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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/22/25.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0027355 A1 [Kim] in view of US 9,201,404 B2 [Harasaka]
Regarding Claim 1:
Kim teaches a vacuum cell (abstract), comprising:
a vacuum chamber (para 13);
a first bond configured to affix a first portion of the vacuum cell to a second portion of the vacuum cell (Fig. 2 (216-1), para 55); and
a second bond configured to affix a third portion of the vacuum cell to a fourth portion of the vacuum cell (Fig. 2 (216-2), para 55).
However, Kim does not explicitly teach that
the first bond having a first bonding temperature and a first debonding temperature greater than the first bonding temperature, or that
the second bond having a second bonding temperature and a second debonding temperature, the second bonding temperature being less than the first debonding temperature.
Instead, Kim just teaches using Gold-Tin eutectic bonds (para 55).
Harasaka also teaches bonding surfaces of a vacuum cell (abstract) using a particular composition of Gold-Tin alloy bonds, 80:20 Au-Sn. 10:11-32. This composition is the same as that specified in the instant specification as having a debonding temperature that is “ least ten to thirty degrees or more higher” that its bonding temperature. By using this prior art alloy of Harasaka as the alloy of Kim, one would inherently arrive at an arrangement wherein the bonds would have the same bonding temperatures, and the same debonding temperatures, and thus both bonds would have a bonding temperature that is less than their debonding temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the 80:20 Au-Sn alloy of Harasaka as the Au:Sn alloy in Kim. One would have been motivated to do so since Harasaka demonstrates that such an alloy provides an effective seal for a vacuum cell. 10:11-32.
Regarding Claim 2:
The above modified invention teaches the vacuum cell of claim 1, wherein the first bond and the second bond are each a metal alloy bond. Kim Para 55. Harasaka 10:11-32.
Regarding Claim 3:
The above modified invention teaches the vacuum cell of claim 1, wherein the first debonding temperature is at least ten is degrees Celsius greater than the first bonding temperature. The Au:Sn composition of Harasaka is the same as that specified in the instant specification as having a debonding temperature that is “ least ten to thirty degrees or more higher” that its bonding temperature.
Regarding Claim 4:
The above modified invention teaches the vacuum cell of claim 1, wherein the first bond and the second bond are each selected from a gold-tin alloy bond, a gold-germanium alloy bond, a tin-silver alloy bond, and a tin-copper alloy bond. Au:Sn as shown in Kim Para 55 and Harasaka 10:11-32.
Regarding Claim 5:
The above modified invention teaches the vacuum cell of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first bond or the second bond is in the vacuum chamber. Kim Fig. 2 demonstrates that the inner part of each of the bonds is in the chamber.
Regarding Claim 6:
The above modified invention teaches the vacuum cell of claim 5, wherein the second bond extends between the vacuum chamber and an exterior surface of the vacuum cell, the exterior surface being configured to be exposed to an ambient environment external to the vacuum chamber. Kim fig. 2 demonstrates such a second bond. Further, all surfaces are “configured to be exposed to an ambient environment external to the vacuum chamber” since they have the ability to be so exposed.
Regarding Claim 7:
The above modified invention teaches the vacuum cell of claim 5, wherein an ion trap assembly in the vacuum chamber includes the first portion of the vacuum cell and the second portion of the vacuum cell. Kim Fig. 2 (206).
Regarding Claim 10:
The above modified invention teaches the vacuum cell of claim 1, wherein the first bonding temperature and the second bonding temperature do not exceed four hundred degrees Celsius. Harasaka 10:11-32.
Regarding Claim 11:
Kim teaches a vacuum cell (abstract), comprising:
a plurality of walls defining a vacuum chamber therein (Fig. 2); and
a plurality of bonds within the vacuum chamber, each of the plurality of bonds being a is metal alloy bond (Fig. 2 (216-1, 216-2), para 55).
However, Kim does not explicitly teach that the metal alloy bond has a bonding temperature and a debonding temperature greater than the bonding temperature. Instead, Kim just teaches using Gold-Tin eutectic bonds (para 55).
Harasaka also teaches bonding surfaces of a vacuum cell (abstract) using a particular composition of Gold-Tin alloy bonds, 80:20 Au-Sn. 10:11-32. This composition is the same as that specified in the instant specification as having a debonding temperature that is “ least ten to thirty degrees or more higher” that its bonding temperature. By using this prior art alloy of Harasaka as the alloy of Kim, one would inherently arrive at an arrangement wherein the bonds would have the same bonding temperatures, and the same debonding temperatures, and thus both bonds would have a bonding temperature that is less than their debonding temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the 80:20 Au-Sn alloy of Harasaka as the Au:Sn alloy in Kim. One would have been motivated to do so since Harasaka demonstrates that such an alloy provides an effective seal for a vacuum cell. 10:11-32.
Regarding Claim 12:
The above modified invention teaches the vacuum cell of claim 11, but fails to teach the device further comprising:
at least one bond affixing a first wall of the plurality of walls to a second wall of the plurality of walls, the at least one having an additional bonding temperature less than the bonding temperature.
However, Harasaka teaches bonding surfaces of a vacuum cell (abstract) using a particular composition of Au:Ge alloy bonds, 87.5:12.5. 10:33-48. This composition has a different bonding temperature than the Au:Sn bond. By using this prior art alloy of Harasaka as for one of the bonds in Kim, one would arrive at an arrangement wherein at least one bond affixing a first wall of the plurality of walls to a second wall of the plurality of walls, the at least one having an additional bonding temperature less than the bonding temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the Au:Ge alloy of Harasaka as one of the bonds in Kim. One would have been motivated to do so since Harasaka demonstrates that such an alloy provides an effective seal for a vacuum cell (10:33-48) and since Kim teaches that alternative bonding alloys may be used (Kim para 55).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0027355 A1 [Kim] in view of US 9,201,404 B2 [Harasaka] as applied above, and further in view of US 2020/0386581 A1 [Hoyt].
Regarding Claims 9 and 13:
The above modified invention teaches the vacuum cell of claims 1/11, but fails to teach that the third portion of the vacuum cell includes a photonic integrated circuit forming a wall of the vacuum cell.
Hoyt teaches photonic integrated circuits (PIC) bonded to walls of vacuum chamber of an atomic sensor, i.e., they become part of the walls. Abstract, paras 16-17, Fig. 1 (110, 112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to place a PIC of Hoyt in the chamber walls to apply lasers to the trapped particle of Kim. One would have been motivated to do so since this would allow for the application of lasers to the trapped ions of Kim in a robust fashion and without the need for additional windows and optics. Hoyt paras 15, 34.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0137281 A1 [Favier] in view of US 9,201,404 B2 [Harasaka]
Regarding Claim 1:
Favier teaches a vacuum cell (abstract), comprising:
a vacuum chamber (Fig. 3 (42));
a first bond configured to affix a first portion of the vacuum cell to a second portion of the vacuum cell (Fig. 2 (54), para 83); and
a second bond configured to affix a third portion of the vacuum cell to a fourth portion of the vacuum cell (Fig. 2 (54), para 83).
However, Favier does not explicitly teach that
the first bond having a first bonding temperature and a first debonding temperature greater than the first bonding temperature, or that
the second bond having a second bonding temperature and a second debonding temperature, the second bonding temperature being less than the first debonding temperature.
Instead, Favier just teaches using Gold-Tin eutectic bonds (para 83).
Harasaka also teaches bonding surfaces of a vacuum cell (abstract) using a particular composition of Gold-Tin alloy bonds, 80:20 Au-Sn. 10:11-32. This composition is the same as that specified in the instant specification as having a debonding temperature that is “ least ten to thirty degrees or more higher” that its bonding temperature. By using this prior art alloy of Harasaka as the alloy of Favier, one would inherently arrive at an arrangement wherein the bonds would have the same bonding temperatures, and the same debonding temperatures, and thus both bonds would have a bonding temperature that is less than their debonding temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the 80:20 Au-Sn alloy of Harasaka as the Au:Sn alloy in Favier. One would have been motivated to do so since Harasaka demonstrates that such an alloy provides an effective seal for a vacuum cell. 10:11-32.
Regarding Claim 8:
The above modified invention of Favier teaches the vacuum cell of claim 1, wherein the third portion of the vacuum cell includes a metal and the fourth portion of the vacuum cell includes glass such that the second bond is a glass-to-metal bond. Favier paras 56, 82, 84.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881