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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/29/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in the independent claim(s).
The remarks argue that Genter teaches the electrode protruding beyond the substrate recess by over 10 μm based on the quoted passage from the translation (“The electrodes can protrude beyond the substrate recess by at least 10 μm[sic]” (translation, [0044]) [note pm is mistranslated] ), and the disclosure of fig. 1 of Genter that if drawn to scale would allegedly show the protrusion being longer than the substrate recess. However, this example of Genter in fig 1 appears to show an example of a workable configuration, and does not disparage the use of smaller free-standing portions. There is also no disclosure of the figure being to scale. The passage explicitly anticipates a 10 μm free-standing portion, or at least a portion greater than 10 μm. Since the claims recite “a range of 1 or 2 micrometers to about 10 micrometers” (emphasis added), the claims are sufficiently broad to read on the at least 10 μm taught by Genter. Furthermore, Maunz teaches an embodiment where 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.
The remarks argue that a skilled artisan would be discouraged from using 1-10 μm free-standing portions because that would be decreasing the size of the overhangs in Genter and could reduce shielding and potentially make it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. However, as noted above, it is unclear what the actual free-standing portion length in Genter is, as Genter teaches “at least 10 μm”, which encompasses lengths that are from 1 to about 10 micrometers. It is additionally noted that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP §§ 2145, 2129, 2144.03, 716.01(c).
The remarks argue that Genter does not disclose the Ti or TiW adhesion promotion layers nor the Ti intermediate layers as the top layer of the electrode metallization. However, it is noted that Genter teaches that the electrode interleaved layers may be Ti interleaved in Au or Au interleaved in Ti, for example, “Ti/Au/Ti/Au/Ti/Au in the insulation area” ([0100]), which would result in a topmost electrode layer being formed of titanium. It is additionally noted that the directional orientation of the layers in the trap is also not claimed, so the TI or TiW adhesion promotion layer could also alternately read as the topmost layer of the electrode, where top to bottom in the claim is mapped to the bottom to top of fig 1 in the plane of the page, and electrodes corresponding to 42, 46 (plus 40, etc) are read as the relevant multilayer stacks. Although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention claimed, the language of Applicant's claims are sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s).
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. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
PNG
media_image1.png
120
1248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
PNG
media_image2.png
89
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “a structured third metal layer disposed at a main side of the further substrate facing the structured first metal layer” but it is unclear whether the limitation “facing the structured first metal layer” modifies the further substrate or the structured third metal layer. Examiner suggests clarifying “a structured third metal layer, disposed at a main side of the further substrate, and facing the structured first metal layer”
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_image3.png
281
1244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 (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 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 comprises Ti and/or TiW (see [0040]), and
wherein the mechanical stabilization layer is a top layer of the multilayer stack 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_image4.png
158
934
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-11, 14-17, 22-25 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].
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 in a range of 1 or 2 micrometers to about 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. Further, even if this option is selected, the claim language of “about 10 micrometers” would also encompass overhangs of 10 μm (or just above 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.
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 16, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz teaches a further substrate (see Genter, fig 1: 20) 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 substrate facing the structured first metal layer (see e.g. 20 and 42 both facing 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).
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.
Regarding claim 22, Genter teaches a device for controlling trapped ions, the device comprising:
one or more electrodes (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 comprising an electrically conductive layer of a first material (e.g. Au, [0040]) and a mechanical stabilization layer of a second material (e.g. diffusion barrier, 40 (not marked in fig 1, but repeated for the lower electrode assembly under 46,48); also referred to as adhesion mediation and diffusion barrier, e.g. 140; alternately including adhesion promoting layer of Ti, [0040]),
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. 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 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: see 40 (unmarked on lower substrate); also referred to as adhesion mediation and diffusion barrier, e.g. 140; alternately including adhesion promoting layer of Ti, [0040]) 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, Vrijsen teaches a 20nm Ti 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 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).
Regarding claim 24, the combined teaching of Genter and Maunz teaches the mechanical stabilization layer (interpreting here as e.g. diffusion barrier, Genter, fig 1: 40 (unmarked on lower substrate); also referred to as adhesion mediation and diffusion barrier, e.g. 140) is a top layer of the multilayer stack that forms the one or more electrodes (defining the top and upper part of the ion trap as the bottom of the page in fig 1, 40 is the top layer of e.g. 42, 44; also redefining the electrodes as 42, 44, so the ion is above these electrodes).
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) 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).
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 extension fee 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 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