DETAILED ACTION
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 filed on 12/22/25 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in the independent claim(s).
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/22/25 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive. The remarks argue that Cashen does not teach the cartridge being detachably installed and removable through the access port as claimed, because Cashen requires crushing of the tube and thus it would not be possible to remove the tube after emission of the ions. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the cartridge could read on the metal tube in Cashen, which would be inserted through the access port in the side of the vacuum chamber, crushed, and then is removable through the same access port to dispose of the used cartridge. Examiner respectfully suggests further clarifying the structure of the cartridge and holder. Although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention claimed, the language of Applicant's claims are sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s).
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cashen et al. (US 20210345475 A1) [hereinafter Cashen].
Regarding claim 1, Cashen teaches an atomic beam generation device, comprising:
a cartridge (see e.g. fig 2: 32) that includes a holder (see e.g. interior of 34, 44) accommodating an atom source (see e.g. 38); and
a main body (see e.g. 62, 66) where the cartridge is installed (see fig 2),
wherein the main body comprises:
an installation portion (see e.g. around, in 66) where the cartridge is detachably installed (see via mounting flange, 64; alternately see fig 6d-f);
a temperature adjustment mechanism (some kind of external power source required for intended operation of system, see [0032], various sources [0032,34]) that adjusts a temperature of the atom source accommodated in the cartridge installed in the installation portion (via e.g. resistive, inductive heating, [0032]);
an access port (see port formed on 62) which is provided on an atmosphere side residing outside of the main body (see sealing vacuum chamber, fig 2, e.g. [0037,45,5]) and through which the cartridge is inserted into and taken out from the main body (see fig 2); and
a pathway from the access port to the installation portion (required for intended operation of mounting and unmounting the flange 64, see fig 2, e.g. [0037-38]), and
wherein, by causing the temperature adjustment mechanism to adjust the temperature of the atom source (during heating, see e.g. [0004]), atomic gas generated from the atom source is emitted as an atomic beam from the main body to a vacuum side residing outside of the main body (to the right in figs 2, 4, beam passing further into different parts of the vacuum chamber, see fig 2, fig 4, [0026,41]), and
Cashen may fail to explicitly disclose the temperature adjustment mechanism being in the main body.
However, some kind of external power control would have been required for the intended operation of powering the heat source for the atom source, and the use of external heaters/heater controls was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to provide one of the power sources/controllers mounted on part of the main body, as a routine skill in the art to hold the system together and prevent loose wires. It is alternately noted that these power sources (e.g. inductive, radiative, resistive, [0032]) would naturally be heaters. Further, alternately the heating element and the inner portion (36) in Cashen may be read as part of the main body, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Furthermore, it is noted that the geometry and materials in the chamber and holder may read on the limitation since they adjust relative temperatures due to radiative insulation (see [0034]).
Cashen may fail to explicitly disclose the cartridge is removable through the access port after the atomic beam is emitted. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to remove the used cartridge via the bolted mounting flange, to reload the system for further or different atomic species. It is further noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
(Mapping of claimed elements to Cashen (annotated))
PNG
media_image2.png
1705
2409
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox ((annotated))][AltContent: textbox (Cartridge)][AltContent: textbox (Installation portion)][AltContent: textbox (Access port)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Holder)][AltContent: textbox (Atom source)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: rect][AltContent: connector]
Regarding claim 6, Cashen teaches the cartridge further includes an aperture (see Cashen, fig 2: 40) integrated in the holder, and the atomic gas generated from the atom source is emitted on the vacuum side through the aperture (see fig 2). Cashen may fail to explicitly disclose the aperture being a nozzle. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the aperture array (see [0031]) may be read as a nozzle. Furthermore, Cashen teaches the use of nozzles was well known in the art (see fig 4: 80).
Regarding claim 8, Cashen teaches wherein the atom source is an atom source that generates the atomic gas by being heated (see Cashen, e.g. [0032]), the temperature adjustment mechanism is a heater that heats the atom source (see [0032], 42), and the nozzle is sealed with an openable seal (see 44) that is melted by being heated by the heater (see also e.g. claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Cashen teaches a physics package (see e.g. Cashen, fig 2), comprising: the atomic beam generation device according to claim 1 (see fig 2); and a vacuum chamber (e.g. interior of 62) that encloses a clock transition space where atoms are arranged (see fig 2).
Regarding claim 12, Cashen teaches the physics package is for an atomic clock (see Cashen, [0002]).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cashen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Padrta (US 3458699 A).
