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Claims 33-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 23 June 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “either of claims 6”.
In claim 10, line 2, “lase” should be “laser”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation "the laser" in claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Christen (US 20220197102 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Christen teaches a system comprising:
A particle confinement assembly (vacuum chamber 195, array 190 of trapped particles), the particle confinement assembly defining a plurality of particle positions (array, Abstract); and
One or more signal manipulation elements (optical modulators 150, [0021], fig. 1B) each signal manipulation element of the one or more signal manipulation elements (a) being associated with at least one respective position of the plurality of particle positions (each modulator controls a channel coupled to at least one particle, [0021]) and (b) comprising an active nanophotonic component having a dynamically controllable optical effect (Mach-Zender interferometer and tunable resonator, [0023-0024]; nanophotonic, [0020])
Wherein a respective signal manipulation element of the one or more signal manipulation elements is configured to, responsive to an incident signal (optical input 204) being incident thereon and based on a state of the dynamically controllable optical effect, cause an induced signal to be incident on at least a portion of the at least one respective position (controllably addressing particles in the array, [0003], using the state of the optical resonator).
Regarding claim 2, Christen teaches that one or more properties of the induced signal are controlled by a state of the dynamically controllable optical effect (changing coupling ratio by a voltage controls the induced signal output, [0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Christen teaches that the property of the induced signal includes beam position (changing where the beam is output, [0023]).
Regarding claim 4, Christen teaches that the state of the dynamically controllable optical effect is controlled by application of an electric signal (applied voltage, [0023]).
Regarding claim 16, Christen teaches that at least one of the signal manipulation elements is configured to modulate an amplitude of the induced signal (modulating signal amplitude of each optical channel, [0023]).
Regarding claim 17, Christen teaches that at least one of the signal manipulation elements has a dynamically controllable refraction index (voltage on input arm 152a changes refraction index, [0023]).
Regarding claim 18, Christen teaches that the dynamically controllable refraction index is used to steer or control the propagation direction of the induced signal ([0023]).
Regarding claim 20, Christen teaches that at least a portion of the induced signal has a different frequency than the input signal (frequency conversion, [0029]).
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curwen (US 20200067281 A1) .
Regarding claim 25, Curwen teaches a vertical external cavity surface emitting laser (VECSEL) formed at least in part on or in a first substrate and at least in part on or in a second substrate (QC-VECSEL, [0073], fig. 8), the VESCEL comprising:
A first signal manipulation element (metasurface 802) disposed on the first substrate (804); and
A second signal manipulation element (metal mesh 808) disposed on the second substrate (810),
Wherein the first signal manipulation element and the second signal manipulation element define an external cavity of the VESCEL (cavity length Lc is between the substrates, fig. 8).
Regarding claim 26, Curwen teaches that the first signal manipulation element comprises an active nanophotonic component having a dynamically controllable optical effect (active focusing metasurface, [0030]; controllable by electrical bias, [0063]).
Regarding claim 27, Curwen teaches that at least one of the first substrate or the second substrate defines a surface normal and the external cavity of the VECSEL is angled with respect to the surface normal (due to the relative angle between the surfaces, fig. 3a).
Claims 37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scherer (US 20050152429 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Scherer teaches a laser (26, fig. 1) comprising:
A nano-photonic structure (photonic crystal, [0044]; nanocavity laser, [0011]) defining a lateral cavity, wherein the photonic crystal cavity is configured to be seeded with a seed beam (input signal 40, 42) and the seed beam controls at least one of frequency of light emitted by the laser, a line width of light emitted by the laser, or a polarization of light emitted by the laser (input signal can switch polarization output, [0094]).
Regarding claim 39, Scherer teaches that the nano-photonic crystal structure is a photonic crystal structure ([0042]) defining a photonic crystal cavity (cavity 22).
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 5-7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christen in view of Makotyn (US 11,037,776 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Christen teaches that the signal manipulation elements are formed on a substrate (photonic substrate 205).
Christen does not teach that the confinement assembly is formed at least in part on a first substrate and the signal manipulation element substrate (second substrate) is mounted in a secured or controllable manner with respect to the first substrate.
Makotyn teaches a particle confinement assembly formed on a substrate (130 for ion traps 110, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Christen to have the substrate confinement device of Makotyn, in order to provide an equivalent optical confinement array for atoms which allows simple optical coupling to the system as taught by Makotyn.
Christen and Makotyn do not teach that the second substrate is mounted in a secured or controllable manner with the first substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to securably mount the substrates in the system of Makotyn and Christen relative to each other, as it has been held that making the parts of an invention integral with each other (i.e. securing the substrates to each other by some means) is within the skill of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 V B [R-01.2024]).
Regarding claim 6, Christen teaches that the signal manipulation elements are formed on a first substrate (photonic substrate 203). Christen does not teach that the confinement assembly is formed on the first substrate.
Makotyn teaches a particle confinement assembly formed on a substrate (130 for ion traps 110, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Christen to have the substrate confinement device of Makotyn, in order to provide an equivalent optical confinement array for atoms which allows simple optical coupling to the system as taught by Makotyn.
It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to form the substrates of Makotyn and Christen as a single substrate, i.e. by attaching them to each other, as it has been held that making the parts of an invention integral with each other is within the skill of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 V B [R-01.2024]).
Regarding claim 7, Christen teaches that a manipulation source (i.e. a modulator) is formed at least partially on the first substrate.
Regarding claim 12, Christen teaches that the manipulation source comprises a resonant structure formed as an array of nano-photonic structures (resonant array of resonators 200a-200c, [0024-0025]).
Regarding claim 13, Christen teaches that the array of nano-photonic structures is configured to have a diffractive effect (due to diffraction gratings 310, [0028]).
Claim 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christen in view of King (US 20210272006 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Christen teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Christen does not teach that the at least one signal manipulation element comprises a photoactive material and is configured to provide an electrical signal responsive to light being incident thereon.
King teaches an optical modulator for a particle confinement apparatus having a photoactive material (photodiode, [0158]) configured to provide an electrical signal responsive to light being incident thereon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Christen to have the photodiode of King, in order to measure and stabilize the output intensity of the modulator as described by King.
Regarding claim 21, Christen teaches that the incident signal is an infrared signal and the induced signal is a UV signal (incident at 1680nm, output at 420nm, [0029]).
Regarding claim 22, Christen teaches that the respective signal manipulation element is configured to convert a frequency of incident signal into a frequency of an induced signal using harmonic generation ([0029]).
Regarding claim 23, Christen teaches that the incident signal is a pulsed signal (high speed pulses, [0020]).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherer in view of Franjic (US 20060153257 A1).
Regarding claim 38, Scherer teaches all the limitations of claim 37 as described above. Scherer teaches that the laser is configured to emit an emission beam having an emitted laser power, the emitted laser power being larger than the input power (fig. 8a).
Scherer does not explicitly teach that the seed beam is a laser beam.
Franjic teaches a laser cavity seeded by an input laser beam (seed beam 26, [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to make the seed beams of Scherer laser beams, as Franjic teaches that this is a known means of seeding a laser cavity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11, 15,, 24, 28-29 and 40 are 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.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 30-32 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or make obvious a system in which a substrate defining an external cavity of a VESCEL or a nano-photonic structure forming a laser cavity (lateral cavity), forms a confinement assembly configured to confine one or more particles, or a particle confinement system with nanophotonic manipulators where an induced signal is used to perform a background-free, gated reading function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
