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 election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 9/8/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 3 and 4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 3 and 4 describe aspects of the dielectric crystal plate, specifically, the electrical resistivity and thermal conductivity thereof. However, both of these properties of the dielectric crystal plate are temperature dependent. This is evident in the specification’s description of what temperature at which these properties were determined. Since the claims do not detail what temperatures these properties correspond to, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether a given dielectric crystal plate infringed upon the claimed invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0323051 A1 [Polfer] in view of GB 2322969 A [Arai].
Regarding Claim 1:
Polfer discloses a cold finger for use with a quantum information processing (QIP) system including a cryostat, the cold finger comprising:
a base including opposing first and second surfaces (cryostat to which the finger is coupled per para 248. All cryostats have at least two surfaces.);
a finger including a first end coupled to the second surface of the base (para 248) and a second end including an opening (see Fig. 8 showing a number of openings on the send end of the cold finger) configured to engage an ion trap (see Fig. 66a); and
an isolation unit including a dielectric crystal plate that is configured to isolate the ion trap from electrical noise generated by the cryostat when the cryostat is controlling a temperature of the ion trap (paras 105-107, Fig. 1 (135 a-d) are sapphire spacers, i.e. dielectric crystal plate isolate the ion trap from electrical noise).
However, Polfer fails to teach that the base is a planar base.
Arai teaches a cryostat (Fig. 1 (3)) connected to a coldfinger (Fig. 1 (5)) in an analytical device (Fig. 1, abstract), wherein the coldfinger is connected to the cryostat by a planar base including opposing first and second surfaces (Fig. 1 (3b)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the planar base (Fig. 1 (3b)) of Arai as the connection between the cryostat and coldfinger of Polfer. One would have been motivated to do so since it would provide an effective thermal connection. Arai 4:1-6.
Regarding Claim 2:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the cold finger of claim 1, wherein the dielectric crystal plate includes diamond, sapphire, or quart (Polfer paras 105-107).
Regarding Claim 3:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the cold finger of claim 1, wherein an electrical resistivity of the dielectric crystal plate is from 1×1012 ohm-meters (Ωm) to 1×1015 Ωm. Polfer’s Sapphire meets this limitation at certain temperatures.
Regarding Claim 4:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the cold finger of claim 3, wherein a thermal conductivity of the dielectric crystal plate is from 500 Watts per meter-Kelvin (W/mK) to 3000 W/mK. Polfer’s Sapphire meets this limitation at certain temperatures.
Regarding Claim 5:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the cold finger of claim 1, wherein a compressive strength of the dielectric crystal plate is between 1 giga pascal (GPa) and 20 GPa. Polfer’s Sapphire has a compressive strength around 2 GPa.
Regarding Claim 6:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches discloses the cold finger of claim 1, wherein the isolation unit includes at least one metal plate (Polfer Fig. 66a – DC Endplate is metal per para 110).
Regarding Claim 10:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the cold finger of claim 1, wherein the isolation unit is positioned between a cooling plate of the cryostat and the ion trap (Polfer See Fig. 1 (135) between the cryostat and its plates, such as any of those shown in Fig. 66a, and the ion trap).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polfer in view Arai and further in view of US 2022/0212196 A1 [Murdick].
Regarding Claim 7:
The modified invention of claim 6 teaches the cold finger of claim 6, but fails to teach that the at least one metal plate includes gold-plated copper.
Murdick teaches a low temperature analytical instrument (abstract, para 2) using gold coated copper as electrodes therein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to replace the copper DC plates of Polfer with the gold coated copper plates of Murdick, since Murdick teaches using such electrode compositions in a cold environment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polfer in view Arai and further in view of US 5,682,751 [Langhorn].
Regarding Claim 8:
The modified invention of claim 1 teaches the cold finger of claim 1, but fails to teach that the isolation unit includes at least one indium layer overlying the dielectric crystal plate.
Langhorn describes thermal coupling in a cryogenic device (abstract), and notes that it is preferable where copper cooling probes are coating in indium. The DC end plates of Polfer are copper, act as a cooling probe by being placed between a cryo-plate and an ion trap, and abut sapphire spacers. By coating the copper end plate interface with the spacers in indium, the end plate’s thermal contact with the sapphire spacers would be enhanced in the same fashion as the copper probe of Langhorn. 4:35-41. Further, this would yield an indium layer overlying the sapphire spacer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the indium layer of Langhorn between the sapphire spacers and copper end plates of Polfer so as to improve thermal contact therebetween.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is allowed.
Claims 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The indefiniteness rejections of claims 9 and 12 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues that the indefiniteness rejections of claims 3 and 4 are improper because the Office has “no authority or case laws that require the explicit recitation of temperatures when claiming any physical parameters that are temperature dependent.” This is a clear misrepresentation of the grounds of rejection, and unpersuasive. If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470, 28 USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims are rejected because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine whether a given dielectric crystal plate infringed upon the range of the claimed invention. This, in turn, is because a given dielectric crystal plate might read on the claimed range at one temperature, and not at another. Such circumstances would preclude one of ordinary skill in the art from interpreting the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement. This entire issue can be obviated if the applicant were to simply claim the temperatures recited in the specification that correspond to the claimed ranges. The rejection to the claims is maintained.
Applicant’s attorney requests identification of legal precedent for the indefiniteness rejections of record. This request is acknowledged and Applicant’s attorney is invited to review MPEP 2173 discussing indefiniteness.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 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, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881