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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendment to the claims.
However, the examiner will respond to some relevant parts of the applicant’s arguments.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection, the applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
539
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive because the cited section uses the indefinite term “may be …” This implies that there also “may not be.” Here, this does not appear to be a special definition of “sufficient,” where the applicant is acting as lexicographer. The cited section of the specification does not clearly link to specific materials that are considered as being the highest susceptibility “currently known in the art.” Neither the applicant’s claims nor specification appear to disclose an objective threshold for “sufficient.”
The applicant’s amendment of claim 9 overcomes the previous 112(a) rejection. However, it is now identical to claim 8, as discussed in the “Claim Objections” section below.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
546
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
222
783
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive because under step 2A, prong one, not all the limitations need to be “merely abstract mathematical concepts.” Step 2A, prong one, evaluates whether there are any limitations that recite abstract mathematical concepts or mental processes. For the reasons discussed in the rejection below, such limitations were found.
Next, the applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
795
803
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
669
813
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive because the claims are extremely broad and do not positively recite applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)) or effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)). As discussed in the rejection below, the nature of what constitutes “controlling the light-induced dynamics” is not positively recited.
The examiner draws a distinction between “computer control,” where data is processed on the computer and then stays on the computer versus a more “structural control,” where a real-world physical object is being transformed or manipulated. The applicant argues that “Here, the claimed steps result in a physical transformation.” However, that is not claimed. The examiner suggests that if there is a physical transformation, the applicant positively details what it is and how it is performed.
The examiner also notes that even for a highly specialized field, a set of broad claims that lacks detail about how its invention is performed, may merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, without necessarily agreeing with the applicant’s arguments, the examiner has cited an additional reference to more clearly show the relationship between polarizability and optomechanical coupling.
With respect to the applicant’s other arguments, the examiner contends that the applicant is applying an overly narrow interpretation to broad claims. For example, the applicant argues TDDFT, but TDDFT is not even discussed in claim 1.
The applicant also tries to draw a distinction between Kerr nonlinearity and TDDFT-derived polarizability. However, the claims do not give any detail for how time-dependent density functional theory is used, nor do they give any details that would differentiate its functionality from a Kerr model. The claims merely state, “wherein the polarizability and the dielectric tensor are determined along Higgs and Goldstone coordinates of the test material using a time-dependent density functional theory.” The claims do not detail how time-dependent density functional theory is used, other than the presence of Higgs and Goldstone coordinates. Juraschek teaches Higgs and Goldstone coordinates and also implies time-dependent density functional theory, as seen in the rejection below. The examiner maintains that the broad recitation of claims would be obvious, in view of the many details given in the art. The examiner suggests that the applicant cite more details in the claims about how time-dependent density functional theory is used to calculate polarizability.
The examiner has cited new art and different parts of previously cited art, which renders the applicant’s arguments moot. The examiner will await the applicant’s response to the current rejection.
Drawings
As previously discussed, the drawings filed on 05/16/23 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 has been amended to be identical to claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 discloses, “wherein controlling the light-induced dynamics comprises applying an optical pulse to the test material to induce a structural phase transition.” The examiner could not find support for this limitation in the applicant’s disclosure. The concept of “optical pulse” was disclosed in figure 3A and paragraph 0040 of the applicant’s original specification, but the examiner did not find any support of controlling the light-induced dynamics by applying the optical pulse to induce a structural phase transition. The examiner request that the applicant show where this limitation is supported in the specification.
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 1-17 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 1 discloses, “A method for identifying non-linear susceptibility … controlling the light-induced dynamics to identify sufficient non-linear susceptibility.” (emphasis mine). Neither the claims nor the applicant’s disclosure define what constitutes “sufficient” for non-linear susceptibility. The closest support for this concept of “sufficient” that was found in the applicant’s original specification was in paragraph 0021, where it is stated, “In some embodiments, sufficient non-linear susceptibility may be non-linear susceptibility that is higher than what is currently known in the art.” However, the applicant has not stated what is known in the art, nor has the applicant defined any bounds, context, or units associated with this statement.
Is the applicant stating that sufficient non-linear susceptibility is defined as being higher than the highest possible non-linear susceptibility known in the art, or in other words, is the applicant asserting that the “point of novelty” of the invention is a brand new, never-before-seen, highest level of non-linear susceptibility that is higher than any previous level of non-linear susceptibility? Or is the applicant referring to “what is currently known in the art” as forming some sort of average or median value, that the sufficient non-linear susceptibility must surpass?
Because it is not clear what is meant by “sufficient,” the claims are considered indefinite. The examiner suggests that the applicant claim a specific and objective standard for “sufficiency” that is accompanied by specific units, assuming that such an objective standard is supported in the applicant’s disclosure.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret any art that teaches any level of non-linear susceptibility to be “sufficient.”
Claims 2-17 depend on claim 1 and are also rejected, as a result of their dependence.
Furthermore, claim 3 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it discloses “the light-induced dynamics along Higgs and Goldstone coordinates …” which lacks antecedent basis. Although claim 1 does provide antecedent basis for “light-induced dynamics,” it does not provide antecedent basis for “the light-induced dynamics along Higgs and Goldstone coordinates …” Claim 1 does not disclose Higgs and Goldstone coordinates. Claim 2 does disclose Higgs and Goldstone coordinates. However, claim 3 is dependent on claim 1. Also, claim 2 discloses “the polarizability and the dielectric tensor are determined along Higgs and Goldstone coordinates.” However, “the polarizability and the dielectric tensor” are not clearly claimed to be equivalent to “the light-induced dynamics.” For the purposes of examination, claim 2 will be construed to depend on claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With respect to step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process. Claims 2-11 depend on independent claim 1. As such, claims 1-11 are directed to a statutory category.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Specifically, the following limitations recite mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 1
A method for identifying non-linear susceptibility in a test material (As seen below, the method recites abstract mathematical concepts. Also, a simple, binary identification, such as whether something is sufficient or not, is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion that can be performed in the human mind. The method therefore also recites abstract mental processes.)
determining a polarizability of the test material (As stated in paragraph 0023 of the applicant’s original specification of 05/16/23, “Using calculations, such as density functional theory (‘DFT’) and time-dependent density functional theory (‘TDDFT’), the frequency-dependent polarizability of 1T – TaS2 along its structural Higgs and Goldstone coordinates is determined.” Here, it is explicitly stated that the polarizability is determined using mathematical calculations and relationships (in view of the disclosure of Higgs and Goldstone coordinates). Although the mathematical equations are not explicitly claimed here, performing the mathematical calculations to determine the polarizability is able to be done in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation recites an abstract mental process.)
extracting from the polarizability, an optomechanical coupling of the test material (paragraph 0035 of the applicant’s original specification states, “The optomechanical coupling coefficient can be extracted from direct differentiation of the RPA polarizability … computed using TDDFT … The optomechanical coupling between light and the Higgs order parameter …” This section explicitly discloses mathematical relationships, a mathematical formula, and mathematical calculations. Although the mathematical equations are not explicitly claimed here, performing the mathematical calculations to extract the polarizability is able to be done in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation recites an abstract mental process.)
modeling light-induced dynamics, based on the optomechanical coupling of the test material (paragraph 0023 of the applicant’s original specification states, “Using TDDFT results, an effective classical model of the light-induced dynamics of the structural Higgs and Goldstone modes in CDW materials is derived and in quantitative agreement with experimental observations of light-induced dynamics in 1T - TaS2.” This discloses mathematical relationships between the TDDFT results and Higgs and Goldstone modes. Although the mathematical equations are not explicitly claimed here, performing the mathematical calculations to extract the polarizability is able to be done in the human mind. Therefore, this limitation recites an abstract mental process.)
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-16 depend on independent claim 1 and also recite its abstract limitations by virtue of their dependence. In addition, some of the dependent claims also recite their own abstract mathematical concepts and/or mental processes.
Claim 2 discloses dielectric tensor, Higgs and Goldstone coordinates, and time-dependent density functional theory. The limitation therefore recites abstract mathematical concepts and/or abstract mental processes, as all of these elements are defined or represented by mathematical relationships, equations, and/or calculations.
Claim 3 further describes how the dynamics along the Higgs and Goldstone coordinates are determined. The limitation recites abstract mathematical concepts.
Claim 4 further discloses using density functional theory. The limitation recites abstract mathematical concepts and/or abstract mental processes.
Claims 5-6 discloses symmetry and broken symmetry, which are mathematical relationships.
Claim 10 discloses determining regular orbits by testing along Higgs and Goldstone structural coordinates. As seen in paragraph 0023 of the applicant’s original specification, this determination recites abstract mathematical relationships, such as between magnitude and frequency of third order non-linear susceptibility.
Claim 11 discloses analyzing susceptibility fluctuations along the regular orbits generated by the optomechanical coupling. As seen in figure 3B and paragraph 0042 of the applicant’s original specification, such analysis recites abstract mathematical relationships. Also, an analysis that is an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion based on visual inspection of figure 3B is an abstract mental process that can be performed in the human mind.
Claim 12 discloses third-order susceptibility, which reflects a mathematical relationship, in relation to first or second order.
Claim 14 discloses performing time-dependent density functional theory calculations. This recites specific abstract mathematical calculations and/or abstract mental processes.
Claim 15 discloses computing a frequency-dependent dielectric function along Higgs and Goldstone coordinates using time-dependent density functional theory. This recites an abstract mathematical calculation.
Claim 16 discloses computing an optomechanical coupling coefficient, which recites an abstract mathematical calculation.
With respect to step 2A, prong two, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The following limitations are considered “additional elements” and explanation will be given as to why these “additional elements” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1
controlling the light-induced dynamics to identify sufficient non-linear susceptibility (The applicant’s original specification mentions “control” in paragraphs 0007, 0022-0023, and 0025. None of these sections detail what “control” entails, other than allowing for some sort of “deterministic” control. The examiner interprets the claimed control to be some sort of byproduct of the mathematical processes done by the preceding steps of determining a polarizability, extracting from the polarizability, and modelling light-induced dynamics. Alternatively, the claimed control may be some sort of computerized adjustment of data parameters based on the output of the mathematical steps. In the former case, this would merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In the latter case, this would merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). In either case, this limitation is not indicative of integration into a practical application. It does not appear that the claimed control represents a structural control that applies the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); or otherwise is indicative of integration into a practical application.)
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-16 depend on independent claim 1 and also recite its limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application by virtue of their dependence.
Some of the dependent claims also recite their own limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 5-9 start with, “wherein the test material is a material …” and then give details of a property or characteristic of the test material. These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they merely serve to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claims do not positively recite the structure of the test material. Rather, the claims are directed to data processing of data about the test material.
Dependent claim 14 discloses a processor and memory. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed invention does not add significantly more because, as discussed above in step 2A, prong two, the claims do nothing more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claims are directed to receiving and processing data. This is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, and specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo).
However, new claims 13 and 17 are considered to qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Under step 2A, prong two, they are considered to more specifically detail how the “control” is implemented, such that they are considered to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing under MPEP 2106.05(c).
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobrovska et al NPL (Bobrovska, N.; Matuszewski, M.; Liew, T.C.H.; and Kyriienko, O. – “Interactive optomechanical coupling with nonlinear polaritonic systems.”; PHYSICAL REVIEW B 95, 085309 (2017)) in view of Rips et al NPL (Rips, Simon and Hartmann, Michael J. - “Quantum Information Processing with Nanomechanical Qubits; Dated: November 5, 2018). Please note that this has the same title as the Rips NPL reference cited in the 10/09/25 reference, which was published in 2013. This reference was published in 2018.
With respect to claim 1, Bobrovska et al NPL discloses:
A method for identifying non-linear susceptibility in a test material (abstract states, “The emergent interactive coupling is shown to generate effective optical nonlinearity in terms of high order ...”; page 1, column 2, paragraph 2 states, “This corresponds to a seventh-order nonlinear susceptibility, typically inaccessible in optical systems … and introduces a highly nonlinear optical response.”; page 4, column 2, first paragraph of “IV. CONCLUSION” section states, “We have introduced the notion of interactive optomechanical coupling, which appears in generic systems where the strength of Kerr nonlinearity is influenced by a mechanical motion. It has a highly nonlinear character, and manifests itself as a seventh-order nonlinear susceptibility.”)
extracting an optomechanical coupling of the test material (abstract states, “This leads to an interactive type of optomechanical coupling, which is distinct from previously studied dispersive and dissipative couplings in optomechanical systems.” (emphasis Bobrovska et al NPL).; page 1, column 1, paragraph 2 states, “The essence of optomechanical coupling is the dependence of an optical cavity parameter … on the mechanical position …”; page 1, column 2, paragraph 2 states, “Here, we consider another form of optomechanical coupling, which arises from the dependence of the Kerr non-linearity on the mechanical oscillator position …”; The concept of optomechanical coupling is further disclosed throughout the disclosure of Bobrovska et al NPL.)
