DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/31/2025 and 11/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive (see pgs. 9-12 of Remarks filed 10/31/2025). Applicant asserts that “there is lack of motivation to combine the cited references” and “one of originally skill in the art would not have had reasonable expectations of success” (pgs. 10-11 of Remarks). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees notes that there is no requirement that an "express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness." See MPEP § 2145 Section X, citing Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339-40, 2020 USPQ2d 10476 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Furthermore, Applicant’s own arguments suggest that the cooled atomic ensemble as disclosed by Wu is more complex to achieve than the simple experimental apparatus needed to produce a warm ensemble of Rb atoms (pgs. 10-11; see also Park2 reference (cited in Office Actions) disclosing in pg. 1 col.’s 1-2 of Park2 that warm atomic ensemble of Rb atoms are ‘simpler’ to achieve compared to cold atomic ensemble of Rb atoms), thereby demonstrating that “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof". See In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967). See also Ex parte Blanc, 13 USPQ2d 1383 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP § 716. 02(c). Applicant is also respectfully reminded that it is not necessary that the inventions of the Wu and Park references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review, and that combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures. See MPEP § 2145 Section III, stating "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973). In the present case, Examiner relied on Wu’s teaching for the limitation directed to an atomic vapor cell containing rubidium (87Rb) atoms (p. 303 c. 1: cloud of 87Rb atoms is used to generate polarization-entangled photon pairs); a coupling laser generator and a pump laser generator disposed in opposite directions with respect to the atomic vapor cell and spaced apart from the atomic vapor cell in a same distance and configured to generate a coupling laser and a pump laser toward the atomic vapor cell, respectively, to make the atomic vapor cell generate a photon pair of a signal and an idler, wherein the robust polarization-entangled quantum source does not include an interferometric configuration (p. 303 c. 1: we report an experimental study on generation of polarization-entangled photon pairs via spontaneous Raman scattering (SRS) [non-interferometric config.]…The atoms are optically pumped into the initial level |a> by σ± polarized laser beams P1 and P2 which are overlapped at a PBS and then collinearly go through the atoms; see FIG. 1 showing lasers traveling in opposite directions with respect to the atomic vapor cell to generate a photon pair of signal and idler). Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments that “Attempting to combine Wu's cold atom techniques with Park's warm vapor cell would introduce technical challenges and uncertainties, with no reasonable expectation of achieving the claimed invention's results” (pg. 11 of Remarks) appears to an incorrect assertion without evidentiary support. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Park teaches the limitation directed to the atomic vapor cell is a glass-type cell with a length of 12 mm configured to keep a gas of the rubidium (87Rb) atoms warm (FIG. 1 & p. 2403 c. 1: “Figure 1 shows the experimental scheme for entanglement swapping composed of Alice and Bob sites based on a warm atomic ensemble of 87Rb atoms. The warm atomic ensemble at each site is very simple and small”; p. 2403 c. 2: The warm atomic ensemble at each site is very simple and small, comprising a 12.5-mm long vapor cell containing the isotope-enriched 87Rb with the temperature controlled to 52 C), and further teaches that such a warm ensemble of Rb atoms is a simple apparatus that possesses a beneficial result of compactness while achieving temperature control (see p. 2403 c. 2; pg. 2403 c. 2 & pg. 2406 c. 1 of Park). In the interest of the clarity of the record, Applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP § 2145 Section IV, citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the Examiner has clearly articulated multiple reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious, the rationales being: (1) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, (2) known work in one field of endeavor prompting variations of it for use in the same field since the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and (3) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Applicant’s remaining remarks directed to the dimensions of the vapor cell (see pgs. 10-11), filed 10/31/2025, regarding the prior art rejection of the claims have been fully considered but are moot upon further consideration because the new grounds of rejection in light of a change of statutory basis and/or in light of Park et al.’s teachings are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments (on 10/31/2025), as detailed below.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 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 1 and 7 recite the limitation: “wherein the atomic vapor cell is a glass-type cell with a length of 12 mm and a radius of 25 mm configured to keep a gas of the rubidium (87Rb) atoms warm”. The term “warm” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite: the term is not defined by the claim, the specification (filed 04/13/2022) does not provide a standard or guideline for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear which temperatures and/or ranges of temperatures should be considered “warm” and encompassed by such language. See MPEP § 2173.05(b) Sections I & III, citing Ex parte Oetiker, 23 USPQ2d 1641 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Moreover, in the field of optics and atomic ensembles, small variations in temperatures can have widely unpredictable results. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim limitation will be treated as: “wherein the atomic vapor cell is a glass-type cell with a length of 12 mm and a radius of 25 mm configured to keep a gas of the rubidium (87Rb) atoms”.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 8-13 are dependent on claims 1 or 7, and therefore inherit at least the same deficiencies.
