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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 07/10/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Streetman (“Cryogenic Nano-positioner development and test for space applications”).
Streetman teaches a nanopositioner configured to reposition one or more components coupled to the nanopositioner, wherein the component weighs between about 1 and 5 kg (load capability of 1000N; Page 274-275, Table 1), and a cryogenic environment wherein the positioner is in the cryogenic environment (page 277).
Regarding the preamble that the system is a QIP system, it appears that Streetman teaches a nanopositioner and a cryogenic environment (as described above) such that the limitation of a QIP is met.
Regarding claim 2, it appears providing the nanopositioner in a cryogenic atmosphere as taught by Streetman requires a cryostat absent a showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 3, Streetman teaches that the resolution is 10 nm (page 275, Table 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4-5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streetman (“Cryogenic Nano-positioner development and test for space applications”) in view of Pryadkin (US 2010/0301710).
Streetman teaches the product as taught above in claim 1, but fails to teach a first stage comprising mounting features configured to engage the one or more components, a second stage, and a lead screw coupled to the first and second stage and configured to reposition the first stage relative to the second stage.
Pryadkin, however, teaches a nanopositioner (abstract) comprising mounting features for engaging the components (bearing clamp; para. 0030) for the purpose of securing the armature (component; para. 0004, 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide mounting features for engaging the components of Streetman in order to secure the component as taught by Pryadkin.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Streetman teaches a screw for repositioning the component in a linear manner (meets limitation of moving the component from one stage to another; page 276). Therefore, it appears that the screw of Streetman meets the limitation of a lead screw coupled to the first stage and second stage and configured to reposition the first relative to the second stage. Additionally, Pryadkin teaches the first stage comprises a first surface (fig. 7, #40) adjacent the one or more components (fig. 7, #28) and a second surface opposite the first surface (fig. 7, #76). Additionally, Streetman teaches a screw for moving the component as taught above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide a second surface to receive the lead screw in Streetman in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Pryadkin.
Additionally, Pryadkin teaches a second stage comprises a cylindrical body (outlined by fig. 7, #40, 82, 22) defining a hollow cavity and a plurality of roller bearings (fig. 7, #60) coupled to the cylindrical body and extending into the hollow cavity (para. 0032; fig. 7, #60). Additionally, Pryadkin teaches the roller bearings engage the component (armature; para. 0032-0033). Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide the bearings engaging the hollow protrusion in order to support the hollow protrusion.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streetman (“Cryogenic Nano-positioner development and test for space applications”) in view of Pryadkin (US 2010/0301710) and Inoue (US 2016/0268874).
Streetman teaches a product as described above in claim 5, but fails to teach that the ball bearings comprise silicon nitride, inter alia.
Inoue, however, teaches cryogenic applications (abstract) wherein bearings comprise silicon nitride for the purpose of providing resistance in cryogenic environments (para. 0142).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide bearings comprising silicon nitride in Streetman in order to provide resistance in cryogenic environments as taught by Inoue.
Regarding claims 7-8, it appears that the material silicon nitride of the bearings meet the properties of the thermal expansion coefficient and maintaining alignment as recited in the claims.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streetman (“Cryogenic Nano-positioner development and test for space applications”) in view of Pryadkin (US 2010/030170) and Loffler (US 6332378).
Streetman teaches a product as described above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, Streetman teaches a distance measuring interferometer assembly that determines the distance taken by the steps of repositioning (page 276) but fails to teach the assembly includes an interferometer sensor head.
Loffler, however, teaches a screw assembly (abstract) comprising an interferometer having sensor heads to measure a distance between the target and the sensor head (col. 6, lines 10-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide interferometer having sensor heads in Streetman in order to measure a distance between the target and the sensor head as taught by Loffler.
Regarding claim 10, Streetman teaches that the interferometer has a resolution of 10 nm (page 276).
Regarding claim 11, Streetman teaches commanding steps in accordance with measured distances from the interferometer (page 276) and actuating a motor in response to the measured distance (page 276).
Claim(s) 12 and 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streetman (“Cryogenic Nano-positioner development and test for space applications”) in view of Pryadkin (US 2010/030170) and Loffler (US 6332378) and Schuck (“Quantum interference in heterogenous superconducting-photonic circuits on a silicon chip”).
Streetman teaches a product as described above in claim 11, but fails to teach that the component is one or more optical components and wherein the predefined target is configured to be aligned with a laser beam.
Schuck teaches a quantum information processing system (abstract) wherein the component to be positioned with a nanopositioner is an optical chip (page 3; fig. 1 and associated text).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the component in Streetman as an optical chip in order to provide a configuration in a cryogenic environment as taught by Schuck.
Additionally, it appears that the target is able to be aligned with a laser beam absent a showing to the contrary.
Regarding claims 1-3, if the preamble as described in claim 1 requires more structure than is described in the body of the claim (i.e. quantum components), the disclosure of Schuck will be applied herein as described above.
Claim(s) 4-5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streetman (“Cryogenic Nano-positioner development and test for space applications”) in view of Pryadkin (US 2010/030170) and Schuck.
Streetman teaches the product as taught above in claim 1, but fails to teach a first stage comprising mounting features configured to engage the one or more components, a second stage, and a lead screw coupled to the first and second stage and configured to reposition the first stage relative to the second stage.
Pryadkin, however, teaches a nanopositioner (abstract) comprising mounting features for engaging the components (bearing clamp; para. 0030) for the purpose of securing the armature (component; para. 0004, 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide mounting features for engaging the components of Streetman in order to secure the component as taught by Pryadkin.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Streetman teaches a screw for repositioning the component in a linear manner (meets limitation of moving the component from one stage to another; page 276). Therefore, it appears that the screw of Streetman meets the limitation of a lead screw coupled to the first stage and second stage and configured to reposition the first relative to the second stage. Additionally, Pryadkin teaches the first stage comprises a first surface (fig. 7, #40) adjacent the one or more components (fig. 7, #28) and a second surface opposite the first surface (fig. 7, #76). Additionally, Streetman teaches a screw for moving the component as taught above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide a second surface to receive the lead screw in Streetman in order to provide a configuration known in the art as taught by Pryadkin.
Additionally, Pryadkin teaches a second stage comprises a cylindrical body (outlined by fig. 7, #40, 82, 22) defining a hollow cavity and a plurality of roller bearings (fig. 7, #60) coupled to the cylindrical body and extending into the hollow cavity (para. 0032; fig. 7, #60). Additionally, Pryadkin teaches the roller bearings engage the component (armature; para. 0032-0033). Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide the bearings engaging the hollow protrusion in order to support the hollow protrusion.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streetman (“Cryogenic Nano-positioner development and test for space applications”) in view of Pryadkin (US 2010/0301710) and Inoue (US 2016/0268874) and Schuck.
Streetman teaches a product as described above in claim 5, but fails to teach that the ball bearings comprise silicon nitride, inter alia.
Inoue, however, teaches cryogenic applications (abstract) wherein bearings comprise silicon nitride for the purpose of providing resistance in cryogenic environments (para. 0142).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide bearings comprising silicon nitride in Streetman in order to provide resistance in cryogenic environments as taught by Inoue.
Regarding claims 7-8, it appears that the material silicon nitride of the bearings meet the properties of the thermal expansion coefficient and maintaining alignment as recited in the claims.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streetman (“Cryogenic Nano-positioner development and test for space applications”) in view of Pryadkin (US 2010/030170) and Loffler (US 6332378) and Schuck.
Streetman teaches a product as described above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, Streetman teaches a distance measuring interferometer assembly that determines the distance taken by the steps of repositioning (page 276) but fails to teach the assembly includes an interferometer sensor head.
Loffler, however, teaches a screw assembly (abstract) comprising an interferometer having sensor heads to measure a distance between the target and the sensor head (col. 6, lines 10-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide interferometer having sensor heads in Streetman in order to measure a distance between the target and the sensor head as taught by Loffler.
Regarding claim 10, Streetman teaches that the interferometer has a resolution of 10 nm (page 276).
Regarding claim 11, Streetman teaches commanding steps in accordance with measured distances from the interferometer (page 276) and actuating a motor in response to the measured distance (page 276).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A WARTALOWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights