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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 14, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Consideration of Declaration Filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.130(a)
The Examiner has carefully considered the Declaration filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.130(a), and signed by inventor Gregory D. Fuchs and co-inventor Huiyao Chen, on October 4, 2025 (and filed on October 14, 2025).
Under 37 CFR 1.130(a), an affidavit or declaration of attribution may be submitted to disqualify a disclosure as prior art because it was made by the inventor or a joint inventor, or the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
Affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.130 must be timely presented in order to be admitted. Affidavits and declarations submitted under 37 CFR 1.130 and other evidence traversing rejections are considered timely if submitted:
(A) prior to a final rejection;
(B) before appeal in an application not having a final rejection;
(C) after final rejection, but before or on the same date of filing an appeal, upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116(e); or
(D) after the prosecution is closed (e.g., after a final rejection, after appeal, or after allowance) if applicant files the affidavit or other evidence with a request for continued examination (RCE) in a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995; or a continued prosecution application (CPA) in a design application.
All admitted affidavits and declarations are acknowledged and commented upon by the examiner in his or her next succeeding action. MPEP 717.01(f).
Since the Declaration has been filed prior to a Final Rejection, it is deemed as timely filed and has been entered, but is considered insufficient for at least the following reason(s):
(i) The declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) filed on October 14, 2025 is only a naked assertion of inventorship and fails to provide any context, explanation or evidence to support that assertion. The declaration lacks any context, explanation or evidence of the role of the five authors of Noah F. Opondo, Boyang Jiang, Evan R. MacQuarrie, Raphael S. Daveau, Sunil A. Bhave, all of whom are listed as co-authors before Gregory D. Fuchs, in the document "Engineering electron-phonon coupling of quantum defects to a semi-confocal acoustic resonator."
MPEP 2155.01:
When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the applicant or patent owner may submit an appropriate affidavit or declaration to except a disclosure as prior art by establishing that the disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor, or the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. However, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that is only a naked assertion of inventorship and that fails to provide any context, explanation or evidence to support that assertion is insufficient. See EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 859 F.3d 1341, 123 USPQ2d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2017). See also Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. App. 1982) (affirming rejection notwithstanding declarations by the alleged actual inventors as to their inventorship in view of a nonapplicant author submitting a letter declaring the nonapplicant author's inventorship). This is similar to the process for disqualifying a publication as not being by "others" discussed in MPEP § 2132.01, except that AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) requires only that the disclosure be by the inventor or a joint inventor.
(ii) If the rejection is based upon a disclosure made more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a declaration is moot. A disclosure made more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and may not be disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1). As discussed, infra, the provisional application 62/965,533, and to which the Applicant claims is the earliest effective priority date, fails to support/enable the claimed invention of the present application, in accordance with the provisions of 35 USC 112(a). As such, for the claims as presently drafted, the earliest effective filing date for the instant application (for the claims as presently drafted) is January 22, 2021. As such, even a sufficiently corrected declaration filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.130(a) would be deemed moot.
Provisional Application Consideration
The instant application claims the benefit of a provisional application 62/965,533, filed on January 24, 2020.
The claims of the instant application contain limitations/elements that are not found and/or supported/enabled by the provisional application as follows:
(i) Claim 1 of the instant application sets forth "a system." The provisional application only provides support for a "quantum sensing system(sensor)/quantum computer" and its method of use, in conceptual form. The "system" (broader in scope) as claimed forth in the instant application, encompasses subject matter and a reduction to practice of the concept, set forth in the provisional application, including the use of a detector, microscopic objective, beam splitter, and a light source, which can use the concept in a practical "system" as set forth in the claims 1-8, 10-12 of the instant application, and its method of practice (claims 13-20), which are not envisaged or disclosed in the provisional patent application.
That is, while the instant application provides for additional components providing for a practical reduction to practice of the "system," the provisional application merely sets forth a quantum mechanical concept of generating acoustic waves in a diamond substrate, exclusively using an acoustic resonator via an ac strain. In no way, does the provisional application envisage a "system 100 [which can] operate as a magnetic field, electric field, orientation, strain, or temperature sensor." See, e.g., see page 12 of the instant application. The provisional application fails to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention ("system"). The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement was cast in the Supreme Court decision of Minerals Separation Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916) which postured the question: is the experimentation needed to practice the invention undue or unreasonable? The provisional application fails to envisage such a "system" as claimed (in light of the specification) and fails to provide a clear and complete description of the invention, including how to make and use it (i.e., the "system" and its method of use).
Additionally, regarding the method claim 13 (and claims 14-20 dependent thereon), the provisional patent application discloses using an "acoustic resonator" to create an "ac strain" in the diamond substrate; however, claim 13 in broader in scope in that the claim fails to set forth that an acoustic resonator generates the acoustic waves in a diamond substrate. It is further noted that the disclosed "acoustic transducer" in the claims of the instant application, is broader in scope than an "acoustic resonator."
Thus, the claims 1-8, 10-12 and/or claims 13-20 of the instant application are not enabled/supported by the written description of the provisional application.
Moreover, due to the broader scope of protection sought for the claims of the instant application, claims 1-8 and 10-20 contains subject matter which was not described in the disclosure of the provisional application in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the invention in the provisional application.
Additionally, dependent claims 3-6, 8, 10-12, 15 and 17-20 contain limitations which would be considered new matter, when compared to the provisional application (even if the provisional application enabled the instant application).
Thus, since there is not a single claim of the instant application that satisfies 35 USC 112(a) (enablement and/or new matter) with respect to the provisional application, the claim to the effective filing date of the provisional application 62/965,533, filed on January 24, 2020, is deemed insufficient, for failing to satisfy the condition of 35 USC 112(a).
The earliest effective filing date of the instant application is January 22, 2021.
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) With regard to claim 18 (line 1), the term "any claim 13" should be changed to the term --of claim 13--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8, 10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al., "Engineering electron-phonon coupling of quantum defects to a semi-confocal acoustic resonator," hereinafter, Chen et al.
As per claim 1, Chen et al. teaches a system comprising: a diamond substrate comprising at least one nitrogen-vacancy (NV) center therein (pg. 4, "We choose to work with diamond and SiC substrates because they possess excellent mechanical properties and their crystal lattices host quantum defects... Solid state defect spins (orange arrow) such as from diamond NV centers are accommodated in the depth of the substrate"); an acoustic transducer mechanically coupled to the diamond substrate (Abstract, pg. 2, "diamond high-overtone bulk acoustic resonators (HBARs). feature an integrated piezoelectric transducer and support high-quality factor resonance modes into the GHz frequency range… micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) 14-17 with integrated thin-film piezoelectric transducers)"; and a controller coupled to the acoustic transducer and configured to cause the acoustic transducer to generate acoustic waves within the diamond substrate to thereby drive a single-quantum (SQ) transition from a first spin state of the NV center to a second spin state of the NV center (Abstract, pg. 8, 10, 12, "the native NV centers inside the diamond device, we demonstrate mechanically driven spin transitions and show a high strain-driving efficiency with a Rabi frequency ... resonator is driven on resonance, microwave power is dissipated in the resonator and converted into mechanical energy, launching acoustic waves and enabling the resonance to be detected... Lastly, we measure the spin coherence within the mechanically-controlled {|+1>, |-1>)} subspace and within the magnetically-controlled {|0>, |-1>} subspace... magnetically-driven single quantum spin transitions between {|0>, |-1>} and {|0>, |+1>} states... With the demonstrated voltage-to-strain transduction, the diamond SCHBAR device has roughly the same efficiency for spin-strain driving as the microwave antenna has for magnetic driving. This is promising for using mechanical driving as an added resource... makes quantum control a strong application of our device").
As per claim 2, Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first spin state comprises an ms=0 state and the second spin state comprises an ms=-1 state or an ms=+1 state (pg. 10, "Three sets of qubits can therefore be formed: magnetically-driven single quantum spin transitions between (|0>, |-1>} and {|0>, |+1>} states").
As per claim 3, Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first spin state comprises an ms=-1 state or an ms=+1 state and the second spin state comprises an ms=0 state (pg. 21, "another AP pulse shuttles the residual !|ms = -1> spin population back to |ms = 0> state, which is then read out optically").
As per claim 4, Chen et al. teaches the system claim 1, wherein the acoustic transducer is selected from the group consisting of: a bulk acoustic resonator (BAR), a high-overtone BAR (HBAR), and a semi-confocal HBAR (SCHBAR) (pg. 3, "Here we report the design, fabrication and performance of a new type of diamond (and SiC) BAW device, the semi-confocal high-overtone bulk acoustic resonator (SCHBAR)").
As per claim 5, Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the acoustic transducer is adhered to the diamond substrate (pg. 6, "A piezoelectric zinc oxide (ZnO) transducer. consisting of bottom electrode (10 nm/90 nm Ti/Pt), 500 nm ZnO, top electrode (10 nm/180 nm Ti/Pt), and a microwave antenna are then lithographically defined and sputtered to finish the device fabrication").
As per claim 6, Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the acoustic transducer comprises a first thin metallic film adhered to the diamond substrate, a piezoelectric film adhered to the first thin metallic film, and a second thin metallic film adhered to the piezoelectric film (pg. 3, 4, 6, "The transducer of most BAW devices consists of a piezoelectric thin film sandwiched between two electrodes in a released structure or solidly mounted on a planar substrate... We choose to work with diamond and SiC substrates because they
possess excellent mechanical properties and their crystal lattices host quantum defects. We design the micro resonator for a 10- and a 20- micro m-thick device... A piezoelectric zinc oxide (ZnO) transducer, consisting of bottom electrode (10 nm/90 nm Ti/Pt), 500 nm ZnO, top electrode (10 nm/180 nm Ti/Pt), and a microwave antenna are then lithographically defined and sputtered to finish the device fabrication").
As per claim 7, Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the acoustic waves are configured to drive the SQ transition via an alternating current (AC) strain in the diamond substrate (pg. 3, "In a diamond SCHBAR device, we use the native NV centers to characterize the a.c. strain performance of the acoustic resonator. We mechanically drive NV center ground-state spin").
As per claim 8, Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a light source or a detector in optical communication with the NV center (pg. 10, 12, "To pinpoint the mechanically driven spin resonance, we perform optically detected mechanical spin resonance (ODMSR) measurements as described in Ref. 14 (see Supporting Information). We observe a single resonance peak in the spectrum, confirming the strong nuclear spin polarization within the NV center ensemble").
As per claim 9, Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the light source or the detector is in optical communication with the NV center (pg. 11, "Optically detected magnetic resonance (ODMR) spectrum for the {|0>, |-1>} transition reveals strong nuclear spin polarization of the NV ensemble). Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the controller is further coupled with the light source or the detector and further configured to cause the light source to direct light to the NV center to thereby drive the NV center from a first electronic state to a second electronic state or to cause the detector to detect a fluorescence signal emitted by the NV center, the fluorescence signal indicative of a spin state of the NV center (pg. 7, 10, "Micrographs and photoluminescence images of the finished device on an optical grade diamond substrate... SEM image of the transducer on the backside of the SIL. (d) and (e) show the photoluminescence image in a cross section view and a front view of the device (10µm thick), collected using a home-built confocal microscope. There is enhancement in fluorescence collection of the NV ensemble in the SCHBAR owing to the integrated SIL. . .To pinpoint the mechanically driven spin resonance, we perform optically detected mechanical spin resonance (ODMSR)").
As per claim 10, Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the controller is further coupled with the light source or the detector and further configured to cause the light source to direct light to the NV center to thereby drive the NV center from a first electronic state to a second electronic state or to cause the detector to detect a fluorescence signal emitted by the NV center, the fluorescence signal indicative of a spin state of the NV center (pg. 7, 10, "Micrographs and photoluminescence images of the finished device on an optical grade diamond substrate... SEM image of the transducer on the backside of the SIL. (d) and (e) show the photoluminescence image in a cross section view and a front view of the device (10µm thick), collected using a home-built confocal microscope. There is enhancement in fluorescence collection of the NV ensemble in the SCHBAR owing to the integrated SIL... To pinpoint the mechanically driven spin resonance, we perform optically detected mechanical spin resonance (ODMSR)").
As per claim 12, Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the acoustic transducer to generate acoustic waves within the diamond substrate to sensitize the NV center to a magnetic field, electric field, strain, or temperature in a vicinity of the NV center (pg. 2, 5, 6, "For sensing applications, they offer unconventional modalities of quantum control which is a resource for extending the coherence time and thus sensitivity. Coupling spins to mechanical motion could also enable new quantum enhanced sensors of motion, such as inertial sensing... The radius of the transducer has been designed to mode-match the waist of the confined acoustic wave... a 532 nm laser is used for excitation and a 630 nm long pass filter is used for PL collection in the phonon side band emission of NV centers. Fig. 3(d-e) show the cross section and the front PL scan of a 10 µm device at an incident laser power of 150 µW. There is a clear enhancement of PL collection inside the resonator").
As per claim 13, Chen et al. teaches a method comprising: generating acoustic waves within a diamond substrate comprising at least one NV center therein to thereby drive a single-quantum transition from a first spin state of the NV center to a second spin state of the NV center (Abstract, pg. 8, 10, 12, "the native NV centers inside the diamond device, we demonstrate mechanically driven spin transitions and show a high strain-driving efficiency with a Rabi frequency... resonator is driven on resonance, microwave power is dissipated in the resonator and converted into mechanical energy, launching acoustic waves and enabling the resonance to be detected... Lastly, we measure the spin coherence within the mechanically-controlled {|+1>, |-1>} subspace and within the magnetically-controlled {|0>, |-1>} subspace... magnetically-driven single quantum spin transitions between {|0>, |-1>} and {|0>, |+1>} states... With the demonstrated voltage-to-strain transduction, the diamond SCHBAR device has roughly the same efficiency for spin-strain driving as the microwave antenna has for magnetic driving. This is promising for using mechanical driving as an added resource... makes quantum control a strong application of our device").
As per claim 14, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the first spin state comprises an ms=0 state and the second spin state comprises an ms=-1 state or an ms=+1 state (pg. 10, "Three sets of qubits can therefore be formed: magnetically-driven single quantum spin transitions between {|0>, |-1>} and {|0>, |+1>} states").
As per claim 15, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the first spin state comprises an ms=-1 state or an ms=+1 state and the second spin state comprises an ms=0 state (pg. 21, "another AP pulse shuttles the residual |ms = -1> spin population back to |ms = 0> state, which is the read out optically").
As per claim 16, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the acoustic waves are configured to drive the SQ transition via an alternating current (AC} strain in the diamond substrate (pg. 3, "In a diamond SCHBAR device, we use the native NV centers to characterize the a.c. strain performance of the acoustic resonator. We mechanically drive NV center ground-state spin").
As per claim 18, Chen et al. teaches the method of any claim 13, further comprising detecting a fluorescence signal emitted by the NV center, the fluorescence signal indicative of a spin state of the NV center (pg. 7, 10, "Micrographs and photoluminescence images of the finished device on an optical grade diamond substrate... SEM image of the transducer on the backside of the SIL. (d) and (e) show the photoluminescence image in a cross section view and a front view of the device (10 µm thick), collected using a home-built confocal microscope. There is enhancement in fluorescence collection of the NV ensemble in the SCHBAR owing to the integrated SIL. .. To pinpoint the mechanically driven spin resonance, we perform optically detected mechanical spin resonance (ODMSR)").