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 1-3, 6-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (NPL titled “Generation of polarization-entangled…” (2016), of record) in view of Park et al. (NPL titled “Entanglement swapping with autonomous polarization-entangled photon pairs from a warm atomic ensemble” (April 2020), of record).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Wu discloses: A robust polarization-entangled quantum source from an atomic ensemble (FIG. 1; p. 302 c.2) comprising: an atomic vapor cell containing rubidium (87Rb) atoms (p. 303 c. 1: cloud of 87Rb atoms is used to generate polarization-entangled photon pairs); a coupling laser generator and a pump laser generator disposed in opposite directions with respect to the atomic vapor cell and spaced apart from the atomic vapor cell in a same distance and configured to generate a coupling laser and a pump laser toward the atomic vapor cell, respectively, to make the atomic vapor cell generate a photon pair of a signal and an idler, wherein the robust polarization-entangled quantum source does not include an interferometric configuration (p. 303 c. 1: we report an experimental study on generation of polarization-entangled photon pairs via spontaneous Raman scattering (SRS) [non-interferometric config.]…The atoms are optically pumped into the initial level |a> by σ± polarized laser beams P1 and P2 which are overlapped at a PBS and then collinearly go through the atoms; see FIG. 1 showing lasers traveling in opposite directions with respect to the atomic vapor cell to generate a photon pair of signal and idler).
Wu does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the atomic vapor cell is a glass-type cell configured to keep a gas of the rubidium (87Rb) atoms warm.
Park is related to Wu with respect to a robust polarization-entangled quantum source from an atomic ensemble (FIG. 1; p. 2404 c. 1) comprising: an atomic vapor cell containing rubidium atoms (abstract & FIG. 1; p. 2404 c. 1); and a photon pair of a signal and an idler generated from the atomic vapor cell by traveling a coupling laser and a pump laser in opposite directions with respect to the atomic vapor cell (p. 2403 c. 2; see FIG. 1a), and Park teaches: wherein the atomic vapor cell is a glass-type cell configured to keep a gas of the rubidium (87Rb) atoms warm (FIG. 1 & p. 2403 c. 1: “Figure 1 shows the experimental scheme for entanglement swapping composed of Alice and Bob sites based on a warm atomic ensemble of 87Rb atoms. The warm atomic ensemble at each site is very simple and small”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robust polarization-entangled quantum source of Wu in view of Park to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a vapor cell is known and would be selected to create a very simple and small atomic ensemble at each site with a Maxwell–Boltzmann velocity distribution in the warm vapor that can be coherently two photon excited owing to the Doppler-free two-photon resonant configuration, thereby providing the beneficial results of high spectral purity, high stability, high brightness, effective interaction with atoms, and the implementation of entanglement swapping with a high distribution rate, as taught in p. 2403 c. 2 and 2406 c. 1 of Park.
Wu does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the atomic vapor cell is a glass-type cell with a length of 12 mm and a radius of 25 mm.
However, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations or changes in shape of an element are prima facie obvious and recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape/size is not significant to the function of the combination. See MPEP § 2144.04, Section IV, citing In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see also In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), wherein the court upheld that "mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.); see also In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the court upheld that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”.
In the present case, Wu discloses a cloud of atoms having the size of 5 x 2 x 2 mm3 (p. 3-4 c. 1). Furthermore, such cell dimensions can be trivially scaled to meet the claimed condition, i.e., the entire system can be scaled to a percentage of its size without unexpected results (e.g., scaling vapor cell length and/or radius by M scales the cell area by M2). In essence, the limitation of Claim 1 is nothing more than multiplying the physical parameter by a factor, thereby placing the cell size inside the claimed dimensions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly modify Wu’s optical system to satisfy the claimed cell size condition, given that Wu’s experimental apparatus produces a cloud of atoms having the size of 5 x 2 x 2 mm3, and since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where it has been held that a mere length scalability of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in size is not significant to the function of the combination.
Nonetheless, the Examiner further submits Park. Park is related to Wu (see supra) and Park teaches: wherein the atomic vapor cell is a glass-type cell with a length of 12 mm (p. 2403 c. 2: The warm atomic ensemble at each site is very simple and small, comprising a 12.5-mm long vapor cell containing the isotope-enriched 87Rb with the temperature controlled to 52 C).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu’s robust polarization-entangled quantum source in view of Park to satisfy the claimed vapor cell size condition, given that Park explicitly teaches a ~12 mm long vapor cell configured to keep Rb atoms warm (p. 2403 c. 2), and because such a cell size is known and would be selected to achieve a simple and small vapor cell that is also temperature controlled (p. 2403 c. 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Wu discloses the robust polarization-entangled quantum source according to Claim 1, as above. Wu further discloses: the coupling laser and the pump laser simultaneously travel in the opposite directions toward the atomic vapor cell, respectively (p. 303 c. 1; FIG. 1).
Wu does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the coupling laser is a horizontally polarized 776 nanometer (nm) laser, the pump laser is a vertically polarized 780 nm laser.
Park is related to Wu with respect to a robust polarization-entangled quantum source from an atomic ensemble (FIG. 1; p. 2404 c. 1) comprising: an atomic vapor cell containing rubidium atoms (abstract & FIG. 1; p. 2404 c. 1); and a photon pair of a signal and an idler generated from the atomic vapor cell by traveling a coupling laser and a pump laser in opposite directions with respect to the atomic vapor cell (p. 2403 c. 2; see FIG. 1a). Park teaches: wherein the coupling laser is a horizontally polarized 776 nanometer (nm) laser, the pump laser is a vertically polarized 780 nm laser, and the coupling laser and the pump laser simultaneously travel in the opposite directions toward the atomic vapor cell, respectively (p. 2404 c. 1-2: To have equal two-photon excitation of the two interferometer pathways, the experimental conditions of the bidirectional counterpropagating pump and coupling fields in the vapor cell should be the same as each other; FIG. 1a: Schematic of experimental setup for entanglement swapping between two independent polarization-entangled photon pairs from SFWM with bidirectional counterpropagating pump and coupling fields in atomic vapor cell (PBS, polarizing beam splitter; P, polarizer; HWP, half-wave plate; QWP, quarterwave plate; FC, fiber couplers; EF, FBS, fiber beam splitter; FPBS, fiber polarizing beam splitter; FPC, fiber polarization controller); see FIG. 1a showing coupling laser is a horizontally polarized 776 nanometer (nm) laser, the pump laser is a vertically polarized 780 nm laser (see PBS1), and the coupling laser and the pump laser simultaneously travel in opposite directions toward the atomic vapor cell at positions spaced apart from the atomic vapor cell at the same distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robust polarization-entangled quantum source of Wu in view of Park to satisfy the claimed condition, because such laser wavelengths are known and would be selected to achieve two-photon resonance in the 5S1/2 – 5D5/2 transition of 87Rb atoms via the spontaneous four wave mixing process in a ladder-type atomic system, as taught in p. 2403 c. 2 and FIG. 1 of Park.
Regarding Claim 3, Wu discloses the robust polarization-entangled quantum source according to Claim 2, as above. Wu further discloses: wherein the atomic vapor cell generates the photon pair in which the signal and the idler have a perpendicular polarization relationship of horizontal polarization/vertical polarization or vertical polarization/horizontal polarization by the horizontally polarized coupling laser and the vertically polarized pump laser (p. 303 c. 1-2: σ± polarized laser beams P1 and P2… where σ+/ σ- represents right/left circular polarization… By inserting a λ/4 plate in the each path of S and S’ modes, respectively, their circular polarizations are transferred into linear polarizations (for Stokes photons S -> H (V); for anti-Stokes photons S’ -> V (H)), where H/V represents horizontal/vertical polarization).
Regarding Claim 6, Wu discloses the robust polarization-entangled quantum source according to Claim 1, as above. Wu further discloses: further comprising: a prism mirror configured to separate a path of the generated photon pair from the coupling laser and the pump laser; a single photon detector configured to detect a photon pair satisfying a phase matching condition among the photon pairs input along the separated path; a half-wave plate and a quarter-wave plate configured to control a Bell state for the detected photon pair; and a polarizer configured to observe the Bell state according to polarization for the photon pair for which the Bell state is controlled (see FIG. 1a showing prism mirror PBS configured to separate a path of the generated photon pair from the coupling laser and the pump laser; a single photon detector (SPD); half-wave plate HWP and a quarter-wave plate QWP configured to control a Bell state for the detected photon pair; and a polarizer P configured to observe the Bell state).
Regarding Claim 7, Wu discloses: An implementation method of a robust polarization-entangled quantum source from an atomic ensemble, the method comprising: preparing an atomic vapor cell containing rubidium (87Rb) atoms; and generating a coupling laser toward the atomic vapor cell by a coupling laser generator and generating a pump laser toward the atomic vapor cell by a pump laser generator to make the atomic vapor cell generate a photon pair of a signal and an idler, wherein the coupling laser generator and the pump laser generator are disposed in opposite directions with respect to the atomic vapor cell and spaced apart from the atomic vapor cell in a same distance, and in the implementation method, an interferometric configuration is not used (see rejection of claim 1 supra).
Regarding Claim 8, Wu discloses the robust polarization-entangled quantum source according to Claim 7, as above. Park further discloses: wherein the coupling laser is a horizontally polarized 776 nm laser, the pump laser is a vertically polarized 780 nm laser, and the coupling laser and the pump laser simultaneously travel in the opposite directions toward the atomic vapor cell, respectively (see rejection of claim 2 supra).
Regarding Claim 9, Wu discloses the robust polarization-entangled quantum source according to Claim 8, as above. Wu further discloses: wherein in the generated photon pair, the signal and the idler have a perpendicular polarization relationship of horizontal polarization/vertical polarization or vertical polarization/horizontal polarization by the horizontally polarized coupling laser and the vertically polarized pump laser (see rejection of claim 3 supra).
Regarding Claim 11, Wu discloses the robust polarization-entangled quantum source according to Claim 7, as above. Park further discloses: wherein the preparing of the atomic vapor cell comprises preparing a glass-type cell configured to keep a gas of the rubidium (87Rb) atoms warm (see rejection of claim 5 supra).
Regarding Claim 12, Wu discloses the robust polarization-entangled quantum source according to Claim 7, as above. Wu further discloses: further comprising: at a prism mirror, separating a path of the generated photon pair from the coupling laser and the pump laser; at a single photon detector (SPD), detecting a photon pair satisfying a phase matching condition among the photon pairs input along the separated path; at a ½λ-phase delay plate (half-wave plate: HWP) and a ¼λ-phase delay plate (quarter-wave plate: QWP), controlling a Bell state for the detected photon pair; and at a polarizer (P), observing the Bell state according to polarization for the photon pair for which the Bell state is controlled (see rejection of claim 6 supra).
Regarding Claim 13, Wu discloses the robust polarization-entangled quantum source according to Claim 7, as above. Wu further discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium on which a program for executing the method of claim 7 is recorded (p. 302 c. 2: quantum computer; p. 303 c. 2: data from the detectors are recorded and analyzed by a self-programmed coincidence apparatus based on field-programmable gate array).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (NPL titled “Generation of polarization-entangled…”, of record) in view of Park et al. (NPL titled “Entanglement swapping…” (April 2020) , of record), and further in view of Wu et al. (NPL titled “High-fidelity entanglement swapping at telecommunication wavelengths” (Nov. 2013); hereinafter as “Wu2”, of record).
