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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim objections and the 112(b) rejection.
However, Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claim limitations and the prior art are not persuasive.
Applicant presents that Habif teaches that the idler photon follows one of two alternative paths: either a direct path to a detection module or via storage path. This is found in Habif, par. 0017 which recites “The idler photon 106 is sent to an entanglement detection module 108 directly or stored in a quantum memory 114 for access by the entanglement detection module (quantum illumination receiver) 108”. However, Habif presents an alternative configuration in par. 0023, which recites “The idler photon 302 is input to the OPA (optical parametric amplification) device 304, after it is being delayed (for example, by a quantum memory)”. This passage recites an embodiment in which a quantum memory is presented as an example of a delay. Par. 0031 further recites, “The quantum memory or a tunable delay for the idler photon may be implemented as a fiber delay, slow light in fiber, or on-chip micro-ring resonator delays”. This passage presents various examples and alternative forms of idler photon delay, including the instantly claimed “slow light section” in the form of “slow light in fiber”. Thus, the prior art, taken as a whole, presents that quantum memory storage is one means of delaying an idler photon, but that alternative forms of delay are also known, such as a fiber delay, and specifically as a slow light in fiber. Thus, while Applicant is correct that Habif recites one example in which quantum memory storage is used, other portions of the reference recite a slow light fiber delay as an alternative to quantum memory storage.
Applicant additionally presents that since the idler photon of Habif is stored in quantum memory, the idler photon is not continuously transmitted through the optical transmission path. However, with the explanation of above, in which a slow light fiber delay is implemented as an alternative to quantum memory, it follows that the idler photon of Habif is continuously transmitted through the optical path, since it is merely delayed via slow light fiber and not stored in memory. Since the instant claims require a slow light section used as a delay line, and since Habif also teaches a slow light section as a means of fiber delay, it follows that the metes and bounds of the instant claims are met by the disclosure of Habif.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant presents that the cited portion of Habif, par. 0030, is not directed to using multiple independent [laser] sources. Par. 0030 recites “If the signal and idler were generated from the same source…” which suggests that multiple sources may be present. Additionally, par. 0031 teaches that an entanglement source may use different types of non-linearity processes in nonlinear material, such as crystals. This also suggests the implementation of multiple different sources, comprising different types of non-linearity sources, e.g. a plurality of crystals. Only one crystal, or non-linearity process would be necessary for a single source application, however, the inclusion of multiple crystals/multiple non-linearity processes suggests multiple sources.
Applicant’s remarks relating to newly amended claim 10 invokes a 112(b) indefiniteness concern and will be addressed in that rejection as well as in the prior art rejection.
In response to Applicant’s amendments, an updated prior art rejection is presented herein.
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 10-12 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.
Claim 10 recites “tuning the slow light section by adjusting a refractive index of the slow light material to create a desired optical path length difference between an optical path of the signal photon and an optical path of the idler photon to achieve simultaneous detection”. This limitation is indefinite because it unclear how an optical path length difference is created by adjusting a refractive index of the slow light material, for the purpose of achieving simultaneous detection. In both fig. 1 of the instant drawings and fig. 2 of Habif, the idler photons follow an optical path length that does not appear to change in length, but only temporally. That is to say, both the instant application and the reference teach an idler photon path that does not change in length but that does change temporally, by a slow light delay. Further, both the instant application and the reference teach employing a non-linear process (commonly known in the art as a nonlinear optical refractive index) to correlate the two photons comprising the entangled pair. For purposes of examination, the amended limitation will be interpreted as a non-linear process being applied to correlate the entangled photons on their respective optical paths, and a tunable adjustment in delay to further achieve simultaneous (or joint) detection of the entangled photons.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Habif (2016/0209497).
1 and 9 and 13 mutatis mutandis: Habif discloses a quantum radar system [0031] comprising:
at least one entangled photon source configured to generate at least one group of entangled photons each comprising at least one signal photon and an idler photon [0031 via photon entanglement];
a slow light section comprising a slow light material positioned in an optical transmission path between the at least one entangled photon source and a photon detector, wherein the slow light section is configured to introduce a controllable time delay to the idler photon while continuously transmitting the idler photon through the optical transmission path [0031 teaches a tunable delay in the form of a slow light in fiber; fig 1 illustrates 114 as a quantum memory and 0017 teaches that the quantum memory and a tunable delay are alternatives; fig. 4 teaches the transmission and reception process of entangled photons; the combination of claims 1 and 7 teach that the idler photon is delayed prior to joint detection]; and
the photon detector configured to simultaneously detect the idler photon transmitted through the slow light section and any received signal photon reflected from an object of interest [fig. 4 teaches the transmission and reception process of entangled photons; the combination of claims 1 and 7 teach that the idler photon is delayed prior to joint detection];
wherein the at least one entangled photon source is configured to directs the at least one signal photon toward the object of interest and the idler photon towards the slow light section [illustrated in part by fig. 2 and the combination of claims 1 and 7]; and
wherein the slow light section directs the idler photon towards the photon detector through the optical transmission path without intermediate storage in a quantum memory [at least 0031 teaches a tunable delay in the form of a slow light in fiber for the idler photon; the combination of claims 1 and 7 also teach that the idler photon undergoes a delay (and not storage) prior to joint detection].
Regarding limitations (e) of claims 9 and 13, wherein the entangled photons are detected simultaneously [at least claim 1 teaches joint detection of the entangled photons].
7: Habif discloses the at least one entangled photon source comprises a non-linear crystal [0015, sources of entangled photons include nonlinear crystals].
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.
Claim(s) 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habif (2016/0209497).
8: Habif teaches the at least one entangled photon source comprises a first and second entangled photon source [0030 states “if the signal and idler were generated from the same source…” which carries the implication that the signal and idler are not necessarily generated from the same source and/or do not have to be generated from the same source. That is to say, the language presented at least in 0030 suggests there exists an instance or a possibility that the signal and the idler are generated from difference sources, rendering the at least one entangled photon source to be interpreted as comprising a first and a second entangled photon source for the signal and the idler, respectively. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret at least 0030 as suggesting the signal and the idler are generated from different sources, for the reasons presented above. See also par. 0031 and Examiner’s response to arguments, above, for additional support.].
10: Habif teaches (cc) after step (c), tuning the slow light section by adjusting a refractive index of the slow light material to create a desired optical path length difference between an optical path of the signal photon and an optical path of the idler photon to achieve simultaneous detection; (f) if the detector does not simultaneously detect the idler photon and a received signal photon of the at least one signal photon, repeating steps (a) through (e) with a different refractive index [0029-0030 and claim 1 teach joint detection of a signal photon and a idler signal; 0031 teaches that there are a variety of known ways to generate photon entanglement, given that the outgoing photon needs to be at the same frequency as the frequency of the radar signal and this may be achieved via non-linearity processes and further that a tunable delay for the idler photon may be implemented as slow light in fiber. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that refractive index may be a non-linear parameter, affected by slow light, since it is known that a non-linear refractive index quantifies the change in refractive index of a material due to intensity of an EM field. Since the disclosure of Habif reasonably teaches joint detection of a signal photon and an idler signal, that the idler signal can succumb to a tunable delay as slow light, and that a non-linear component (e.g. non-linear refractive index) affects joint detection of the signal photon and the idler photon, it follows that if joint detection of the signals is not achieved, a reconfiguration of these parameters would reasonably be revisited in order to ensure joint detection; 0024 and 0025 additionally teach a calculated difference between the two signals (each combination signal 307 and 309 each comprising idler photons 302 and signals 303)].
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habif (2016/0209497) in view of Demonstration of slow light in rubidium vapor using single photons from a trapped ion (hereinafter referred to as Siverns), citing to the document presented as NPL by Applicant on 08/22/2022.
2: Habif explicitly lacks, but Siverns teaches the slow light material comprises a material with an adjustable refractive index [at least p. 2 of 5, under “Slowing of photons from the trapped ion in Rb vapor”, first sentence teaches a change of refractive index; p. 4 of 5, last sentence of the paragraph preceding “Discussion”.].
3: Habif explicitly lacks, but Siverns teaches the slow light section is configured to adjust the refractive index using a tuning mechanism [p. 2 of 5, Fig. 1 caption, wherein refractive index…as a function of detuning].
4: Habif explicitly lacks, but Siverns teaches the slow light material comprises rubidium vapor [at least p. 2 of 5, under “Slowing of photons from the trapped ion in Rb vapor”, first sentence teaches Rb vapor].
Regarding claims 2-4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the slow light material of the quantum radar system disclosed in Habif with the slow light material having an adjustable refractive index via tuning and comprising Rb vapor as disclosed in Siverns, with a reasonable expectation of success because using slow light in Rb vapor delays photons originating from a trapped ion, using quantum frequency conversion to overcome the frequency difference between the ion and neutral atoms. Further, a tunable delay preserves the temporal profile of photons and improves transmission by increasing the nonlinear refractive index in the vapor.
5: Habif teaches the slow light material comprises metamaterials [0016, metamaterial incorporated by reference].
6: Habif teaches the slow light material comprises a non-linear photonic crystal [0031, crystals as a non-linear material].
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habif (2016/0209497) in view of Controlling photons using electromagnetically induced transparency (hereinafter referred to as Lukin), citing to the document presented as NPL by Applicant on 08/22/2022.
11: Habif explicitly lacks, but Lukin teaches increasing or decreasing the refractive index within the slow light section by a predetermined amount [fig. 1 illustrates an increase and a decrease (change) of the refractive index].
12: Habif explicitly lacks, but Lukin teaches alternating increasing and decreasing the refractive index within the slow light section by increasing predetermined amounts [p. 2, second paragraph under “Nonlinear optics based on EIT”, teaches a non-linear phase shift proportional to the group delay, which modifies the refractive index accordingly and additionally that for given field intensities (predetermined values), increasing the interaction time between light and matter can result in more efficient nonlinear optical effects; also fig. 1b illustrates increasing and decreasing refractive index by any of the predetermined amounts provided by the graph].
Regarding claims 11 and 12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the slow light material of the quantum radar system disclosed in Habif with modification of refractive index of Lukin, with a reasonable expectation of success because modification of refractive index of one field by another results from a photon to photon interaction that preserves intensity of each field mode, this process being cross-phase modulation which gives rise to a nonlinear phase shift that is proportional to the group delay, which is the interaction time of the slow pulse with matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Samantha K. Nickerson whose telephone number is (571)270-1037. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday-Tuesday, 7:00AM-3:00PM CT.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571)272-6970. 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.
SAMANTHA K. NICKERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/SAMANTHA K NICKERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights