Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/488,645

QUBIT CHIP DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Oct 17, 2023
Examiner
CAMPBELL, SHAUN M
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
742 granted / 1025 resolved
+4.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1072
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
53.2%
+13.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
§112
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1025 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on January 28, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no burden in examining all claims and that classification is the same for each of the species. This is not found persuasive. Applicants have not shown that the species are not patentably distinct. Applicants appear to be arguing that same classification means same invention. If such were carried to its logical conclusion there could only be one patent per class and Applicants could be denied a patent on the basis that there is already at least one patent in said class. With regard to the "no burden" argument, it is noted that each distinct invention beyond one is a burden in that it draws the attention of the Examiner to its own requirements. Examination requires focus to follow search leads and patterns of logic in formulating applications of the prior art to that which is claimed. When the Examiner has to pursue several search patterns of logic simultaneously or serially, added burden is presented. In order to examine several species simultaneously or serially, added effort beyond that necessary for one species must be expended. Where the effort is serial and the jobs are different the added burden is obvious. Digging two equal holes of the same size requires twice the effort of digging one hole. Such is an obvious conclusion. It can be argued that some species can be examined simultaneously but such is true only if they are not patentably distinct, that is, if that which applies to any one applies to all others. Where species are patentably distinct each requires separate consideration. Finding references anticipating or making obvious one does not necessarily render the other unpatentable. Having to examine the other constitutes a burden. If the species are not patentably distinct no burden is presented in examining both since if one falls the other falls as well. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 5-7 and 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in reply filed on January 28, 2026. Claims 1-4, 8-12 and 16-20 are elected for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-4, 8-12 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michalak et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0305037 A1), hereafter referred to as Michalak. As to claim 1, Michalak discloses a qubit chip device (fig 1, [0040]) comprising: a substrate (fig 1, [0041] and 6D, substrate 602); a superconducting qubit on the substrate (fig 1, [0041] on substrate 602); and a readout circuit on the substrate and electrically connected to the superconducting qubit (fig 3, [0066]), the readout circuit comprising: a signal line (322; [0067]) on a surface of the substrate (602); a ground plate (324, 326, [0067]) on the surface of the substrate (602), the ground plate comprising a pattern forming a coplanar waveguide along the signal line and offset from the signal line (fig 3, coplanar pattern 324/326 offset from 322; [0067], [0125]); and a conductive bridge (fig 3 shows bridge 330 [0067] and [0105] teaches that a conductive bridge shown in fig 6D can be used instead of the conductive bridge in fig 3) embedded in the substrate (602) and connecting two portions of the ground plate in a direction crossing the signal line (fig 6D, conductive bridge including 606 and 608 connect ground plate 624/628 and cross signal line 626; [0105]). As to claim 2, Michalak discloses the qubit chip device of claim 1 (paragraphs above), wherein the conductive bridge comprises a superconducting material ([0095]). As to claim 3, Michalak discloses the qubit chip device of claim 1 (paragraphs above), wherein the conductive bridge and the ground plate electrically contact with each other (fig 6D and [0105]). As to claim 4, Michalak discloses the qubit chip device of claim 3 (paragraphs above), wherein the conductive bridge comprises niobium nitride (NbN), niobium titanium nitride (NbTiN), titanium nitride (TiN), or vanadium nitride (VN) ([0095]). As to claim 8, Michalak discloses the qubit chip device of claim 1 (paragraphs above), wherein the superconducting qubit ([0052]) comprises: a first conductive pad and a second conductive pad that are apart from each other on the surface of the substrate (fig 1C, upper and lower pads of capacitor 130); and a Josephson junction element (132; [0055]) between the first conductive pad and the second conductive pad (upper and lower pads of capacitor 130). As to claim 9, Michalak discloses the qubit chip device of claim 8 (paragraphs above), wherein the signal line ([0051]), the ground plate ([0051]), the conductive bridge ([0095]), the first conductive pad, and the second conductive pad each comprise a same superconducting material ([0051]). As to claim 10, Michalak discloses a method of manufacturing a qubit chip device ([0010]), the method comprising: forming a conductive bridge having two end portions exposed at a surface of a substrate and a remaining portion embedded in the substrate (fig 6D, conductive bridge 606/608 in the substrate 602); forming a coplanar waveguide on the surface of the substrate such that both the end portions of the conductive bridge are in contact with a ground plate in the coplanar waveguide (fig 6D, [0105] and [0125]); and forming a Josephson junction element to be electrically connected with the coplanar waveguide (fig 1C, 132; [0055]). As to claim 11, Michalak discloses the method of claim 10 (paragraphs above), wherein the forming of the coplanar waveguide is performed such that the ground plate is capable of making direct electrical contact with both end portions of the conductive bridge (fig 6D, [0105]). As to claim 12, Michalak discloses the method of claim 11 (paragraphs above), wherein the conductive bridge comprises niobium nitride (NbN), niobium titanium nitride (NbTiN), titanium nitride (TiN), or vanadium nitride (VN) ([0095]). As to claim 17, Michalak discloses the method of claim 10 (paragraphs above), wherein the forming of the coplanar waveguide comprises forming conductive pads connected to both sides of the Josephson junction element (fig 1C, [0043], [0055]). As to claim 18, Michalak discloses the method of claim 10 (paragraphs above), wherein the coplanar waveguide and the conductive bridge each comprise a same superconducting material ([0095], [0103]). As to claim 19, Michalak discloses a planar qubit device (fig 1C) comprising: a superconducting qubit comprising a Josephson junction electrically connected with a signal line (fig 1C, Josephson junction 132, signal line 322; [0053]; [0067]); a ground plate (324/326) arranged around the signal line (322/626; [0105]) without contacting the signal line and arranged around the qubit without contacting the qubit (132); and a bridge crossing (fig 6D, 606/608) under signal line (626) and electrically connecting a first portion of the ground plate (624) with a second portion (628) of the ground plate, wherein the first and second portions are across from each relative to the signal line (626). As to claim 20, Michalak discloses the planar qubit device of claim 19 (paragraphs above), wherein the signal line comprises a wave guide configured to guide a wave read from the qubit ([0067]), and wherein the signal line is connected with the qubit by an antenna pad between the signal line and the Josephson junction (fig 1C, capacitor pads 130 function as antenna pad; see pertinent art section Rosenblatt et al.). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 16 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the forming of the conductive bridge comprises: forming a trench by etching the substrate; depositing a superconducting material layer in the trench; forming a groove in the superconducting material layer by etching the superconducting material layer; and forming a dielectric layer in the groove, as recited in claim 16. Pertinent Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rosenblatt et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0152853A1), US Pub. No. 2021/0159384A1, US Pub. No. 2021/0359384A1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN M CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3830. The examiner can normally be reached on MWFS: 7:30-6pm Thurs 1-2pm. 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, Purvis, Sue can be reached at (571)272-1236. 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 only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /SHAUN M CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 2/20/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 17, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604764
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604614
DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598900
DISPLAY APPARATUS AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593597
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588387
DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
72%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+8.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1025 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