As per claim 19, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising introducing a Zeeman splitting between the first spin state and the second spin state (pg. 10, "We first apply an external magnetic field of 558.6 G, axially aligned to the N-V axis. This splits the |+1> and |-1> ground spin states of the NV center ensemble due to the Zeeman effect").
As per claim 20, Chen et al, teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising generating acoustic waves within the diamond substrate to sensitize the NV center to a magnetic field, electric field, strain, or temperature in a vicinity of the NV center (pg. 2, 5, 6, "For sensing applications, they offer unconventional modalities of quantum control which is a resource for extending the coherence time and thus sensitivity. Coupling spins to mechanical motion could also enable new quantum-enhanced sensors of motion, such as inertial sensing. The radius of the transducer has been designed to mode-match the waist of the confined acoustic wave... a 532 nm laser is used for excitation and a 630 nm long pass filter is used for PL collection in the phonon side band emission of NV centers. Fig. 3(d-e) show the cross section and the front PL scan of a 10 µm device at an incident laser power of 150 µW. There is a clear enhancement of PL collection inside the resonator").
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al.
See the description of Chen et al., supra.
As per claim 11, Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising at least one magnetic field configured to introduce a Zeeman splitting between the first spin state and the second spin state (pg. 10, "We first apply an external magnetic field of 558.6 G, axially aligned to the N-V axis. This splits the |+1> and |-1> ground spin states of the NV center ensemble due to the Zeeman effect).
Chen et al. does not teach a magnet to introduce Zeeman splitting; however such Zeeman splitting magnets are well-known in the art.
Official notice is taken that magnets used for providing Zeeman splitting, are notoriously old and well known and ubiquitous in the art; such Officially noticed fact being capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to simply provide a magnet to introduce the disclosed Zeeman splitting effect, as set forth by Chen et al., to thereby provide a controlled mechanism with the ability to manipulate the energy levels of atoms using static magnetic fields, as is well-known, established and appreciated in the art.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Twitchen et al. (US 2014/0035584 A1).
See the description of Chen et al., supra.
As per claim 17, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising directing light to the NV center (pg. 7, 10, 21, "There is enhancement in fluorescence collection of the NV ensemble in the SCHBAR owing to the integrated SIL. .. By optical pumping in a wellaligned magnetic field, we can induce a strong polarization of the I= 1 nuclear spin of 14N into its |ml = +1> state... Now we test the mechanical driving efficiency and coherence. To pinpoint the mechanically driven spin resonance, we perform optically detected mechanical spin resonance (ODMSR)... we off-resonantly excite the defects with a 780 nm pump laser at 0.6 mW").
Chen et al. remains silent with regard to driving the NV center from a first electronic state to a second electronic state.
However Twitchen et al. (US 2014/0035584 A1) teaches utilizing light to drive the NV center from a first electronic state to a second electronic state (paragraph [0086] - "The NV- defects are excited with an optical laser source at 532 nm causing excitation of electrons from the 3A ground state to the 3E excited state. The excited ms=0 electrons fluoresce on transition back to the ground state emitting and this fluorescence is detected").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the light to drive the NV center from a first electronic state to a second electronic state in the method of Chen et al., because the disclosure of Twitchen et al. (US 2014/0035584 A1) would have allowed sufficient sensitivity at lower magnetic field strength (paragraph [0010], provide an arrangement which is sufficiently sensitive to resolve detailed chemical shift information at lower applied magnetic field strengths thereby facilitating miniaturization without loss of functionality).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleges that the declaration filed on October 14, 2025 obviates the Non-Final rejection of the claims, based upon the priority date of the provisional application 62/965,533, filed on January 24, 2020.
The Examiner has (i) deemed the declaration insufficient (see reasons articulated in detail, supra) (ii) moreover, even assuming a supplemental declaration is filed correcting the noted deficiencies, the Examiner has determined that the earliest effective filing date of the instant application is January 22, 2021. See the discussion of the provisional application, supra. Thus, the rejection of the claims utilizing Chen et al., "Engineering electron-phonon coupling of quantum defects to a semi-confocal acoustic resonator," remains in effect.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688