Regarding Claim 4, Wu discloses the robust polarization-entangled quantum source according to Claim 2, as above. Wu does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the coupling laser generator and the pump laser generator lock a laser frequency at +1 gigahertz (GHz) outside a Doppler broadening region to reduce unrelated photon pairs generated by photon resonance.
Wu2 is related to Wu with respect to a robust polarization-entangled quantum source from an atomic ensemble comprising atoms (p. 1-2: High-fidelity entanglement swapping experiments with atomic ensembles and ions…PPLN crystal is a bright source of entangled photon pairs at optical telecommunication wavelengths) and a processor configured to generate a photon pair of a signal and an idler by traveling a coupling laser and a pump laser in opposite directions (FIG. 2), and Wu2 teaches: wherein the coupling laser generator and the pump laser generator lock a laser frequency at +1 gigahertz (GHz) outside a Doppler broadening region to reduce unrelated photon pairs generated by photon resonance (p. 2-3: The pump laser is a mode-locked femtosecond Ti:sapphire laser and an average SPD1 and SPD2 are sinusoidally gated InGaAs/InP APDs (SG-APDs) operated at a frequency of 1.28 GHz (≈ +1 GHz)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly modify the robust polarization-entangled quantum source of Wu in view of Wu2 to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a frequency is selected to enabled an increase of four-fold coincidence rates without degrading the fidelity of the entanglement swapping and without decreasing the visibility, as taught in p. 1 c. 2 and p. 4 c. 2 of Wu2.
Regarding Claim 10, Wu discloses the robust polarization-entangled quantum source according to Claim 8, as above. Wu does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the coupling laser generator and the pump laser generator lock a laser frequency at +1 GHz outside a Doppler broadening region to reduce unrelated photon pairs generated by photon resonance (see rejection of claim 4 supra).
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (NPL titled “Generation of polarization-entangled…”, of record) in view of Park et al. (NPL titled “Entanglement swapping…” (April 2020), of record), and further in view of Park et al. (NPL titled “Polarization-Entangled Photons from a Warm Atomic Ensemble…” (2019), of record; hereinafter as “Park 2”).
Regarding Claim 4, Wu discloses the robust polarization-entangled quantum source according to Claim 2, as above. Wu does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the coupling laser generator and the pump laser generator lock a laser frequency at +1 gigahertz (GHz) outside a Doppler broadening region to reduce unrelated photon pairs generated by photon resonance.
While Wu2 teaches the limitation of “wherein the coupling laser and the pump laser lock a laser frequency at +1 gigahertz (GHz) outside a Doppler broadening region to reduce unrelated photon pairs generated by photon resonance” (see rejection supra) in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the present claim language, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that Wu2 does not explicitly disclose a different interpretation of the first and second continuous portions as recited, and thus further submits Park 2.
Park 2 is related to Wu with respect to a robust polarization-entangled quantum source from an atomic ensemble comprising warm Rb atoms in vapor cell (FIG. 1) and a processor configured to generate a photon pair of a signal and an idler by traveling a coupling laser and a pump laser in opposite directions (p. 2 c. 1-2), and Park 2 teaches: wherein the coupling laser generator and the pump laser generator lock a laser frequency at +1 gigahertz (GHz) outside a Doppler broadening region to reduce unrelated photon pairs generated by photon resonance (p. 2 c. 2: the frequencies of both fields are far detuned by 1 GHz from the resonance (for pump and coupling detuning frequencies of +δ and −δ, respectively), beyond Doppler broadening.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly modify the robust polarization-entangled quantum source of Wu in view of Park 2 to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a frequency is selected to minimize the noncorrelated photons, as taught in p. 2 c. 2 of Park 2.
Regarding Claim 10, Wu discloses the robust polarization-entangled quantum source according to Claim 8, as above. Wu does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the coupling laser generator and the pump laser generator lock a laser frequency at +1 GHz outside a Doppler broadening region to reduce unrelated photon pairs generated by photon resonance (see rejection of claim 4 supra).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-1800 (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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872