158
934
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-11, 14-15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Genter et al. (WO2020207801A1) [hereinafter Genter] in view of Maunz et al. (US 11056332 B1) [hereinafter Maunz].
Regarding claim 1, Genter teaches a device for controlling trapped ions, the device comprising:
a substrate (see e.g. silicon, [0040], fig 1: 22);
a structured first metal layer (see e.g. 46, 48, etc) disposed over the substrate; and
wherein the structured first metal layer forms electrodes of an ion trap (see e.g. [0040]) configured to trap ions in a space above the structured first metal layer (see fig 1),
wherein the structured first metal layer is formed of a multilayer stack comprising an electrically conductive layer of a first material (e.g. Au, [0040]) and a mechanical stabilization layer of a second material (e.g. Ti, [0040]),
wherein the second material is electrically conductive (natural property of Ti),
wherein the second material has an elastic modulus greater than the elastic modulus of the first material and/or the second material has a yield strength greater than the yield strength of the first material (natural result of selecting these materials, see applicant’s PG-Pub, [0051-52])
wherein a portion of the structured first metal layer (see inner parts of 46, 48, etc) protrudes free-standing over a recess in the dielectric layer (see fig 1), and
Genter may fail to explicitly disclose the second material has an elastic modulus greater than the elastic modulus of the first material and/or the second material has a yield strength greater than the yield strength of the first material. However, this appears to be natural properties of the selected materials (also see applicant’s PG-Pub, [0051-52]). However, in the event that a reviewing body were to determine that these properties were not intrinsic to the material, it has held that when the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§2112-2112.02.
Genter may fail to explicitly disclose a dielectric layer disposed between the substrate and the structured metal layer.
However, Maunz teaches a multiple metalization layer ion trap configuration that enables advantages such as controlling ion heating and reduce fluctuations at openings (see Maunz, e.g. col 5, lines 19-25, 47-52, col 6, lines 13-24), comprising a dielectric layer (see e.g. interlayer dielectric, col 6, lines 13-24; alternately see 106) disposed between the substrate (e.g. fig 1: Si) and the structured metal layer (RF layer). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to try to combine the teachings of Genter and Maunz to enable the advantageous trap design, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to better control heating, fluctuations, and stresses (see col 6, lines 13-24; Genter, [0101]).
The combined teaching of Maunz and Genter may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the free-standing portion of the structured first metal layer has a length that is less than 10 micrometers.
Genter teaches that “The electrodes can protrude beyond the substrate recess by at least 10 μm[sic]”, (translation, [0044], note pm is mistranslated) but this appears to be an optional limitation that does not disclaim electrode overhangs at, or less than, 10 μm. Alternately, it is noted that Maunz teaches the “trap electrodes and other features of the top metal were made to overhang their supporting oxide pillars by 5 μm” to avoid exposing dielectrics to ions and permit vertical metal deposition without shorting the electrodes (see Maunz, col 3, lines 50-60). Adjustment of the size of the protrusion/overhang would have been obvious as a routine skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, including a protrusion of 5-10 μm, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to ensure the trap electrodes avoid exposing dielectrics, while enabling the ability to permit vertical metal deposition, in the manner taught by Maunz. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Alternately, it is noted that, even without the teachings of Maunz, a prima facie case of obviousness exists between the two ranges, even if they do not overlap but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz teaches the multilayer stack comprises one single electrically conductive layer (e.g. Genter, Au layer, [0040]) sandwiched between two mechanical stabilization layers (e.g. Ti layers and/or other layers, [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz teaches the multilayer stack comprises a plurality of electrically conductive layers and a plurality of mechanical stabilization layers stacked in alternating order (see Genter, [0040]).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz teaches the number of electrically conductive layers and the number of mechanical stabilization layers is equal to or greater than 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8, respectively (see Genter, [0040]).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz teaches the first material is an AlSiCu alloy or an AlCu alloy or Cu or Au (see Genter, [0040]) or Ag or a composition thereof.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz teaches the second material is TiW or TiN or Pt or W or Pd or Ti (see Genter, [0040]) or a composition thereof.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz teaches a structured second metal layer (see e.g. Maunz, fig 1: 102; alternately see interlayer layers, col 6, lines 13-24) disposed over the substrate (see 10) and beneath the dielectric layer (see 106; alternately see interlayer dielectric, col 6, lines 13-24).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz teaches a portion of the structured second metal layer (see Maunz, fig 1: 102) protrudes free-standing over a recess in a lower dielectric layer (see e.g. bottom of 10) over which the second metal layer is disposed.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz may fail to explicitly disclose a length of the free-standing portion of the structured second metal layer is in a range of 1 or 2 micrometers to about 10 micrometers. However, Maunz shows the free-standing portion of the electrode layers may be greater than the free-standing portion of the ground rf electrode layer (see Maunz, fig 1). It is unclear what this second free-standing portion length is. However, given the combined teaching of 5-10 μm overhangs to protect insulator structures (see Maunz, col 3, lines 50-60; Genter, [0044], discussed above), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of 1-10 μm as a routine skill in the art to enable the intended operation of the system, and/or further protect insulator structures beneath the structured second metal layer. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz teaches the first material is an AlSiCu alloy or an AlCu alloy or Cu or Au (see Genter, [0040]) or Ag or a composition thereof, and wherein the second material is TiW or TiN or Pt or W or Pd or Ti (see Genter, [0040]) or a composition thereof.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Genter and Maunz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holz et al., Two-dimensional linear trap array for quantum information processing, arXiv (Sept. 21, 2020), https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.08085.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz may fail to explicitly disclose the single electrically conductive layer has a thickness in a range between 0.5 μm and 2.5 μm. However, the use of ion trap electrodes in that thickness range were well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Holz teaches a known effective electrode thickness of in a range between 0.5 μm and 2.5 μm (see Holz, p10, para 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Holz in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to try to use the known effective electrode dimensions of the system as a routine engineering skill in the art. It has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size and/or proportion as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Holz, for similar reasons as claim 3 above. However, it is unclear what the exact breakdown of thicknesses in the layer stack are. However, Genter teaches examples comprising 7-8 layers of material (see Genter, [0040]), which for a 2000nm electrodes (see Holz, p10, para 1) would yield an average layer thickness of 250-285.7 nm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to try adjusting layer thicknesses, including wherein at least one mechanical stabilization layer is in a range between 100 nm and 400 nm, as a routine engineering skill. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Holz, for similar reasons as claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Genter and Maunz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vrijsen et al. (US 20190287782 A1) [hereinafter Vrijsen].
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz may fail to explicitly disclose wherein some or each of the mechanical stabilization layers has a thickness in a range between 10 nm and 40 nm. However, the use of these thicknesses was well known in the art. For example, Vrijsen teaches a 20nm Ti adhesion layer to facilitate attaching an electrode to silicon (see Vrijsen, [0044]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Vrijsen in the system of the prior art to enable the ability to provide effective adhesion. Alternately It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the thicknesses of other mechanical stabilization layers as a routine skill in the art. It has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size and/or proportion as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Genter and Maunz, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pai et al. (US 20050189488 A1) [hereinafter Pai].
Regarding claim 16, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz teaches a further [region] (see Genter, fig 1, region above 42) disposed over and spaced apart from the substrate (see 22); and a structured third metal layer (see e.g. 38, 42, 44) disposed at a main side of the further region, wherein the main side of the further region and the structured third metal layer face the structured first metal layer (see facing down towards 46, 48 in fig 1), wherein the structured third metal layer forms electrodes of the ion trap (see 46, 48), wherein the ion trap is configured to trap ions in a space between the structured first metal layer and the structured third metal layer (see fig 1). The combined teaching may fail to explicitly disclose the further region being a substrate. However, it would have been obvious to provide a substrate above the electrodes as a routine skill in the art, for example as part of a holder. The use of additional substrates was well known in the art, for example, Pai teaches a system that can provide additional multilayer substrate structures above and below a trap structure to enable a reduced cost monolithic construction of ion source, trap, and detector (see Pai, [0007,30], fig 2), comprising a further substrate (see fig 2: e.g. 22) disposed over and spaced apart from the substrate for the trap (see e.g. 42). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Pai in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to enable the additional ability to provide an ion source and/or detector in an integrated and low cost manner, in the manner taught by Pai.
Claim(s) 22, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Genter et al. (WO2020207801A1) [hereinafter Genter] in view of Maunz et al. (US 11056332 B1) [hereinafter Maunz] and Lin et al. (US 20060063371 A1) [hereinafter Lin].
Regarding claim 22, Genter teaches a device for controlling trapped ions, the device comprising:
one or more electrodes (see including e.g. fig 1: 46, 48, [0040]) disposed over a substrate (see 22) and configured to trap ions in a space above the substrate (see fig 1),
wherein the one or more electrodes are formed of a multilayer stack (including 12, 46, 48) comprising an electrically conductive layer of a first material (e.g. 46, 48 are formed from Au, [0040]) and a mechanical stabilization layer of a second material (e.g. materials that form 20, 34, 40. Note this includes diffusion barrier, 40, also referred to as adhesion mediation and diffusion barrier, e.g. 140),
Genter may fail to explicitly disclose the second material comprises TiN. It is unclear what the diffusion barrier material is.
However, the use of TiN diffusion barrier/mediator layers was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Maunz teaches it was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use TiN as a diffusion barrier layer material for ion traps (see Maunz, col 8, lines 16-17). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to try to use the known effective TiN to enable the intended operation of providing a diffusion barrier, using the known effective materials in the manner known in the prior art. Alternately/additionally, it is noted that the use of Ti, TiN, TiW, Cr, and TaN were all well recognized as known effective alternative barrier and adhesion layer materials (see e.g. Lin, [0057]). It is noted the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 24, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz teaches wherein the multilayer stack (see Genter, fig 1: 12, 46, 48) comprises a first side (bottom side in fig 1) that is proximal to the substrate (see 22), and an opposite second side (top side in fig 1) that is distal to the substrate, and the mechanical stabilization layer (interpreting here as top diffusion barrier, Genter, fig 1: 40; also referred to as adhesion mediation and diffusion barrier, e.g. 140) is formed at the second side (top side) of the multilayer stack that forms the one or more electrodes (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 25, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz teaches the multilayer stack comprises one single electrically conductive layer (e.g. Genter, Au layer, [0040]) sandwiched between two mechanical stabilization layers (e.g. Ti layers and/or other layers, [0040], defining as additional mechanical stabilization layers).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Genter, Maunz, and Lin, as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Vrijsen et al. (US 20190287782 A1) [hereinafter Vrijsen].
Regarding claim 23, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz may fail to explicitly disclose the mechanical stabilization layer (interpreting here as e.g. diffusion barrier, Genter, fig 1: 40) has a thickness in a range between 10 nm and 40 nm. Genter is silent as to what the total thickness of this layer is. However, the use of these thicknesses for diffusion and adhesion layers was well known in the art. For example, Lin teaches a 10nm TiN adhesion layer (see Lin, [0057]). Vrijsen teaches a 20nm adhesion layer to facilitate attaching an electrode directly to silicon (see Vrijsen, [0044]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Lin and/or Vrijsen in the system of the prior art, because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to try the known effective thickness ranges to enable the ability to provide effective adhesion to silicon substrates. Alternately It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to adjust the thicknesses of other mechanical stabilization layers as a routine skill in the art. It has been held that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to change the size and/or proportion as a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights