DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on March 17th, 2026. Claims 1-15, 17, and 19-25 are pending.
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 .
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 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the presence of any electrodes.
Claims 22-25 recite that there are no more than six electrodes, but does not recite that there is at least one electrode present. The wherein limitations cannot be interpreted without the presence of electrodes, so electrodes must be present. It is suggested applicant amend to: at least one and no more than six individually controllable electrodes.
Claims 22-25 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 22 recites “wherein the no more than electrodes are mechanically connected to the housing”. The phrase “no more than” requires an object (such as six) which is missing from the limitation. It is suggested that the language be simplified to “wherein the electrodes are mechanically connected to the housing” since the qualifier is unnecessary and adds no further meaning. Alternatively, applicant may amend to “wherein the at least one and no more than six electrodes are mechanically connected to the housing”.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the presence of any transparent electrodes.
Claims 22-25 recite that there are no more than four transparent electrodes, but does not recite that there is at least one transparent electrode present. The final wherein limitation cannot be interpreted without the presence of a transparent electrode, so a transparent electrode must be present. It is suggested applicant amend to: at least one and no more than four transparent electrodes.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the presence of any electrode pairs.
Claim 25 recites that there are no more than three pairs of electrodes present but does not recite that there is at least one pair of electrodes is present. The rest of wherein limitation cannot be interpreted without the presence of at least one pair of electrodes, so a pair of electrodes must be present. It is suggested applicant amend to: at least one and no more than three pairs of electrodes.
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)(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) 22 & 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0291268 (Anderson et al.).
Regarding claim 22, Anderson et al. discloses a cell for carrying out quantum optical measurements on at least one atom cloud, comprising a control unit for controlling electric fields at the location of the atom cloud, wherein the control unit comprises:
- at least one housing having at least one interior for receiving the atom cloud and having at least one opening for introducing the atoms of the atom cloud into the interior (“vapor cell” throughout); and
- no more than six individually controllable electrodes (“opposing parallel field plates that are individually addressable” P 38),
o wherein the no more than electrodes, independently of one another, are able to be subjected to electrical potentials and are configured to influence at least one electric field in the interior (“opposing parallel field plates that are individually addressable” P 38),
o wherein the no more than electrodes are mechanically connected to the housing (“In some embodiments, two parallel windows (or plates) have corresponding parallel plate electrodes 342 deposited thereon in part or function as the parallel plate electrodes 342.” P 38),
o wherein the no more than six electrodes comprise no more than four transparent electrodes and no more than two non-transparent electrodes (“transparent conductors may be used for electrodes 342.” P 37, note that the claim limits the number of non-transparent electrodes to no more than two but does not require any non-transparent electrodes, but the option of non-transparent electrodes is also present in Anderson), and
o wherein at least one of the no more than four transparent electrodes is at least partly formed by at least one optical window through which at least one light beam for interaction with the atom cloud is able to be radiated into the interior, wherein the optical window comprises at least one transparent substrate and at least one transparent electrically conductive coating of the substrate (“In some embodiments, two parallel windows (or plates) have corresponding parallel plate electrodes 342 deposited thereon in part or function as the parallel plate electrodes 342.” P 38 and “Further transparent conductors may be used for electrodes 342 in part or in whole, with or without a protecting or a metallic layer.”).
Regarding claim 25, Anderson et al. discloses the cell as claimed in claim 22, wherein the no more than six electrodes comprise no more than three pairs of electrodes, and wherein each pair of electrodes are arranged on mutually opposite sides of the at least one housing in relation to the at least one interior (“Such an electric field shifter may include a plurality of parallel plates.” P 17).
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) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0291268 (Anderson et al.).
Regarding claim 23, Anderson et al. discloses the cell as claimed in claim 22, wherein the at least one housing and the no more than six electrodes at least partially form a Faraday cage and wherein the Faraday cage at least partially shields the atom cloud (inherent in the presence of conductive electrodes surrounding the atom cloud).
Anderson et al. does not specifically disclose partially shielding in all three spatial directions. However, Anderson et al. discloses that there can be a plurality of parallel plates and that these can be arranged at multiple locations (“Such an electric field shifter may include a plurality of parallel plates.” P 17 and “In addition, although two parallel plates 342 on opposing interior walls of vapor cell 320 are shown, additional plates and/or plates having other locations may be used.” P 31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include electrodes on all six sides to achieve shielding in all three spatial directions so that the atom cloud would be more fully shielded from outside electric fields.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15, 17, and 19-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose a cell for carrying out quantum optical measurements on at least one atom cloud, comprising a control unit for controlling electric fields at the location of the atom cloud, wherein the control unit comprises
- at least one housing having at least one interior for receiving the atom cloud and having at least one opening for introducing the atoms of the atom cloud into the interior; and
- at least two electrodes, wherein the at least two electrodes include no more than six individually controllable electrodes,
o wherein the electrodes, independently of one another, are able to be subjected to electrical potentials and are configured to influence at least one electric field in the interior,
o wherein the electrodes are mechanically connected to the housing,
o wherein at least one of the electrodes is at least partly formed by at least one optical window through which at least one light beam for interaction with the atom cloud is able to be radiated into the interior, wherein the optical window comprises at least one transparent substrate and at least one transparent electrically conductive coating of the substrate,
wherein the no more than six electrodes include no more than four transparent electrodes and no more than two non-transparent electrodes,
wherein the at least one housing and the at least two electrodes at least partially form a Faraday cage,
wherein the Faraday cage at least partially shields the atom cloud against electric fields in all three spatial directions, and
wherein the Faraday cage at least partially influences the at least one electric field in the interior in all three spatial directions when the at least two electrodes are subjected to corresponding electrical potentials.
The closest prior arts of record are US 2022/0291268 (Anderson et al.) and US 2021/0410266 (Saffman et al.). Anderson et al. discloses the subject matter of claim 1 except for the Faraday cage least partially influencing the at least one electric field in the interior in all three spatial directions when the at least two electrodes are subjected to corresponding electrical potentials. Saffman et al. discloses the subject matter of claim 1 except for the transparent electrodes and having no more than six electrodes. Anderson could be modified in view of Saffman to influence the electric field in all three spatial directions, but to do so would require more than six electrodes, because electrodes at all eight corners are needed. Saffman could be modified to include the transparent electrodes of Anderson, but again requires eight electrodes to achieve the electric field influencing effect in all three spatial directions.
Claim 24 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not disclose the cell as claimed in claim 22, wherein the at least one housing and the no more than six electrodes at least partially form a Faraday cage, and wherein the Faraday cage at least partially influences the at least one electric field in the interior in all three spatial directions when the no more than six electrodes are subjected to corresponding electrical potentials.
The closest prior arts of record and reasons for allowance are substantively the same as for claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights