Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/277,505

MULTIMODE SUPERCONDUCTING CAVITY RESONATORS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 16, 2023
Examiner
HOSSAIN, MOAZZAM
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Yale University
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
694 granted / 792 resolved
+19.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
844
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
45.5%
+5.5% vs TC avg
§102
31.3%
-8.7% vs TC avg
§112
16.6%
-23.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 792 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s incomplete election, with traverse, of species D.I, in the ”Response to Election / Restriction Filed - 01/20/2026”, is acknowledged. The election is found incomplete because the applicant has not identified the claims encompassing the elected invention, as required in “Requirement for Restriction/Election - 11/19/2025”. See “Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143 ) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention”. It has been found that the inventions as recited in claim 1-19 do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.2 as they lack same or corresponding special technical features because the features that are common to the invention of claims 2-19 are in claim 1, which is being rejected in section I, infra, in addition to the citation in “Requirement for Restriction/Election - 11/19/2025”. Based on the assertions in “Requirement for Restriction/Election - 11/19/2025”, that the searches for the device and process inventions are not co-extensive and are distinct for product and process is in the distinct area of examination, this office action considers all non-method claims i.e. claims 1-16 as being elected. The requirement is still deemed proper , and is therefore made FINAL, and thus the required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.03(b)) becomes an election without traverse. In view of the above, this office action considers claims 1-19 pending for prosecution, of which, non-elected claims 17-19 are withdrawn, and elected claims 1-16 are examined on their merits. 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 of this title, 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 invention. Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (110; Fig 3; [0051] or C 18, L 18-37)= (element 110; Figure No. 3; Paragraph No. [0051]) or Column No 18, Line Nos. 18-17. For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” or “Column No, Line Nos" shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The cited numerals or paragraphs of primary reference, for example, Schoelkopf in this document, is not preceded with Schoelkopf. These conventions are used throughout this document. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoelkopf, III; Robert J et al., (US 20150372217 A1) hereinafter Schoelkopf; in view of MINET ROGER (FR 2220929 A1) hereinafter Minet; and in further view of Minet; Roger P. (US 3857114 A); hereinafter Minet’114. Regarding Claim 1. Schoelkopf teaches an electromagnetic resonator (300 or 400; Figs 3-4) comprising (see the entire document, Figs 3-4, along with subject matter referenced in other figures, specifically, as cited below): PNG media_image1.png 398 1196 media_image1.png Greyscale Schoelkopf Fig 3 is a cross section along line AA of Fig 4 a superconducting microwave cavity (trouh/110; Fig 3; [0051]); and a resonant structure (310, labelled as stripline resonator) suspended (by 118) within the cavity (110/trough) and mechanically supported by (118) the cavity. But,Schoelkopf is silent on “the resonant structure (310) comprising at least one end that is freely suspended within the cavity.. .However, in the analogous art. Minet. Teaches sn electromagnetic resonator (page 8, lines 11-13) comprising: a superconducting microwave cavity (page 4, lines 2-14); and a resonant structure suspended within the cavity (figure 6) and mechanically supported by the cavity; wherein (Fig 5) the resonant structure comprising at least one end ( 32/33) that is freely suspended within the cavity. PNG media_image2.png 379 943 media_image2.png Greyscale Minet Fig 5 Fig 6 Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include Minet’s teaching into Schoelkopf’s resonant structure, and thereby the combination of (Schoelkopf and Minet) resonant structure (310) comprising at least one end (32/33) that is freely suspended within the cavity, as claimed; since Filter amplitude-frequency response will be optimized with function of the distance between the connecting points of the main line and the stubs, and the midpoint of the stubs in the cross cells of the filter as suggested by (Minet’114 paragraph (3) of summary setcion). Regarding Claim 2. The combination of (Schoelkopf, Minet and Minet’114) as applied to the electromagnetic resonator of claim 1, wherein the resonant structure (310) comprises: a first portion (Schoelkopf,118, fig 4; detailed in Fig 3 in view of strip-line 6 of Minet Fig 5) that extends from a first side of the cavity to a second side of the cavity, the second side opposing the first side; and a second portion (in view of stubs 32/33 of Minet Fig 5) that extends from the first portion and includes the at least one end that is freely suspended within the cavity. Regarding Claim 3. The combination of (Schoelkopf, Minet and Minet’114) as applied to the electromagnetic resonator of claim 2, further teaches, wherein the resonant structure (310) comprises, comprises a dielectric substrate.([0051]: silicon oxide or silicon nitride) Regarding Claim 4. The combination of (Schoelkopf, Minet and Minet’114) as applied to the electromagnetic resonator of claim 3, Schoelkopf further teaches, wherein the dielectric substrate comprises (sapphire and/or) silicon ([0008]: the plurality of substrates comprise a material with a crystalline structure, such as silicon) . Regarding Claim 5. The combination of (Schoelkopf, Minet and Minet’114) as applied to the electromagnetic resonator of claim 4, Schoelkopf further teaches, wherein the resonant structure comprises a thin film of a superconducting material coating ([0052] layer 112; for details, Fig 5I; [0065] : superconducting layer 510) the dielectric substrate . Regarding Claim 6. The combination of (Schoelkopf, Minet and Minet’114) as applied to the electromagnetic resonator of claim 5, Schoelkopf, further teaches, wherein the thin film completely superconducting layer (510; ([0065]: superconducting layer 510) covers the dielectric substrate. Regarding Claim 7. The combination of (Schoelkopf, Minet and Minet’114) as applied to the electromagnetic resonator of claim 5, Schoelkopf further teaches, the superconducting material (510) comprises aluminum ([0065]: aluminum). Regarding Claim 8. The combination of (Schoelkopf, Minet and Minet’114) as applied to the electromagnetic resonator of claim 1, further teaches, further comprising a non-linear superconducting element (Qubit 116; Fig 3; [0051]) arranged within the cavity (Trough). Regarding Claim 9. The combination of (Schoelkopf, Minet and Minet’114) as applied to the electromagnetic resonator of claim 8, further teaches, wherein the non-linear superconducting element comprises at least one Josephson junction ([0053]: superconducting qubits using Josephson junctions). Regarding Claim 10. The combination of (Schoelkopf, Minet and Minet’114) as applied to the electromagnetic resonator of claim 8, further teaches, wherein the non-linear superconducting element is a transmon qubit ([0051, 0053]: superconducting qubit 116, is a transmon qubit). Regarding Claim 11. The combination of (Schoelkopf, Minet and Minet’114) as applied to the electromagnetic resonator of claim 1, further teaches, wherein the resonant structure (310) is coupled to the cavity via one or more dielectric elements (118). Regarding Claim 12. The combination of (Schoelkopf, Minet and Minet’114) as applied to the electromagnetic resonator of claim 1, further teaches, wherein the resonant structure (310) contacts the cavity (trough ; Fig 3-4 in further view of Minet Fig 5). Regarding Claim 13. The combination of (Schoelkopf, Minet and Minet’114) as applied to the electromagnetic resonator of claim 1, further teaches, wherein the resonant structure (310) is planar (in view of Minet Fig 5). Regarding Claim 14. The combination of (Schoelkopf, Minet and Minet’114) as applied to the electromagnetic resonator of claim 1, further teaches, wherein the resonant structure (310) comprises (in view of Minet Fig 6) a lower element (18) and an upper element (19) arranged over the lower element and separated from the lower element by a dielectric material (28). Regarding Claim 15. The combination of (Schoelkopf, Minet and Minet’114) as applied to the electromagnetic resonator of claim 14, further teaches, wherein (in view of Minet Figs 5-6) the lower element (19) comprises a circular portion (23) and wherein the at least one end (32/33; Fig 5) that is freely suspended within the cavity is arranged within the circular portion. Regarding Claim 16. The combination of (Schoelkopf, Minet and Minet’114) as applied to the electromagnetic resonator of claim 14, further teaches, wherein the upper element (19) and the lower element (18) are both planar (in view of Minet Fig 6). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOAZZAM HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7960. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM. EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOAZZAM HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7960. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM. EST. 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on 571-272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR to register user only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MOAZZAM HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898 March 6, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 16, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600619
EARLY-IMPACT OUT-OF-PLANE MOTION LIMITER FOR MEMS DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600620
LOW-IMPACT OUT-OF-PLANE MOTION LIMITER MEMS DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604503
PROFILE CONTROL OF ISOLATION STRUCTURES IN SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596948
METHOD FOR MAKING A QUANTUM DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589989
PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING A MICRO-ELECTRO-MECHANICAL DEVICE FROM A SINGLE SEMICONDUCTOR WAFER AND RELATED MEMS DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+10.7%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 792 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month