Regarding claim 2, Cashen may fail to explicitly disclose a press mechanism that pushes the cartridge installed in the installation portion from a side of the access port to a side of the installation portion. However, the some kind of manual or automatic means would have been required for intended operation of pushing the cartridge into the installation portion from the side access port (see Cashen, fig 2). The use of press mechanisms was well known in the art. For example, Padrta teaches a sample vial self-alignment and vacuum lock system that protects a vial from breakage during installation (see Padrta, col 2, lines 6-21) while using vacuum locks to prevent air contamination (see e.g. col 1, lines 51-57), comprising a press mechanism (see e.g. fig 1: 7) that pushes the cartridge (see 8) installed in the installation portion from a side of the access port to a side of the installation portion (see fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Padrta in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to improve vial alignment and protection, enabling use of vacuum locks, and/or enabling manipulation of cartridges far from operator interfaces, and to enable the intended operation of the system, in the manner taught by Padrta.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Cashen and Padrta may fail to explicitly disclose the press mechanism pushes the cartridge toward the installation portion using an elastic spring force of a spring. However, in a different embodiment, Padrta teaches using a spring connection that can be used to counteract any bending and improve alignment (see Padrta, col 5, 36-52), comprising wherein the press mechanism pushes the cartridge toward the installation portion using an elastic spring force of a spring (natural result of restoring force when moving the cartridge towards the installation portion).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Cashen and Padrta teaches an outer peripheral surface of the holder (e.g. comprising Padrta, fig 1: 9) has a tapered shape toward a distal end of the holder (see e.g. threaded shapes around 11), and a surface of the installation portion on which the cartridge is installed (reading 2, 7 as part of installation portion) has a flared shape conforming to the shape of an outer peripheral surface of the holder (threads on 11 are flared).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Cashen may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Padrta, for similar reasons as claim 2 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Cashen and Padrta teaches wherein a threaded groove (see on Padrta, fig 1: 11 attached to 7) is formed in a surface of the installation portion on which the cartridge is installed (reading 2, 7 as part of installation portion), and a threaded groove (see 11 attached to 9) meshing with the thread groove of the installation portion is formed in an outer peripheral surface of the holder (reading 9 as part of holder).
Claim(s) 7, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cashen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hughes et al. (US 20150200029 A1) [hereinafter Hughes].
Regarding claim 7, Cashen may fail to explicitly disclose the temperature adjustment mechanism is installed around a distal end of the nozzle. However, Hughes teaches that additional heaters may be utilized to enable the ability to better control the temperature gradient along the atom source cell (see Hughes, [0067-68]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Hughes in the system of the prior art, including providing heaters around the distal end of the nozzle, in order to try to increase capacity and control over heating, including additional control over the temperature gradient, in the manner taught by Hughes.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Cashen may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Hughes, for similar reasons as claim 7 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Cashen and Hughes teaches wherein the physics package is for an atom interferometer (see Hughes, [0073]). It is also noted a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teaching of Cashen may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Hughes, for similar reasons as claim 7 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Cashen and Hughes teaches wherein the physics package is for a quantum information processing device for atoms or ionized atoms (see Hughes, [0034]). It is also noted a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Claim(s) 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cashen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al., Magneto-optical trap for neutral mercury atoms, Chinese Phys. B 22 043701 (2013) [hereinafter Liu].
Regarding claim 9, Cashen may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the atom source is an atom source that generates the atomic gas by being cooled, and the temperature adjustment mechanism is a cooling mechanism that cools the atom source. However, the use of cooling for atom sources for different species was well known in the art at the time the application was effectively filed. For example, Liu teaches using mercury atoms for use in an optical lattice clock, comprising wherein the atom source is an atom source that generates the atomic gas by being cooled (natural result of mercury, see Liu, e.g. p2, col 1, para 1), and the temperature adjustment mechanism is a cooling mechanism that cools the atom source (see same). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Liu in the system of the prior art in order to enable the additional ability to cool the atom source and enable use of different atoms, including enabling use of the known effective mercury ions for atomic lattice clocks, in the manner taught by Liu.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teaching of Cashen may fail to explicitly disclose the claimed limitation(s). However, the differences would have been obvious in view of Liu, for similar reasons as claim 9 above. Therefore, the combined teaching of Cashen and Liu teaches wherein the physics package is for an optical lattice clock (see Liu, abstract). It is also noted a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
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 extension fee 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 James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am – 5:30 pm M-T, and every other 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, Robert Kim can be reached on (571) 272 – 2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 – 8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights