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 with traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 3/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that Group II (13-15) cannot be made from a materially different apparatus (see pages 2 and 3 of the response filed on 3/25/2026). The examiner finds this remark persuasive and has withdrawn the restriction requirement. All claims will be examined.
Examiner’s Comment
Note that the preliminary amendment claim set filed on 7/11/2022 omits claim 2. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has treated claim 2 as canceled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-11 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3-11, line 1 of each claim: the examiner suggests rewriting “The filter of claim” to --The frequency-dependent microwave filter of claim-- to provide consistency in the claim language.
Claim 4, line 2, the examiner suggests rewriting “the gas” to --the gas cell-- to provide consistency in the claim language.
Claim 15, line 6, the examiner suggests rewriting “an inhomogeneous” to --the inhomogeneous-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 5, 7, 11, 12 and 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4, lines 3-4, note that the claim recites two alternatives for “the at least one chemical element” however, the claim uses “preferably” for each alternative, therefore causing ambiguity in the claim as to which one is required. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret that either alternative meets the claim limitation.
Claim 7, line 3, note that the claim recites “the waveguide preferably comprising a wire” causes ambiguity in the claim since it is unclear if the waveguide “preferably” has to include a “wire”. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret that “the means for feedthrough” merely comprises a waveguide.
Claim 11, lines 4-7, note that the claim recites two alternatives for “the optical pump” however, the claim uses “preferably” for each alternative, therefore causing ambiguity in the claim as to which one is required. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret that either alternative meets the claim limitation.
Claim 12, line 3, note that the recitation of “a filter of any one of the claim 1” causes ambiguity in the claim, since only “one” filter is defined in claim 1 (i.e. there isn’t more than one filter defined in claim 1, therefore the recitation of “any one” causes ambiguity in the claim). Correction is required.
Claim 15, lines 2 and 8, note that the claim recites “an enclosure”, “a filter medium” and “feedthrough of a microwave signal” which are already defined in claim 13, from which this claim dependent from, therefore causing ambiguity in the claim since it is unclear if claim 15 is reciting the same features defined in claim 13 or separate and distinct features. Correction is required. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret that the recited “an enclosure”, “a filter medium” and “feedthrough of a microwave signal” in claim 15 are the same features recited in claim 13.
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, 3-5, 7, 10, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camaro et al. (NPL “Long-Term Behavior of Rubidium Clocks in Space”, Cited by Applicant) in view of Yano (US2012/0056778 A1)
In regards to claims 1, 13, and 15, Camaro et al. teaches in Fig. 1 a frequency-dependent microwave filter, comprising:
An enclosure (Microwave Cavity) comprising a filter medium (Rb Filter Cell) including atoms in an optically pumpable solid, the at least one constituent being excitable to an initial energy state (non-active state);
A field generator (Solenoid Windings) configured to generate a magnetic field within the enclosure;
A 6.8 GHz microwave signal through the enclosure; and
An optical pump (Rb rf-Discharge lamp) configured to periodically excite the at least one constituent of the filter medium to the initial energy state in alternation with the microwave signal through the enclosure.
In regards to claim 3, based on Fig. 1, the enclosure comprises a gas cell (Resonance Cell: Rb and Buffer gas).
In regards to claim 4, based on Fig. 1, the gas cell (Resonance Cell: Rb and Buffer gas) comprising at least one chemical element (Rubidium).
In regards to claim 5, based on Fig. 1, the gas cell (Resonance Cell: Rb and Buffer gas) further includes a Buffer gas which necessarily includes nitrogen.
In regards to claim 10, based on Fig. 1, the field generator (Solenoid Windings) comprising a electromagnetic.
Camaro et al. does not teach the specific as to how the 6.8 GHZ microwave signal is feedthrough, therefore Camaro et al. does not teach: in regards to claim 1, means for feedthrough of a microwave signal through the enclosure; in regards to claim 7, the means for feedthrough comprising a waveguide; in regards to claim 13, a feedthrough of the microwave signal; in regards to claim 15, means for feedthrough of a microwave signal through the enclosure.
Yano teaches in Fig. 1 an introduction/feedthrough waveguide section (10). Yano teaches in paragraph [0040], that the introduction/feedthrough waveguide section is designed/sized to handle GHz microwave signals.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Camaro et al. and have used a waveguide to provide the means for feedthrough for the 6.8 GHz microwave signal because such a modification would have been one of the available choices to choose from to handle a RF microwave signal in the GHz range as exemplary taught by Yang (see paragraph [0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 9 and 14 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 11 and 12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE L SALAZAR JR whose telephone number is (571)-272-9326. The examiner can normally be reached between 9am - 6pm Monday-Friday.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached on 571-272-5918. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE L SALAZAR JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights