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
In view of the appeal brief filed on May 12, 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
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 13 and 14 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.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, each claim recites “an interference device configured to obtain an atomic beam as a result of an interaction . . .” in lines 7-8 of each claim. However, each claim already recites “an atomic beam” in lines 2-3 that is generated by an atomic beam generator. As a result, it is unclear as to whether “an atomic beam” that is obtained by the interference device is the same atomic beam that is generated and collimated by the atomic beam generator, or if the interference device obtains a different atomic beam as a result of the interaction between the generated atomic beam and the three or more moving standing light beams. Clarification is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,614,318. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the method of the ‘318 patent claim can be performed on the apparatus of the instant application as set forth below.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘318 patent claims an apparatus for collimating an atomic beam (see lines 1-2 of the ‘318 claim, the method set forth by that claim can be performed on the instant apparatus) that contains atoms of a single kind (as line 6 of the ‘318 claim recites “an atom” and line 16 of the claim recites “the atom”, this would be a single kind of atom traveling in the beam that is being collimated) each having at least three distinct energy levels respectively corresponding to a ground state, a first excited state, and a second excited state (see at least lines 7-8 and 15-16 of the ‘318 claim which sets forth that atoms in the atomic beam), the apparatus comprising an irradiator configured to irradiate the atomic beam with a first laser beam, a second laser beam, and a third laser beam in this order (see lines 3-4, 12-13, and 21-23 of the ‘318 claim, stating that the irradiator irradiates the atomic beam with a first laser beam, a second laser beam after the first laser beam, and the third laser beam after the second laser beam), the first laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the first excited state (see lines 4-8 of the ‘318 claim), the second laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the second excited state (see lines 12-16 of the ‘318 claim), and the third laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the first excited state (see lines 21-25 of the ‘318 claim).
As for claim 7, the travelling direction of the third laser beam would inherently be parallel to the traveling direction of the first laser beam, as this is needed to ensure the atomic beam is collimated as required by the claim.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,614,318 in view of Kozuma et al (2020/0318968).
Regarding claim 13, claim 1 of the ‘318 patent claims an apparatus (see lines 1-2 of the ‘318 claim, the method set forth by that claim can be performed on part of the instant apparatus) comprising an atomic beam generator (“the atomic beam” of line 3 of the ’318 claim is inherently generated by an atomic beam generator) configured to continuously generate an atomic beam that contains atoms of a single kind (as line 6 of the ‘318 claim recites “an atom” and line 16 of the claim recites “the atom”, this would be a single kind of atom traveling in the beam that is being collimated) each having at least three distinct energy levels respectively corresponding to a ground state, a first excited state, and a second excited state (see at least lines 7-8 and 15-16 of the ‘318 claim which sets forth that atoms in the atomic beam), the atomic beam generator including an atomic beam source (inherent as set forth above regarding the atomic beam generator) and an atomic-beam collimator (see lines 1-2 of the ‘318 claim), the atomic-beam collimator including an irradiator configured to irradiate the atomic beam with a first laser beam, a second laser beam, and a third laser beam in this order (see lines 3-4, 12-13, and 21-23 of the ‘318 claim, stating that the irradiator irradiates the atomic beam with a first laser beam, a second laser beam after the first laser beam, and the third laser beam after the second laser beam), the first laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the first excited state (see lines 4-8 of the ‘318 claim), the second laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the second excited state (see lines 12-16 of the ‘318 claim), and the third laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the first excited state (see lines 21-25 of the ‘318 claim).
Claim 1 of the ‘318 patent fails to disclose a moving standing light wave generator configured to generate three or more moving standing light waves; and an interference device configured to obtain an atomic beam as a result of an interaction between the atomic beam and the three or more moving standing light waves.
Kozuma, in a device for generating a cold atomic beam and an atomic interferometer, discloses (Fig. 2) an atomic interferometer comprising a moving standing light wave generator 301 configured to generate three or more moving standing light waves 201a, 201b, and 201c; and an interference device 201 configured to obtain an atomic beam 101b as a result of an interaction between the atomic beam 101a (which has been collimated by collimator 113) and the three or more moving standing light waves (see paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a moving standing light wave generator and an interference device to claim 1 of the ‘318 patent to have an atomic interferometer as per Kozuma, the motivation being to allow for the collimated atoms of the ‘318 patent to be used for high sensitivity detection of angular velocity or acceleration (see paragraphs 0017-0018 of Kozuma).
Regarding claim 14, claim 1 of the ‘318 patent claims an apparatus (see lines 1-2 of the ‘318 claim, the method set forth by that claim can be performed on part of the instant apparatus) comprising an atomic beam generator (“the atomic beam” of line 3 of the ’318 claim is inherently generated by an atomic beam generator) configured to continuously generate an atomic beam that contains atoms of a single kind (as line 6 of the ‘318 claim recites “an atom” and line 16 of the claim recites “the atom”, this would be a single kind of atom traveling in the beam that is being collimated) each having at least three distinct energy levels respectively corresponding to a ground state, a first excited state, and a second excited state (see at least lines 7-8 and 15-16 of the ‘318 claim which sets forth that atoms in the atomic beam), the atomic beam generator including an atomic beam source (inherent as set forth above regarding the atomic beam generator) and an atomic-beam collimator (see lines 1-2 of the ‘318 claim), the atomic-beam collimator including an irradiator configured to irradiate the atomic beam with a first laser beam, a second laser beam, and a third laser beam in this order (see lines 3-4, 12-13, and 21-23 of the ‘318 claim, stating that the irradiator irradiates the atomic beam with a first laser beam, a second laser beam after the first laser beam, and the third laser beam after the second laser beam), the first laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the first excited state (see lines 4-8 of the ‘318 claim), the second laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the second excited state (see lines 12-16 of the ‘318 claim), and the third laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the first excited state (see lines 21-25 of the ‘318 claim).
Claim 1 of the ‘318 patent fails to disclose a moving standing light wave generator configured to generate three or more moving standing light waves; an interference device configured to obtain an atomic beam as a result of an interaction between the atomic beam and the three or more moving standing light waves; and a monitor configured to detect an angular velocity or an acceleration by monitoring the atomic beam from the interference device.
Kozuma, in a device for generating a cold atomic beam and an atomic interferometer, discloses (Fig. 2) an atomic interferometer comprising a moving standing light wave generator 301 configured to generate three or more moving standing light waves 201a, 201b, and 201c; and an interference device 201 configured to obtain an atomic beam 101b as a result of an interaction between the atomic beam 101a (which has been collimated by collimator 113) and the three or more moving standing light waves (see paragraph 0030); and a monitor 400 configured to detect an angular velocity or an acceleration by monitoring the atomic beam from the interference device (see paragraph 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a moving standing light wave generator and an interference device to claim 1 of the ‘318 patent to have an atomic interferometer as per Kozuma, the motivation being to allow for the collimated atoms of the ‘318 patent to be used for high sensitivity detection of angular velocity or acceleration (see paragraphs 0017-0018 of Kozuma).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable in view of the prior art should the double patenting rejection set forth above be properly overcome.
Claims 13 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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, in addition to the double patenting rejections set forth above being properly overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an apparatus for collimating an atomic beam that contains atoms of a single kind, each having at least three distinct energy levels respectively corresponding to a ground state, a first excited state, and a second excited state, the apparatus comprising, among other essential features, an irradiator that irradiates an atomic beam with a first laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the first excited state, a second laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the second excited state, and a third laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the first excited state, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 13, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an atomic interferometer, the interferometer comprising, among other essential features, an atomic-beam collimator which includes an irradiator configured to irradiate the atomic beam with a first laser beam, a second laser beam, and a third laser beam in this order, the first laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the first excited state, the second laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the second excited state, and the third laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the first excited state, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 14, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an atomic gyroscope, the gyroscope comprising, among other essential features, an atomic-beam collimator which includes an irradiator configured to irradiate the atomic beam with a first laser beam, a second laser beam, and a third laser beam in this order, the first laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the first excited state, the second laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the second excited state, and the third laser beam having a wavelength corresponding to a transition between the ground state and the first excited state, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claims, please see the arguments made on pages 21-30 of the Appeal Brief filed May 12, 2025 in response to the previous Office action of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. “A Continuous Cold Atomic Beam Interferometer” by Xue et al. discloses an atom interferometer with a laser-cooled continuous beams of atoms that uses spatially separated Raman beams to manipulate the atomic wave packets (see abstract and Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights