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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to teach the dielectric material limitations of amended claim 15. This is not persuasive. Wright teaches metal interconnects in a dielectric layer.
Applicant argues that Wright fails to teach the claimed trapezoidal shape of claims 20 and 32. This is not persuasive. The phrase “Trapezoidal shape” is given the interpretation of having a shape of a trapezoid. Trapezoids are variously defined inclusively and exclusively. 1 The inclusive definition describes a quadrilateral with at least two parallel sides. The spacers of Wright clearly define a quadrilateral with at least two parallel sides. Further, in that they define two parallel sides, they provide the same amount of trapezoid definition as the instant application’s spacers, which simply define two arbitrary lines. See e.g.. instant Fig. 3b. As such, it is clear that Wright teaches the claimed arrangement of spacers.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0240850 A1 [hereinafter Wright].
Regarding Claim 15:
Wright discloses a device for controlling trapped ions (abstract), the device comprising:
a first substrate comprising a semiconductor and/or dielectric material (Fig. 10 (541-top) - glass);
a first micro-fabricated electrode structure disposed at a main side of the first substrate (Fig. 10 (1030-top));
a second substrate comprising a semiconductor and/or dielectric material (Fig. 10 (541-bottom) - glass);
a second micro-fabricated electrode structure disposed at a main side of the second substrate opposite the main side of the first substrate (Fig. 10 (1030-bottom));
a plurality of spacer members disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (Fig. 10 (550), Fig. 8)
at least one ion trap configured to trap ions in a space between the first substrate and the second substrate, the first micro-fabricated electrode structure and the second micro-fabricated electrode structure comprising electrodes of the ion trap (paras 26-27);
a dielectric material formed on the first substrate between the first micro-fabricated electrode structure and the main side of the first substrate (para 41 notes that the glass substrate has a silicon layer bonded to it. This silicon layer is the dielectric material between the electrode structures and the glass substrate) and
a multi-layer metal interconnect formed in the dielectric and electrically connected to the first micro-fabricated electrode structure (Fig. 9, paras 34, 41).
Regarding Claim 19:
Wright discloses the device of claim 15, wherein at least some of the plurality of spacer members are spaced apart from each other to allow optical access between adjacent spacer members. The spacers provide a space between the substrates, and light can travel down the space between the adjacent spacers.
Regarding Claim 20:
Wright discloses the device of claim 19, wherein the plurality of spacer members comprises corner spacer members aligned with corners of the first substrate and/or the second substrate and defining a free space for optical access having a trapezoidal shape. As shown in Fig. 9 (550)). It is noted that Trapezoidal shape is given the interpretation of having a shape of a trapezoid. Trapezoids are variously defined inclusively and exclusively. The inclusive definition describes a quadrilateral with at least two parallel sides. The spacers of Wright clearly define a quadrilateral with at least two parallel sides. Further, in that they define two parallel sides, they provide the same amount of trapezoid definition as the instant application’s spacers, which simply define two arbitrary lines. See e.g.. instant Fig. 3b.
Regarding Claim 21:
Wright discloses the device of claim 15, wherein the second substrate comprises silicon, silicon carbide, silicon-on-insulator, fused silica, or sapphire. Para 41- silicon-on-glass.
Regarding Claim 22:
Wright discloses the device of claim 15, wherein the first micro-fabricated electrode structure is metallic and the second micro-fabricated electrode structure is metallic. Para 32.
Regarding Claim 24:
Wright discloses the device of claim 15, wherein the multi-layer metal interconnect comprises a first metallization layer and a second metallization layer, the first metallization layer is a shielding layer, and the second metallization layer is structured as an electrical redistribution layer and electrically connected to the first micro-fabricated electrode structure. As shown in Fig. 9 wherein multiple metallization layers interconnect and cover the first substrate to apply voltages to the various electrodes through pad layers and layers of adhesive.
Regarding Claim 29:
Wright discloses the device of claim 15, wherein a portion of the dielectric material is arranged between a first metal layer of the multi-layer metal interconnect and a second metal layer of the multi-layer metal interconnect. As shown in Fig. 9.
Regarding Claim 30:
Wright discloses the device of claim 15, wherein a portion of the dielectric material is arranged between a metal layer of the multi-layer metal interconnect and the first micro-fabricated electrode structure. Fig. 9 demonstrates that metal layer (910) has the middle dielectric portion between it and the microelectrode it is not connected to.
Regarding Claim 32:
Wright discloses a device for controlling trapped ions (abstract), the device comprising:
a first substrate comprising a semiconductor and/or dielectric material (Fig. 10 (541-top) - glass);
a first micro-fabricated electrode structure disposed at a main side of the first substrate (Fig. 10 (1030-top));
a second substrate comprising a semiconductor and/or dielectric material (Fig. 10 (541-bottom) - glass);
a second micro-fabricated electrode structure disposed at a main side of the second substrate opposite the main side of the first substrate (Fig. 10 (1030-bottom));
a plurality of spacer members disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (Fig. 10 (550), Fig. 8)
at least one ion trap configured to trap ions in a space between the first substrate and the second substrate, the first micro-fabricated electrode structure and the second micro-fabricated electrode structure comprising electrodes of the ion trap (paras 26-27); and
a multi-layer metal interconnect formed in the dielectric and electrically connected to the first micro-fabricated electrode structure (Fig. 9, paras 34, 41);
wherein at least some of the plurality of spacer members are spaced apart from each other to allow lateral optical access between adjacent spacer members (as shown in Fig. 9- The spacers provide a space between the substrates, and light can travel down the space between the adjacent spacers.), and
wherein the plurality of spacer members comprises corner spacer members aligned with corners of the first substrate and/or the second substrate and defining a free space for lateral optical access having a tapering and/or trapezoidal shape (As shown in Fig. 9 (550)). It is noted that Trapezoidal shape is given the interpretation of having a shape of a trapezoid. Trapezoids are variously defined inclusively and exclusively. The inclusive definition describes a quadrilateral with at least two parallel sides. The spacers of Wright clearly define a quadrilateral with at least two parallel sides. Further, in that they define two parallel sides, they provide the same amount of trapezoid definition as the instant application’s spacers, which simply define two arbitrary lines. See e.g.. instant Fig. 3b.).
Regarding Claim 33:
Wright discloses the device of claim 32,
wherein electrodes of the first micro-fabricated electrode structure are elongated in a first lateral direction (see Fig. 7), and
wherein the device further comprises an aperture defined by the spacer members in the first lateral direction, wherein the aperture defines a length of the free space in the first lateral direction (as shown in Fig. 9 between supports (550)).
Regarding Claim 34:
Wright discloses the device of claim 32, further comprising metallized zones formed over the first substrate and located in an area of the free space. As shown in Fig. 9 (920) and (610)).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0189419 A1 [hereinafter Kim].
Regarding Claim 35:
Kim discloses a device for controlling trapped ions (abstract), the device comprising:
a first substrate comprising a semiconductor and/or dielectric material (See annotated Fig. 5 below);
a first micro-fabricated electrode structure disposed at a main side of the first substrate (Fig. 5 (430));
a second substrate comprising a semiconductor and/or dielectric material (See annotated Fig. 5 below);
a second micro-fabricated electrode structure disposed at a main side of the second substrate opposite the main side of the first substrate (Fig. 5 (420));
a plurality of spacer members disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (Fig. 5 (412));
at least one ion trap configured to trap ions in a space between the first substrate and the second substrate, the first micro-fabricated electrode structure and the second micro-fabricated electrode structure comprising electrodes of the ion trap (Fig. 5 (480)); and
a multi-layer metal interconnect formed on the first substrate and electrically connected to the first micro-fabricated electrode structure (para 50, also not that the metal layers 420-460 are all multi-layer, so any electrical connection attached thereto would result in those metal layers acting as multi-layer metal interconnects),
PNG
media_image1.png
363
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the second substrate is disposed over the first substrate in a vertical direction material (See annotated Fig. 5 above),
wherein the second substrate comprises a top side opening to provide optical access to the ion trap in the vertical direction and/or enable loading of neutral atoms into the device (between (420) and (440) in annotated Fig. 5 above),
wherein the top side opening and electrodes of the first micro-fabricated electrode structure are each elongated in a first lateral direction that is perpendicular to the vertical direction (as shown in Fig. 4), and
wherein a part of the second micro-fabricated electrode structure is exposed through the top side opening when viewing downwardly in the vertical direction from above the device (as shown in Figs. 4 and 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of US 2009/0127481 A1 [hereinafter Syms].
Regarding Claim 17:
Wright discloses the device of claim 15, but fails to teach that at least some of the plurality of spacer members comprise a semiconductor material coated by a metal layer.
Syms teaches an ion trap (abstract) wherein the bottom and top portion are separated by conducting spacers (para 33) which are formed of metal-coated silicon, i.e., a semiconductor material coated in meal (claim 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to replace the conductive spacers of Wright with the spacers of Syms. This would have been obvious since the simple substitution of one known conductive support for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 18:
Wright discloses the device of claim 15, but fails to teach that at least some of the plurality of spacer members are formed by metal bumps.
Syms teaches an ion trap (abstract) wherein the bottom and top portion are separated by conducting spacers (para 33) which are formed of metal-coated silicon (claim 10). Such spacers would reasonably be considered as “metal bumps.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to replace the conductive spacers of Wright with the spacers of Syms. This would have been obvious since the simple substitution of one known conductive support for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright
Regarding Claim 16:
Wright discloses the device of claim 15, but fails to teach that at least some of the plurality of spacer members of the embodiment shown in Fig. 10 are made of glass.
However, the Wright embodiment shown in Fig. 12 does teach adding glass supports between substrates to make the assembled structure rigid. Para 37. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the glass spacers of Wright Fig. 12 to the Fig. 10 embodiment of Wright. One would have been motivated to do so since this would make the assembled structure more rigid.
Regarding Claim 18:
Wright discloses the device of claim 15, but fails to teach that at least some of the plurality of spacer members are formed by metal bumps.
However, the Wright embodiment shown in Fig. 12 does teach adding stainless steel balls, i.e. metal bump, supports between substrates to make the assembled structure rigid. Para 37. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the stainless steel ball spacers of Wright Fig. 12 to the Fig. 10 embodiment of Wright. One would have been motivated to do so since this would make the assembled structure more rigid.
Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 2023/0402362 A1 [hereinafter Sinclair].
Regarding Claim 36:
Kim discloses the device of claim 35, but fails to teach the device further comprising first recesses formed in ends of the second substrate, wherein terminal lands of the first micro-fabricated electrode structure are exposed through each of the first recesses when viewing downwardly in the vertical direction from above the device.
Sinclair teaches an ion trap on a chip (abstract) including apertures formed in ends of a top substrate, wherein terminal lands of a bottom electrode structure are exposed through each of the first recesses when viewing downwardly in the vertical direction from above the device. Figs. 7 and 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the top window shape of Sinclair in Kim, thus exposing electrical tracks, i.e., terminal lands. One would have been motivated to do so since this would allow for improved optical access and vacuum conductivity. Sinclair para 81.
Regarding Claim 37:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 36, further comprising second recesses formed in the second substrate within at least one of the first recesses, wherein terminal lands of the second micro- fabricated electrode structure are exposed through each of the second recesses when viewing downwardly in the vertical direction from above the device. Sinclair Figs. 7 and 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to add the additional apertures of Sinclair in Kim, thus exposing further electrical tracks, i.e., terminal lands. One would have been motivated to do so since this would allow for improved optical access and vacuum conductivity. Sinclair para 81.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 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.
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
1 Peterson, D. (2018, April 30). What is a trapezoid? More on inclusive definitions. The Math Doctors. https://www.themathdoctors.org/what-is-a-trapezoid-more-on-inclusive-definitions/
Prosecution Insights