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 of Group III (claims 14-21) in the reply filed on July 15th, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-13 (though, 13 is now cancelled) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method and apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 15th, 2026.
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 14-21 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.
Claim 14 recites the term “; or” in the eighth line, but it is unclear at which point the listed alternative limitation terminates. It is not clear if the claim should be interpreted as requiring either of the limitations “superconductivity at a critical temperature… a thickness less than 200 nm” or “a an interconnect… in a range of -1.9K-20K” (i.e., encompassing the ninth through sixteen lines of the claim) or, instead, either of the limitations “superconductivity at a critical temperature… a thickness less than 200 nm” or “a an interconnect… comprise the transitional metal nitride” (i.e., encompassing the ninth through sixteenth lines of the claim). This issue is due to the phrase “; and” at the sixteenth line of the claim. The phrase “; and” implies the end of the limitation meant by “; or”. However, the claim then continues and recites “the first metallization, the second metallization, and the third metallization consist of or comprise the transition metal nitride”. Therefore, one of the following must be true: the use of “; or” and “; and” is improper (in the first interpretation), or the phrases “the first metallization”, “the second metallization”, and “the third metallization” all lack antecedent basis. Regardless, the specific interpretation is unclear. In the interest of compact prosecution, the term “or” will be interpreted as including the first through eighteenth lines of the claim.
Claim 14 recites the phrase “varying by less than 2%”, which is a dangling modifier that renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if both the claimed resistivity and thickness each vary by less than 2%, or if only a thickness varies by less than 2%. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as reciting a thickness which varies by less than 2%.
Claim 14 recites the phrase “a thickness less than 200 nm”, which is a dangling modifier that renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the thickness is modifying the claimed titanium nitride film, or only a specific area of the claimed titanium nitride film. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to an area of the film having a thickness of less than 200 nm.
Claims 14-17 recite the phrase “the film”, but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. It is possible the phrase “the film” is attempting to refer to the previously claimed titanium nitride film, but it is not clear from the present claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims will be interpreted as directed to the claimed titanium nitride film.
Claims 15-21 are rejected due to dependence on indefinite claim 14.
Claim 16 recites “the resistivity ρ”, but it is not clear if the claim is referring to the resistivity of claim 14, or a separate resistivity. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as specifying a value for the resistivity of claim 14.
Claim 17 recites the phrase “and a critical temperature” which is a dangling modifier that renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the claimed critical temperature applies to the claimed titanium nitride film, or the claimed substrate surface. In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as directed to the claimed titanium nitride film.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 14, 16-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaim et al (Superconducting TiN Films Sputtered Over a Large Range of Substrate DC Bias).
With regards to claim 14, as a preliminary matter, it is noted that per MPEP 2111.03, the transitional term “characterized by” is synonymous with “characterized by” (i.e., the phrase “exhibiting properties as characterized by” is equivalent to “exhibiting properties comprising”). With respect to the present claim, Jaim discloses a coplanar resonator comprising a titanium nitride film (i.e., a device comprising a titanium nitride film) having a resistivity, and also having a thickness relative standard deviation (i.e., a variation in thickness) of less than 2% (Jaim: Abstract; page 1, II. Experimental Procedures, A. TiN Film Deposition; page 3, B. Film Characterization, “The uniformity of the film thicknesss…”). This variation is considered to be over an entirety of “an area”, since the claim does not define the location, size, or manner of measuring the claimed area (i.e., since an area having a thickness variation of less than 2% exists, the present claim is met). Since the thickness variation range of Jaim is identical to the claimed range, Jaim is considered anticipatory with respect to the claimed range. Jaim further discloses a superconductivity at a critical temperature of, for example, 4.12K, which is within the claimed range of no less than 1.9K (Jaim: page 3, Table 1, sample with Bias Voltage of 0V). This critical temperature is, as best understood, applicable to an entirety of an area of the film. In addition, the titanium nitride film has a thickness of 62 nm, which is within the range of less than 200 nm (Jaim: page 2, A. TiN Film Deposition, last sentence, “Once the deposition rate…”).
With regards to claim 16, the film has a thickness of 62 nm, which is within the claimed range of 40 to 100 nm (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 17, the film is conformal to a silicon substrate surface (Jaim: page1, A. TiN Film deposition, first paragraph). The silicon substrate has a diameter of 3 inches (i.e., 7.62 x 107 nm) and a deposited depth of 62 nm, indicating an aspect ratio of 1.23 x 106 nm / 62 nm = 1.23 x 106 (i.e., the claim only recites an aspect ratio of a conformal surface, and the claim does not define the aspect ratio, and therefore, any two dimensions of any two features of the substrate surface may be used to calculate an aspect ratio), which is within the range of at least 40 (Jaim: page 3, B. Film Characterization, “Room-temperature resistivity was measured…”; page 3, D. Low-Temperature Microwave Measurements, first paragraph) . The film has a critical temperature of, for example, 4.12K, which is within the range of no less than 1.9K (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 21, it is noted that the present language “deposited by atomic layer deposition” constitutes product-by-process language. Such language does not require the material performance of the recited steps, but rather, only the structure implied, per MPEP 2113. In the present case, the claims require a titanium nitride film, and Jaim discloses such a product (see above discussion).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 15 and 18-20 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 list of reasons for the indication of distinguishing subject matter.
The closest prior art of record is Jaim et al (Superconducting TiN Films Sputtered Over a Large Range of Substrate DC Bias).
Regarding claim 15, Jaim does not teach its titanium nitride film as having an area according to claim 14, the area being greater than or equal to a circular area having a diameter of at least 6 inches (i.e., 28.27 in2, as a diameter of 6 inches implies a radius of 3 inches, yielding an area of (3 in)2π = 9π in2 = 28.27 in2). Technically, Jaim does not disclose or teach its titanium nitride film as capable of areas greater than those associated with its 3 in diameter wafer (i.e., about 7.07 in2 in area), and it is unclear if the process of Jaim can be scaled up to larger areas with maintenance of its thickness variation (i.e., larger areas provide more opportunities for defects and/or impurities, meaning, it is possible that roughly quadrupling the area of Jaim to meet the claims could result in a titanium nitride film not having the claimed thickness variation). The introduction of Jaim appears to regard maintenance of uniform properties as difficult, noting that “significant challenges remain for practical device applications” (i.e., Jaim establishes a lack of predictability within the art). A case for inherency cannot be made, as the process of Jaim is entirely different from that of the claimed invention. Jaim utilizes a sputtering method, while the claimed invention utilizes RF plasma-enhanced atomic layer deposition. Jaim also provides no motivation to increase titanium nitride film area.
Regarding claim 18, Jaim is directed to the manufacture of a titanium nitride for use as a quantum resonator. Jaim does not acknowledge forming an interconnect using its titanium nitride film. Jaim does not acknowledge forming first, second, and third metallizations on separate surfaces of the substrate, such that a via comprising a third metallization through the substrate connecting the first metallization to the second metallization, is formed. As best understood, the process of Jaim requires the presence of its substrate material. It is not clear how a hole (or via) could be formed in the substrate of Jaim, such that a third metallization is present. Deposition of a titanium nitride film meeting the claimed structure would require deposition at an angle (i.e., along the sidewall of a hole or via). Jaim does not establish that its sputtering method could be adapted to such a structure. Even if the sputtering method of Jaim were hypothetically adapted, there is no expectation that the reduced thickness variation of Jaim would be maintained.
Claims 19-20 are considered to contain distinguishing subject matter due to dependence on claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights