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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
It is noted claim 4 contradicts 1 stating the signal line is on a second surface of the second structural member. However ,in case applicant cancels the limitation applicant does not depict a through hole in the first structural member and a second through hole in the second structural member. Figure 2 depicts the through holes only in the first structural member. Figure 12 depicts no through holes. While figures 17 and 19 only depict the through hole in the second member.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 9, 15, is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 4 contradicts claim 1.
Claim 1: the signal transmission line and the second connection terminal are located on a first surface of the second structural member
Claim 4: the signal transmission line is located on a second surface of the second structural member.
As to claim 9, Recitation of each of the support and connection member is cylindrical in shape is unclear there is only one recited. The office’s original concern is does the support and connection member refer to one of the 30 or is there structural connection member both of the elements point at at 30. This affects how one interprets wherein the support and connection member is cylindrical in shape. Since if the connection member is all the items 30s it requires a layout all the item 30 to be cylindrical. If only one of the 30s it the structural connection member, then it one of the items 30s to be cylindrical.
As to claim 15, states wherein the step of forming a qubit, a read cavity, and a first connection terminal on the first structural member comprises: forming the qubit, the read cavity, and the first connection terminal on the second surface of the first structural member but the limitation does not limit the scope qubit and read cavity only the first connection so it is unclear if the qubit and read cavity are the first connection terminal ore If claim 15 should recite:
wherein the step of forming the first connection terminal on the first structural member comprises: the first connection terminal on the second surface of the first structural member
As to claim 16, Claim 16 contradicts claim 10
Claim 10 states:
wherein the first connection terminal is located on the second surface of the first structural member, the signal transmission line and the second connection terminal are located on a first surface of the second structural member, and the second surface of the first structural member is disposed opposite to the first surface of the second structural member.
Claim 16 requires forming the signal transmission line on the second surface of the second structural member
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 already implies claim 15. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 10 recites:
wherein the first connection terminal is located on the second surface of the first structural member, the signal transmission line and the second connection terminal are located on a first surface of the second structural member, and the second surface of the first structural member is disposed opposite to the first surface of the second structural member.
Which the same scope as already required in claim 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,6,7,9-13, and 15, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsherbini (‘578 cited on ids) in view of admitted prior art and George (WIPO ‘794).
As to claims 1 10, and 15, Elsherbini teaches A superconducting quantum chip structure, comprising a first structural member (item 304), a second structural member (item 314), and a support and connection member (item 312), wherein the first structural member is provided with a qubit (102s figure 12), a read cavity (the resonator), a first connection terminal (what 312 is connected to , the qubit is coupled to the read cavity (by definition), and the qubit is electrically connected to the first connection terminal (see figures 1 and 2 related discussions), the second structural member is provided with a signal transmission line (item 324) and a second connection terminal electrically connected to each other (328-1); and the support and connection member having two ends opposite one another and said two end of the support and connection member are electrically connected to the first connection terminal and the second connection terminal (312 connect the terminals), respectively, and the support and connection member is configured to transmit a control signal received on the signal transmission line to the qubit (the element can perform the function thus meets the claim limitation).
Elsherbini does not teach:
a first through hole penetrating through the first structural member from a first surface to a second surface of the first structural member
the qubit and the read cavity are located on the first surface of the first structural member, the first connection terminal is located on the second surface of the first structural member,
the first through hole is partially filled with a first metal layer, and the first metal layer is configured to electrically connect the qubit and the first connection terminal
APA teaches a circuit comprising on one surface qubits item 11 and a read cavity item 12. Thus, APA teaches the qubit and the read cavity are located on the first surface of the first structural member,
George teaches a quantum chip comprising a qubit figure 1B item 112 on the opposite side of 119 left hand portion space away from item 114
George teaches and a first through hole penetrating through a first structural member from a first surface to a second surface of the first structural member (item 101b)
a first connection terminal (item 118) is located on the second surface of the first structural member (119 opposite the qubit has terminal connected to other terminal of the second by ball bonds), George further teaches a second connection terminal on a first side of the second structural member item 118.
the first through hole is partially filled with a first metal layer (paragraph 84 corresponding to item 102 of figure 1b)), and the first metal layer is configured to electrically connect the qubit and the first connection terminal (see associated figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
514
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus absent some unexpected showing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the qubit and the read cavity of the first surface since the location of qubit and read cavity is largely arbitrary and based on design preference. Further APA suggest forming them on the same circuit level and George teach opposite the connection region. Further having the element spaced away from other circuitry gives isolation of the substrate since the substrate acts as a dielectric barrier.
In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide ae though hole provide the through connect the first surface to the second surface connected the connection terminal and partially filled with metal to advantageously facilitate use of 3D and stacked designs for quantum circuit assemblies, keep the losses which lead to qubit decoherence sufficiently low, and allow device scalability and use of 300-millimeter fabrication processes as suggested by George.
b. As to claim 2, George teaches wherein the first connection terminal is distributed on the second surface of the first structural member along a circumferential direction of the first through hole and is coaxial with the first through hole (formed on their circumference of the through hole).
c. As to claim 6, George teaches wherein the first metal layer is made of a superconducting material (Paragraph 84).
d. As to claim 7, Elsherbini teaches using Indium for the connection member 312 (column 18) George suggest the use of TiN (paragraph 84).
Thus absent some unexpected showing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the connection member as indium and the first metal as TiN to use known material for their known outcomes or a superconducting circuit.
e. As to claim 9, Elsherbini does not teach wherein the support and connection member comprises a plurality of cylindrical in shaped connection pillars.
However cylindrical shaped connection pillars were known substitutes solder balls.
Thus absent some unexpected showing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the solder balls of Elsherbini with cylinder shaped connection pillars to provide a known conventional alternative of connection chips with known expected results of providing electrical connection between the elements.
f. As to claim 11, George teaches support of the first structure before forming the through hole. George seems to imply the layers are formed on item 320.
However, reversing the order by first providing 322 and attaching 320 was known to provide additional structural support during processing. Thus absent some unexpected result it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide 322 and form 320 on top thereof. Since the outcome would be the same and there are only two methods of forming the film structure forming 320 first or forming 322 first and both would have resulted in the same resultant structure.
g. As to claim 12, George does not teach: performing etching on the first structural member by using an inductively coupled plasma to form the first through hole.
However Inductively coupled plasma (ICP) -RIE was known and allowed good etch control and high etch rates.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used ICP-RIE for fast etching to increase throughput.
h. As to claim 13, George teaches forming the first metal layer in the first through hole by using an atomic layer deposition technology (paragraph 75).
i. As to claim 16, George does not explicitly teach wherein the step of forming a signal transmission line and a second connection terminal on a second structural member comprises: forming a second through hole penetrating through the second structural member from the first surface to a second surface of the second structural member; filling a second metal layer in the second through hole; forming the second connection terminal on the first surface of the second structural member; and forming the signal transmission line on the second surface of the second structural member, wherein the second metal layer is configured to electrically connect the signal transmission line and the second connection terminal.
However, this is merely repetition of parts for additional communication between the level.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide wherein the step of forming a signal transmission line and a second connection terminal on a second structural member comprises: forming a second through hole penetrating through the second structural member from the first surface to a second surface of the second structural member; filling a second metal layer in the second through hole; forming the second connection terminal on the first surface of the second structural member; and forming the signal transmission line on the second surface of the second structural member, wherein the second metal layer is configured to electrically connect the signal transmission line and the second connection terminal in order to have additional communication paths for additional qubit and controls making a full functional qubit device.
k. As to claim 17, wherein the step of forming a support and connection member, wherein two ends of the support and connection member are electrically connected to the first connection terminal and the second connection terminal, comprises: electrically connecting the other end of the support and connection member to the first connection terminal (figure 6D and to 6E). Elsherbini does not state whether the connection 312 are formed on 308 or 314 however it was known to form the connection elements on either the chip or the support.
Thus absent some unexpected showing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form 312 on the 314 then attach 308 to 314. One would have been so motivated since there are only a finite number of methods to obtain the same result and both methods would have resulted in the same structure.
l. As to claim 18 in so far, Elsherbini teaches flip chip bonding which connect metal of the support directly to both electrodes soldered
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsherbini (‘578 cited on ids) in view of admitted prior art and George (WIPO ‘794). In view of Watanabe (WO 2021140664).
As to claims 8 and 14, Elsherbini (‘578 cited on ids) in view of admitted prior art and George (WIPO ‘794) George teaches forming the metal with ALD paragraph 75. George does not teach a protective layer filling metal.
Watanabe teaches providing an insulator item 102 to fill in the metal cavity/on the surface of the metal for qubit devices (item 20). Item 102 is formed.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to filling the coaxial via structure with of George with a solid insulator to optimize the capacitance of the coaxial TSV of George for the desired operating range and frequencies.
This would act as a second protective film and it is formed on the surfaces of the first metal.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsherbini (‘578 cited on ids) in view of admitted prior art and George (WIPO ‘794) in view of Washington math or Abraham (20220199507).
As to claim 5, George does not explicitly teach the cross section of the vias are trapezoidal. The phrase trapezoid is not defined in the specification. There are two definition inclusive definition and exclusive definition (see Washington Math) under the inclusive interpretation George teaches a trapezoid
However, assuming areguendo applicant means exclusive , a tapered T(hrough)S(emiconductor)V(ia)s, tapered were known in the art at the time of filing further such TSVs would provide a trapezoidal cross section (see Abraham QT0).
Thus absent some unexpected showing it would have been obvious to provide the TSVs of Elsherbini in view of APA in view of George as tapered to allow for not perfectly anisotropic formation of vias known in the art. Further it allows conventional via shapes to use with expected and known result of electrical connection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues :
George fails to disclose the relative positional relationship between the surface of the substrate 108 and the surface of the substrate 115.
This is false figure 1B which applicant provides in the argument shows the positional relationship of the substrate. Item 112 the qubit is on one side of item 108 the terminals 118 are on the other side of item 108 and another set of terminals are on a first side of 115 facing the second side of item 108. Thus, Georg does disclose the relative positional relationship between the surface of the substrate 108 and the surface of the substrate 115.
Applicant further argues: In addition, George fails to explicitly disclose a first connection terminal located on the substrate 108 and a second connection terminal located on the substrate 115, and further fails to disclose the positional relationship between the first connection terminal and the second connection terminal.
This again is false item 118 the conductive contacts (terminals) are on the second surface of the first structural support and also on the first surface of the structural support. George does teach the relative position of the contacts (terminals).
Thus, since the relative positions are taught/suggest by Elsherbini and George Claims 1 and 10 are found to be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yohannes (20200119251) teaches cylinder. Shaped connection supports figure 7, 8 and 11.
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 MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 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, William F. Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896