modeling light-induced dynamics, based on the optomechanical coupling of the test material (Light-induced dynamics are inherent to optomechanical coupling. Page 1, column 1, last paragraph – page 1, column 2, first paragraph states, “hybrid light-matter physics is studied using systems of semiconductor microcavities containing quantum wells … The resulting dipolariton resonances can be continuously tuned via an applied electric field, mixing the properties of indirect excitons with direct excitons, and light …”; Page 2, column 1, first paragraph in section II.A states, “We begin with a generic model which introduces interactive optomechanical coupling, represented by a nonlinear optical cavity coupled to a mechanical oscillator.”)
controlling the light-induced dynamics to identify sufficient non-linear susceptibility (Neither the applicant’s claims, nor specification, explain in detail how the claimed “controlling” is performed. Page 1, column 2, paragraph 2 of Bobrovska et al NPL states, “Here, we consider another form of optomechanical coupling, which arises from the dependence of the Kerr non-linearity on the mechanical oscillator position … Appearing from effective particle-particle interactions, this interactive coupling contains high-order terms … This corresponds to a seventh-order nonlinear susceptibility, typically inaccessible in optical systems … and introduces a highly nonlinear optical response.” (emphasis Bobrovska et al NPL). The examiner will broadly construe the disclosure of “mechanical oscillator position” and “interactive” to anticipate the claimed “controlling,” as the dynamics are “controlled” based on position in an interactive coupling.)
With respect to claim 1, Bobrovska et al NPL differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
determining a polarizability of the test material
extracting from the polarizability, an optomechanical coupling of the test material
With respect to claim 1, Rips et al NPL discloses:
determining a polarizability of the test material (page 6, first paragraph of section titled, “CNT-excitons and polarizability” states, “the polarizability can be estimated by …” (see equation (14) for polarizability equation).)
extracting from the polarizability, an optomechanical coupling of the test material (page 6, first paragraph of section titled, “CNT-excitons and polarizability” states, “Therefore, the strength of optomechanical coupling is proportional to the polarizability …” The inverse relationship implies extraction.)
With respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the complete teachings of Bobrovska et al NPL, including art that it incorporates by reference. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of improved quantum information processing.
Claim(s) 2-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobrovska et al NPL (Bobrovska, N.; Matuszewski, M.; Liew, T.C.H.; and Kyriienko, O. – “Interactive optomechanical coupling with nonlinear polaritonic systems.”; PHYSICAL REVIEW B 95, 085309 (2017)) in view of Rips et al NPL (Rips, Simon and Hartmann, Michael J. - “Quantum Information Processing with Nanomechanical Qubits; Dated: November 5, 2018), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Juraschek et al NPL (Juraschek, Dominik M; Meier, Quintin N; and Narang, Prineha – “Parametric Excitation of an Optically Silent Goldstone-Like Phonon Mode”; Physical Review Letters 124, 117401 (2020)).
With respect to claim 2, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
The method of claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 2, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that is does not explicitly disclose:
determining a dielectric tensor of the test material (page 2, column 2, paragraph 2 states, “We obtain the phonon eigenfrequencies, eigenvectors, and Born effective charge tensors using density functional perturbation theory …”; page 5, column 1, paragraph 2 states, “in which the temporal modulation of the frequency of the optical phonon mode results from a nonlinearity of the dielectric function in the phonon amplitude …” See also reference [58] on page 7, which was incorporated by reference. It discloses “dielectric permittivity tensors.”)
wherein the polarizability and the dielectric tensor are determined along Higgs and Goldstone coordinates of the test material using a time-dependent density functional theory (page 2, column 2, paragraph 2 discloses, “Density functional theory calculations.” Paragraph 3 in the same column discloses, “Nonlinear Higgs-Goldstone dynamics … the time evolution of the Higgs and Goldstone modes in response to a pulsed terahertz excitation …” This disclosure of time evolution in response to a pulse terahertz excitation implies time-dependent density functional theory. The claimed limitation is obvious.)
With respect to claim 2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Juraschek et al NPL into the invention of modified Bobrovska et al NPL. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of better understanding the excitation consequences of materials with broken symmetry.
With respect to claim 3, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein the light-induced dynamics along Higgs and Goldstone coordinates are determined using a mixed classical-quantum framework (The claims do not define “mixed classical-quantum framework.” However, Juraschek’s teaching of Born effective charge tensors appears to suggest a mixed classical-quantum framework. Also, figure 1 of Juraschek appears to disclose both crystallographic properties, as well as Higgs/Goldstone representation, which the examiner interprets as a mixed classical-quantum framework.)
With respect to claim 4, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
The method of claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 4, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
determining a total energy of the test material using density functional theory
With respect to claim 4, Juraschek at al NPL discloses:
determining a total energy of the test material using density functional theory (Page 2, column 2, paragraphs 2-3 state, “Density functional theory calculations.---We begin by calculating the structure properties of InMnO3 from first principles using the density functional theory formalism … We obtain the phonon eigenfrequencies, eigenvectors, and Born effective charge tensors using density functional perturbation theory … In order to obtain the nonlinear phonon couplings, we calculate the total energy as a function of ion displacement along the normal mode coordinates of the Higgs and Goldstone modes and then fit the resulting two-dimensional energy landscape to the potential V in Eq. (2) … To investigate the time evolution of the Higgs and Goldstone modes …” (emphasis mine).)
With respect to claim 4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Juraschek et al NPL into the invention of modified Bobrovska et al NPL. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of better understanding the excitation consequences of materials with broken symmetry.
With respect to claim 5, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
The method of claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 5, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the test material is a material having a structural ground- state of broken symmetry
With respect to claim 5, Juraschek at al NPL discloses:
wherein the test material is a material having a structural ground- state of broken symmetry (figure 1; page 1, column 1, paragraph 1 states, “Two particular excitations are Higgs and Goldstone modes, which correspond to the modulation of the amplitude and phase of an order parameter that breaks a continuous symmetry.”; page 2, column 1, second paragraph beneath figure 1 states, “This coupling is responsible for the minima in the brim of the Mexican hat and stabilizes the improper ferroelectric ground state …” which implies a structural ground-state of broken symmetry.)
With respect to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Juraschek et al NPL into the invention of modified Bobrovska et al NPL. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of better understanding the excitation consequences of materials with broken symmetry.
With respect to claim 6, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
The method of claim 5 (as applied to claim 5 above)
With respect to claim 6, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the test material is a material that exhibits dielectric contrast between its high symmetry phase and broken symmetry ground state
With respect to claim 6, Juraschek at al NPL discloses:
wherein the test material is a material that exhibits dielectric contrast between its high symmetry phase and broken symmetry ground state (charge density waves disclosed on page 1, column 1, paragraph 1 and page 2, column 1, first paragraph beneath figure 1; see also art that are incorporated by reference, such as references [22-24]. As discussed in paragraph 0022 of the applicant’s original specification, “In some embodiments, materials having broken symmetry ground-state with a dielectric contrast with the high symmetry phase, irrespective of the stability of the high symmetry phase, including rare earth nickelates … charge density materials, or other materials having broken symmetry ground-states may be used as the test material …” Here, the applicant appears to give charge density wave materials and other materials having broken symmetry ground-states as examples of test materials that satisfy the claimed limitation. Juraschek et al NPL discloses both charge density waves and materials having broken symmetry ground-states (see rejection of claim 5 above). The claimed limitation would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.)
With respect to claim 6, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Juraschek et al NPL into the invention of modified Bobrovska et al NPL. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of better understanding the excitation consequences of materials with broken symmetry.
With respect to claim 7, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
The method of claim 5 (as applied to claim 5 above)
With respect to claim 7, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the test material is a material that exhibits charge density waves
With respect to claim 7, Juraschek at al NPL discloses:
wherein the test material is a material that exhibits charge density waves (charge density waves disclosed on page 1, column 1, paragraph 1 and page 2, column 1, first paragraph beneath figure 1; see also art that are incorporated by reference, such as references [22-24].)
With respect to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Juraschek et al NPL into the invention of modified Bobrovska et al NPL. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of better understanding the excitation consequences of materials with broken symmetry.
With respect to claim 8, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein the test material is a material that exhibits a metal-insulator transition coupled to its structural distortion (Bobrovska et al NPL incorporates various art that teaches the concept of a “Mott transition.” For example, Carusotto et al NPL (Carusotto, Iacopo and Ciuti, Cristiano – “Quantum fluids of light”; Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol 85, January-March 2013.) was incorporated by reference, as reference [29] on page 5, column 2 of Bobrovska et al NPL. It is therefore being applied as a non-modifying clarifying reference. Carusotto et al NPL page 330, column 1, paragraph 1 states, “A similar amplitude mode is encountered in many contexts of condensed-matter physics when a continuous symmetry is spontaneously broken at a thermal or quantum phase transition. The simplest case is the superfluid to Mott-insulator transition for bosons in a lattice.” Juraschek et al NPL also incorporates by reference multiple pieces of art that discuss Mott (see references [6] and [74] on pages 5 and 7 respectively). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that a Mott transition is a transition from a metal to an insulator. As a non-modifying illuminating reference, please note the attached 04-19-22 Wikipedia Entry on Mott insulators. Paragraph 1 of that entry explicitly states, “A Mott transition is a transition from a metal to an insulator, driven by the strong interactions between electrons.” (emphasis Wikipedia).)
With respect to claim 9, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein the test material is a material that exhibits a metal-insulator transition coupled to its structural distortion (see rationale given in claim 8 above)
With respect to claim 10, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
The method of claim 1 (as applied to claim 1 above)
With respect to claim 10, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose:
determining regular orbits by testing along Higgs and Goldstone structural coordinates in the light-induced dynamics of the test material
With respect to claim 10, Juraschek at al NPL discloses:
determining regular orbits by testing along Higgs and Goldstone structural coordinates in the light-induced dynamics of the test material (obvious in view of applying the Higgs and Goldstone teachings of Juraschek et al NPL to Bobrovska et al NPL. Please note that Juraschek et al incorporates, by reference, art directed to orbital magnetic moments of phonons (see reference [75] on page 7).)
With respect to claim 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Juraschek et al NPL into the invention of modified Bobrovska et al NPL. The motivation for the skilled artisan in doing so is to gain the benefit of better understanding the excitation consequences of materials with broken symmetry.
With respect to claim 11, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
analyzing susceptibility fluctuations along the regular orbits generated by the optomechanical coupling (obvious in view of applying the Higgs and Goldstone teachings of Juraschek et al NPL to the susceptibility and optomechanical coupling teachings of Bobrovska et al NPL. Please also note art incorporated, by reference, into both Juraschek et al NPL and Bobrovska et al NPL.)
With respect to claim 12, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein non-linear susceptibility in the test material comprises a third-order susceptibility (obvious in view of combination; Juraschek et al NPL page 1, column 2 states, As hyper-Raman scattering is a third-order interaction …)
With respect to claim 13, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein controlling the light-induced dynamics comprises applying an optical pulse to the test material to induce a structural phase transition (obvious in view of combination; Juraschek et al NPL abstract states, “we describe the coupled Higgs-Goldstone dynamics in response to the excitation with a terahertz pulse.”)
With respect to claim 14, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein the method is implemented by a computing system comprising a processor and memory storing instructions for performing time-dependent density functional theory calculations (Using a computer system comprising a process and memory storing instructions would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Page 3, column 2, paragraph 2 of Juraschek et al NPL states, “As the calculation of phonon linewidths is computationally challenging …” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the complex calculations performed by modified Bobrovska et al NPL would require a computer, with a processor and memory.)
With respect to claim 15, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein determining the polarizability comprises computing a frequency-dependent dielectric function along Higgs and Goldstone coordinates using time-dependent density functional theory (obvious in view of combination; As discussed above, Juraschek discloses nonlinear Higgs-Goldstone dynamics for density functional theory calculations, which tracks the time evolution of the Higgs and Goldstone modes in response to a pulsed terahertz excitation (page 2, column 2, paragraphs 2-3). This suggests time-dependent density functional theory. Juraschek also teaches dielectric function (page 5, column 1, paragraph 2)
With respect to claim 16, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein extracting the optomechanical coupling comprises differentiating the polarizability with respect to the amplitude mode coordinate to compute an optomechanical coupling coefficient (obvious in view of combination; Juraschek discloses Higgs and Goldstone coordinates. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that Higgs mode represents amplitude.)
With respect to claim 17, Bobrovska et al NPL, as modified, discloses:
wherein controlling the light-induced dynamics comprises adjusting pulse polarization, frequency, and intensity to achieve a third-order susceptibility greater than four orders of magnitude above diamond (obvious in view of combination; Bobrovska et al NPL abstract states, “The emergent interactive couplings is shown to generate effective optical nonlinearity terms of high order. Bobrovska et al NPL page 2, column 2, last paragraph before section C states, “In order to introduce an in situ controllable coupling and enlarge the magnitude of the interactive coupling …” Controlling parameters to enlarge magnitude, even to the claimed orders of magnitude above diamond would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the structural principles of Bobrovska’s teachings.)
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 LEONARD S LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2148. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7 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, ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ can be reached at (571)272-2619. 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.
/LEONARD S LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 05/08/26
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights