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 II Species 1 in the reply filed on 15 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 15 June 2026. These drawings are accepted.
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 22-25 and 29-35 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.
Regarding Claim 22, it recites “wherein one of the first liner barrier gates separates correspond two of the first plunger gates”. This is confusing and it leaves the claim unclear as to what “separates correspond two” is meant to refer to structurally. Appropriate correction is required. For this reason claims 23-25 are also rejected based on their dependency from claim 22.
Regarding Claim 29, it recites “forming a first plunger gate structure and a second plunger gate structure” in line 4. It then recites “the first plunger gate structures and the second plunger gate structures” in lines 5-6 and line 9. It is unclear if there are multiple first (and second) plunger gate structures, or if this intend to claim a single first plunger gate structure and single second plunger gate structure. For this reason claims 30-35 are also rejected based on their dependency from claim 29.
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.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu-Chang Hsu et al. (US 20210296556 A1; hereinafter Hsu) in view of Shih-Yuan Chen et al. (US 20210118826 A1; hereinafter Chen).
PNG
media_image1.png
553
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Hsu discloses a method (Fig. 7A-7E), comprising:
forming a substrate (701; ¶0076);
forming a first gate dielectric layer (702; ¶0077) over the substrate (701);
forming barrier gates (703a-c and 704a-c; ¶0077) over the substrate (701), the barrier gates defining a first set of cavities (first set of 700a/700b) and a second set of cavities (second set of 700a/700b) arranged around the first set of cavities, wherein cavities in the first set of cavities are arranged annularly (as shown in annotated Fig. 7C, wherein the 1st set of cavities are arranged annularly), and cavities in the second set of cavities are arranged annularly (as shown in annotated Fig. 7C, wherein the 2nd set of cavities are arranged annularly around the 1st set); and
forming plunger gates (control gates 707 for forming/controlling qubits; ¶0080) in the cavities (as shown in annotated Fig. 7C).
Hsu does not expressly disclose forming source/drain regions in the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches forming source/drain regions (Fig. 12B; 112; ¶0024) in a substrate (110; ¶0015), forming a gate dielectric (140; ¶0022) over the substrate, and forming barrier gates (150/152; ¶0022/¶0024) over the gate dielectric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the source/drain regions of Chen in the substrate of Hsu in order to form a functioning transistor (Chen; ¶0027) connected to the plunger gates of Hsu.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Hsu teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the barrier gates (703a-c and 704a-c) and the plunger gates (707) are made of conductive materials (¶0077 and ¶0080 respectively).
Claims 21 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Chen and Peter Carl Hendrickson et al. (US 20210142204 A1; hereinafter Hendrickson).
PNG
media_image2.png
504
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, Hsu discloses a method (Fig. 7A-7E), comprising:
forming a substrate (701; ¶0076);
forming a first barrier gate (703a-c/704a-c; ¶0077; labeled barrier gate in annotated Fig. 7E) over the substrate (701); and
forming first plunger gates (control gates 707 for forming/controlling qubits; ¶0080; first plunger gates as labeled in annotated Fig. 7C) and second plunger gates (707) over the substrate (701), wherein the first plunger gates are arranged annularly, and the second plunger gates are arranged annularly around the first plunger gates, and wherein the first annular barrier gate (110A) is between the first plunger gates (150A) and the second plunger gate (150B).
Hsu does not expressly disclose forming source/drain regions in the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches forming source/drain regions (Fig. 12B; 112; ¶0024) in a substrate (110; ¶0015), forming a gate dielectric (140; ¶0022) over the substrate, and forming barrier gates (150/152; ¶0022/¶0024) over the gate dielectric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the source/drain regions of Chen in the substrate of Hsu in order to form a functioning transistor (Chen; ¶0027) connected to the plunger gates of Hsu.
Hsu does not expressly disclose wherein the barrier gate is an annular barrier gate. In the same field of endeavor, Hendrickson discloses a qubit gate (100; ¶0059) of a quantum device (¶0003) can have equivalent shapes of “rectangular; square; triangular; circular; oval; geometric; non-geometric; symmetric; non-symmetric” (¶0059).
It has been held that is not inventive by change the shape in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a circular/annular shape for Hsu’s barrier gate because of the art recognized equivalence between the various exemplified gate shapes (Hendrickson; ¶0059).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Hsu teaches the method of claim 21, wherein a number of the second plunger gates (12) is greater than a number of the first plunger gates (8).
Regarding Claim 28, modified Hsu teaches the method of claim 27, wherein the number of the second plunger gates is multiple times the number of the first plunger gates (the number of second plunger gates are 1.5x the number of first plunger gates).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19, and 26 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.
Claims 22-25, and 29-35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art of record teaches the method of claim 16. However, the references of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the Examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, all the limitations of the instant invention in their entirety (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination with proper motivation); further including:
wherein forming the barrier gates comprises: forming annular barrier gates of the barrier gates over the substrate; and forming linear barrier gates of the barrier gates over the substrate after forming the annular barrier gates of the barrier gates.
For at least this reason claim 18 would also be allowable based on its dependency from claim 17.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art of record teaches the method of claim 16. However, the references of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the Examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, all the limitations of the instant invention in their entirety (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination with proper motivation); further including:
wherein forming the plunger gates further comprises forming ring structures above and connected with the plunger gates.
Regarding Claim 22, the prior art of record teaches the method of claim 21. However, the references of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the Examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, all the limitations of the instant invention in their entirety (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination with proper motivation); further including:
forming first linear barrier gates over the substrate (in addition to the annular barrier gates of claim 21), wherein one of the first linear barrier gates separates correspond two of the first plunger gates.
For at least this reason, claims 23-25 would also be allowed based on their dependency from claim 22, if claim 22 were re-written to overcome the 112(b) rejection and include all limitations of the base/intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 26, the prior art of record teaches the method of claim 21. However, the references of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the Examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, all the limitations of the instant invention in their entirety (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination with proper motivation); further including:
wherein forming the first plunger gates and the second plunger gates further comprises forming a first ring structure, and the first ring structure is above the first plunger gates and electrically connects the first plunger gates with each other.
Regarding Claim 29, the prior art of record teaches various methods of forming a device with various barrier and plunger gates (see rejections of claims 16 and 21). However, the references of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the Examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, all the limitations of the instant invention in their entirety (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination with proper motivation); further including:
forming a first plunger gate structure and a second plunger gate structure over the substrate, wherein in a top view the first plunger gate structures and the second plunger gate structures are arranged concentrically, wherein each of the first and second plunger gate structures comprises a ring structure and plunger gates extend downwardly from the ring structure, and wherein in a cross-sectional view each of the plunger gates of the first plunger gate structures and the second plunger gate structures is laterally between adjacent two of the barrier gates.
For at least this reason claims 30-25 would also be allowable based on their dependency from claim 29, should claim 29 be re-written to overcome the 112(b) rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240290872 A1 discloses a similar device in Fig. 1C including barrier gates around plunger gate structures. US 11990516 B1 discloses in Fig. 1A-1K quantum dot device with independent gate control (C7:L35-L60). US 20240016069 A1 discloses in Fig. 3 a ring-shaped architecture for donor qubits controlled by a corresponding gate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN PRIDEMORE whose telephone number is (703)756-4640. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm 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 MALDONADO can be reached at (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 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.
NATHAN PRIDEMORE
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/NATHAN PRIDEMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights