DETAILED ACTION
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 on 2/4/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in the independent claim.
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-23 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 5, 7-8 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-23 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 18, 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Buell et al. (US 6303928 B1) [hereinafter Buell] in view of Hughes et al. (US 20150200029 A1) [hereinafter Hughes].
Regarding claim 1, Buell teaches a slow atomic beam generation device, comprising:
a high-temperature bath (bath region, around 24, enclosing the atomic gas) that comprising:
an atom source (e.g. fig 3: 22),
an
a right- angle conical mirror (see 32) that is provided at another end, wherein the right-angle conical mirror comprises an opening at an apex (see 34), and reflects, toward the one end, the laser light having entered through the optical window, by a portion other than the opening (see fig 3, left side of 24);
a magnetic field generation device (see coils, 30) that generates a magnetic field in an area where the laser light reflected by the right-angle conical mirror intersects (see fig 3; col 5, lines 65-67); and
wherein the slow atomic beam generation device forms an atomic beam from the atomic gas through use of a magneto-optical trap realized by the laser light and the magnetic field, and emits the atomic beam through the opening to an outside (see col 6, lines 45-51).
Buell may fail to explicitly disclose a high-temperature bath; an opening comprising an optical window; a heater that generates atomic gas in the high-temperature bath from the atom source, by heating the entirety of the high-temperature bath; and a thermal radiation shield that covers the portion of the high-temperature bath other than the opening.
However, some kind of mechanism would be required to provide the atoms from source to the trapping region in Buell (see fig 3: 22, 24). Furthermore, the use of heated sources to provide the atoms for trapping, as well as shielding and windows, were well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Hughes teaches using external heaters at an optical trap region to both maintain vapor pressure as well as preventing condensation on optical faces (see e.g. Hughes, [0042,60]), enabling use of e.g. strontium sources (see abstract), said system comprising a high-temperature bath (see bath region encompassing or surrounding 602); an opening comprising an optical window (see optical faces of source cell, [0042,52]); a heater (see e.g. 702) that generates atomic gas in the high-temperature bath from the atom source, by heating the entirety of the high-temperature bath (see fig 7); and a thermal radiation shield (see e.g. 406) that covers the portion of the high-temperature bath other than the opening. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Hughes in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to control temperatures at the source inside the MOT, while avoiding problems with condensation, and/or enabling use of strontium sources, in the manner taught by Hughes.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes teaches the atom source is strontium (see Hughes, abstract).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes teaches the magnetic field generation device (see e.g. Hughes, [0028], portion in fig 1: 134) is disposed in a space enclosed by the thermal radiation shield (note inside 126). It is alternately noted that the magnetic field generation device would need to be mounted on either the inside or outside of the source chamber. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to form the device inside of the outer (thermal radiation) shield (alternately defining as e.g. outer enclosure of machine, outer shield on vacuum chamber, insulation, etc), for example to e.g. simplify manufacturing, protect from damage or disturbances during operation, and/or enable use of lower power coils closer to the trapping region. It has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device would involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04; In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes may fail to explicitly disclose a cold filter optical window provided on an optical path of the laser light entering the optical window, between the optical window and the right-angle conical mirror. However, some form of additional optical window (which would naturally act as a cold filter optical window) would appear to be required for the laser to pass through the inner and outer cell walls of Hughes (see e.g. Hughes, fig 7: 406, 602). Further, the use of additional window insulating layers, coatings, laminations, etc, was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to form the window from two layers (defining one layer as the cold filter optical window, since it would naturally provide some cold filtering), as a routine skill in the art to improve insulation, optical transmission, strength, etc. Alternately it would have been obvious to said artisan to form the glass window from two panes for instance to provide cheaper construction. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V); Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 18, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes teaches a physics package (see Buell, fig 3), comprising: the slow atomic beam generation device according to claim 1; and a vacuum chamber (see 40) that encloses a clock transition space where atoms are arranged (see fig 3).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes a physics package for an atomic clock (see Buell, abstract), comprising the physics package according to claim 18.
Regarding claim 21, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes teaches a physics package for an atom interferometer (see Hughes, [0073]), comprising the physics package according to claim 18 (see same).
Regarding claim 22, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes teaches a physics package for a quantum information processing device for atoms or ionized atoms (see quantum computer, Hughes, [0034]), the physics package comprising the physics package according to claim 18 (see same).
Regarding claim 23, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes teaches a physics package system (see Buell, fig 3), comprising: the physics package according to claim 18; and a control device that controls operation of the physics package (required for intended operation of system).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Buell and Hughes, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cashen et al. (US 20210345475 A1) [hereinafter Cashen] and/or Lemke et al. (US 10509369 B1) [hereinafter Lemke].
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes may fail to explicitly disclose the atom source is ytterbium. However, it was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use alkaline earth metals as precise clock atom sources, enabling use with visible laser sources (see e.g. Lemke, col 2, lines 4-9; Cashen, [0030]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of the known effective ytterbium as the atom source as a routine skill in the art, for example to enable use with visible laser sources, in the manner taught by Cashen and/or Lemke.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Buell and Hughes, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Loftus et al. (US 20140061454 A1) [hereinafter Loftus].
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes may fail to explicitly disclose the magnetic field generation device is a permanent magnet that has a cylindrical shape covering the high-temperature bath, and is magnetized in a radial direction. However, the use of different shaped magnets was well known in the art. For example, Loftus teaches it was known in the art to generate MOT magnetic field using a permanent magnet (see e.g. Loftus, [0022], embodiment without gaps; alternately tube, [0002]) to obtain improved field corrections (see [0002]), said magnet system that has a cylindrical shape covering the high-temperature bath (covers region for MOT, see e.g. fig 2), and is magnetized in a radial direction (see figs 3a,b). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Loftus in the system of the prior art in order to enable the intended operation of the system using the known effective magnet structures taught by Loftus.
Claim(s) 10-12, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Buell and Hughes, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du et al. (US 20130048846 A1) [hereinafter Du].
Regarding claim 10, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes may fail to explicitly disclose the magnetic field generation device is an antisymmetric winding tetracoil that forms an antisymmetric current distribution with respect to a center point. However, Du teaches an MOT magnetic field generating system that enables the ability to quickly turn off the field e.g. for obtaining ground state coherence (see Du, [0005,7], claim 8), said system comprising using an antisymmetric winding tetracoil (see Du, fig 11a: 1111-14) that forms an antisymmetric current distribution with respect to a center point (see fig 11a). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Du in the system of the prior art to enable the ability to quickly turn off the MOT fields, while enabling the intended operation of the system using the known effective magnetic field system taught by Du.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Du, for similar reasons as claim 10 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Buell, Hughes, and Du teaches at least one processor (required for intended operation of system), wherein the high-temperature bath has a 2n-axis-symmetric shape, where n is an integer of two or greater (note conical shape in Buell, fig 3, also symmetrical shape in Lemke, fig 2: 11), wherein the magnetic field generation device is 2n, where n is an integer of two or greater, rectangular-shaped or saddle-shaped coils (see e.g. Lemke, fig 11a) that have an identical shape and are provided on side surfaces enclosing 2n rotationally symmetric axes of the high-temperature bath (see fig 11a), and wherein the at least one processor generates a two-dimensional quadrupole magnetic field from the magnetic field generation device (see [0008]), by flowing currents of coils which face each other and between which the 2n rotationally symmetric axes intervene, in directions opposite to each other (see fig 11a).
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Du, for similar reasons as claim 10 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Buell, Hughes, and Du teaches the high-temperature bath has a 2n-axis-symmetric shape, where n is an integer of two or greater (note conical shape in Buell, fig 3, also symmetrical shape in Lemke, fig 2: 11), wherein the magnetic field generation device is 2n, where n is an integer of two or greater, quadrangular prism-shaped or arc prism-shaped permanent magnets (see e.g. Lemke, fig 11b) that have an identical shape and are provided on side surfaces enclosing 2n rotationally symmetric axes of the high-temperature bath (see fig 11b), wherein the permanent magnets are magnetized in angular directions with respect to the symmetric axes (see fig 11b), and wherein magnetization directions of the permanent magnets facing each other with intervention of the 2n rotationally symmetric axes are opposite to each other (see fig 11b), forming a two- dimensional quadrupole magnetic field (see fig 11b, abstract).
Regarding claim 22, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Du, for similar reasons as claim 10 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Buell, Hughes, and Du teaches a physics package for a quantum information processing device for atoms or ionized atoms (see Du, [0032]), the physics package comprising the physics package according to claim 18 (note obviousness of applying known system to produce atoms for different analogous applications from the trapping source, as taught by Du). It is noted a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Buell and Hughes, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lemke et al. (US 10509369 B1) [hereinafter Lemke].
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes may fail to explicitly disclose a detachable vacuum-tight window, wherein the vacuum-tight window is detached, and the atom source is installed in the high-temperature bath, or the atom source is taken out from the high-temperature bath. However, Lemke teaches that a vacuum chamber can have multiple openings for detachable vacuum-tight windows or instruments (see Lemke, col 6 line 65-col 7, line 5). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to add, remove, and move windows around to different positions based on a desired instrument configuration, as a routine skill in the art. Therefore, the combined teaching discloses a detachable vacuum-tight window (see Lemke, e.g. fig 1a: 11), wherein the vacuum-tight window is detached (wherever they are not needed), and the atom source is installed in the high-temperature bath, or the atom source is taken out from the high-temperature bath (when sources switched out, using different instrument configurations, etc).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Buell and Hughes, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krueger et al. (US 11467330 B1) [hereinafter Krueger].
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes may fail to explicitly disclose the high-temperature bath and the right-angle conical mirror are made of aluminum, a metal coated with aluminum, or an insulator coated with aluminum. However, the use of aluminum coatings for reflective surfaces in MOTs was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Krueger teaches that using aluminum for reflectors (see Krueger, col 6, lines 28-31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of the known effective material to enable the intended operation of the system. It is noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes may fail to explicitly disclose the high-temperature bath and the right-angle conical mirror are made of silver, a metal coated with silver, or an insulator coated with silver. However, the use of silver coatings for reflective surfaces in MOTs was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Krueger teaches that using silver for reflectors (see Krueger, col 6, lines 28-31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of the known effective material to enable the intended operation of the system. It is noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Buell and Hughes, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hall et al., A permanent magnetic film atom chip for Bose–Einstein condensation, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. (39) 27 (2006) [hereinafter Hall].
Regarding claim 16, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes may fail to explicitly disclose the high-temperature bath and the right-angle conical mirror are made of glass coated with an optical multi-layer film. However, the use of these multi-layer films was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Hall teaches a known effective reflective layer structure to provide controllable magnetic field strength and optical reflectivity (see e.g. Hall, p30, para 1), said system comprising the mirror (see e.g. fig 4, p31, last para) are made of glass coated with an optical multi-layer film (see p30, para 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to select the use of the known effective multilayer film structure to enable the intended operation of the system, while also enabling the ability to control and improve magnetic field strength, in the manner taught by Hall. It is also noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 17, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Buell and Hughes, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fertig et al. (US 20170242404 A1) [hereinafter Fertig].
Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes may fail to explicitly disclose the optical window is made of sapphire. However, the use of sapphire windows was well known in the art. For example, Fertig teaches the use of sapphire window to interface with lasers for MOTs (see Fertig, [0018]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Fertig in the system of the prior art to enable the intended operation of providing effective windows. It is noted the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 21, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Fertig, for similar reasons as claim 17 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Buell, Hughes, and Fertig teaches a physics package for an atom interferometer (note obviousness of applying known system to produce atoms for different analogous applications from the trapping source, as taught by Fertig, [0015]), comprising the physics package according to claim 18.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Buell and Hughes, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katori (US 20180011449 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teaching of Buell and Hughes may fail to explicitly disclose a physics package for an optical lattice clock, comprising the physics package according to claim 18. However, the use optical lattice clocks was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Katori teaches an atomic optical lattice clock system for avoiding clock shifts due to perturbations (see e.g. Katori, [0018]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Katori in the system of the prior art to enable the additional ability to perform optical lattice clock operations and avoid problems with clock shifts due to perturbations, in the manner taught by Katori.
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 extension fee 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 James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2878