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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed August 11, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-7, 9-19 and 27 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. A new ground(s) of rejection is necessitated by the amendment. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-19 and 27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-2, 4, 7, 17-18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. US 20210278486 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Yamada).
Regarding claim 1, Schwindt discloses an atomic magnetometer (fig. 1, elm. 10, col. 7, ln.66-67) comprising: a pump laser (fig. 1, laser 20, col. 8, ln. 17-18); a probe laser (fig. 1, laser 30, col. 9, ln. 38); an atomic vapor cell (fig. 1, vapor cell 12, col. 7, ln. 66-67); a field coil (fig. 1, coils 48, col. 10, ln. 53-54); and a detector (fig. 1, photodetectors 40, col. 10, ln. 33-34); wherein the pump laser is configured to generate light pulses (fig. 1, pump light beam 18, col. 8, ln. 17-18) into the atomic vapor cell along a pump axis (clm., 1, 2); the probe laser is configured to generate a probe light (fig. 1, probe light beam 28, col. 9, ln. 38) into the atomic vapor cell; and the detector is configured to detect a signal from the atomic vapor cell (col. 7, ln. 54-60).
Schwindt does not disclose the field coil is configured to, during pumping in the magnetometer and to aid the pumping, increase a background magnetic field of the atomic vapor cell, by generating pulsed magnetic field that has a component parallel to the pump axis.
Yamada discloses the field coil (fig. 1-2, coil unit 6, par. [0032], [0042]) is configured to, during pumping in the magnetometer (fig. 1-2, optically pumped magnetometer 1, par. [0032], [0042]) and to aid the pumping, increase a background magnetic field (static magnetic field, par. [0007]-[0008]) of the atomic vapor cell (fig. 1-2, cell 2, par. [0032], [0042]), by generating pulsed magnetic field (fig. 4, 6, magnetic pulse is output from a measurement object, par. [0051]-[0052], [0059]-[0060]) that has a component parallel to the pump axis (fig. 1-2, static magnetic field axis ASM is the same as the direction of the pump optical axis AP, par. [0032], [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optically pumped magnetometer with a cell filled with an alkali metal, signal output unit receives a magnetism-related output signal received from the cell based on the probe light that is passed through the cell. A coil unit that generates a static magnetic field along a pump optical axis in a region of disposition of the cell; and a computer that controls operation of the coil unit. The computer outputs a first control signal to set an intensity of the static magnetic field to a first intensity, and a second control signal to set the intensity of the static magnetic field to a second intensity different from the first intensity, as taught in Yamada in modifying the apparatus of Schwindt. The motivation would be measurable frequency band of magnetism is expanded and the sensitivity of the measurement of the magnetic pulse is improved (see Yamada: abs. par. [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Schwindt and Yamada discloses the magnetometer of claim 1, Schwindt discloses wherein the pump laser is pulsed on one or more times during a pumping phase and switched off during a probing phase (col. 5, ln. 1-6).
Regarding claim 4, Schwindt and Yamada discloses the magnetometer of claim 1, Schwindt discloses wherein the field coil is attached to a surface of the atomic vapor cell (see fig. 1, col. 10, ln. 54-56).
Regarding claim 7, Schwindt and Yamada discloses the magnetometer of claim 1, Schwindt discloses wherein the magnetometer has a sensor geometry that is long on one axis and with the pumping axis perpendicular to the long axis (col. 2, ln. 1-6) and wherein the sensor geometry can be rotated along its long axis to reorient the pumping axis (col. 10, ln. 11-19).
Regarding claim 17, Schwindt and Yamada discloses the magnetometer of claim 1, Schwindt discloses wherein the pump and probe lasers are arranged such that light beams from the pump laser and probe laser overlap (col. 3, ln. 64-67).
Regarding claim 18, Schwindt and Yamada discloses the magnetometer of claim 17, Schwindt discloses further comprising a quarter waveplate (fig. 1, waveplate 26, col. 8, ln. 29-34) configured to affect polarization states of the light beams from the pump and probe lasers (col. 7, ln. 48-53).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt in view of Yamada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gerginov US 2022/0091200 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Schwindt and Yamada discloses the magnetometer of claim 1, Schwindt and Yamada do not disclose wherein the field coil is pulsed on during the pumping phase and switched off during the probing phase off.
Gerginov disclose wherein the field coil is pulsed on during the pumping phase and switched off during the probing phase off (par. [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide optically pumped magnetometers operating in a nonzero DC bias magnetic field, as taught in Gerginov in modifying the apparatus of Schwindt and Yamada. The motivation would be increases the degree of atomic polarization in optically-pumped magnetometers based on zeroing the bias field during the optical pumping process (see Gerginov: pg. [0007]).
Regarding claim 6, Schwindt and Yamada discloses the magnetometer of claim 2, Schwindt and Yamada do not disclose wherein the pump laser pulsed on duration is longer than the Larmor precession period of the atomic vapor but shorter than the detection period.
Gerginov discloses wherein the pump laser pulsed on duration is longer than the Larmor precession period of the atomic vapor (par. [0056]) but shorter than the detection (fig. 3, par. [0059]).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 3.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt in view of Yamada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liberman et al. US 5,670,914 A (hereinafter referred to as Liberman).
Regarding claim 5, Schwindt and Yamada discloses the magnetometer of claim 1, Schwindt and Yamada do not disclose wherein the field coil contributes to heating of the atomic vapor cell.
Liberman discloses wherein the field coil (fig. 1, elm. 67, col. 4, ln. 58) contributes to heating (col. 2, ln. 44-50) of the atomic vapor cell (fig. 1, elm. 7, col. 3, ln. 63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wind C-field coil on the thermal insulation just inside the magnetic shield, as taught in Liberman in modifying the apparatus of Schwindt and Yamada. The motivation would be to reduce heat loss by conduction (see Liberman: abs.).
Claim(s) 9-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt in view of Yamada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leger US 5,436,561 A.
Regarding claim 9, Schwindt and Yamada discloses the magnetometer of claim 1, Schwindt and Yamada do not disclose wherein the pump laser is tuned by temperature with a heater designed to reach the correct pump wavelength at a temperature above the ambient operating temperature.
Leger discloses wherein the pump laser (fig. 4, elm. 30, abs.) is tuned by temperature with a heater (fig. 4, elm. 52, col 5, ln. 36-37) designed to reach the correct pump wavelength at a temperature above the ambient operating temperature (col 5, ln. 34-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a thermoregulated chamber with a heating coil, as taught in Leger in modifying the apparatus of Schwindt and Yamada. The motivation would be to control the wavelength emitted by the laser. (see Leger: col. 5, ln. 23-40).
Regarding claim 10, Schwindt, Yamada and Leger discloses the magnetometer of claim 9, Leger discloses wherein the pump laser is configured to generate light with wavelength selected by an internal grating tuned by temperature( clm. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a laser includes crystal or fiber ensuring whose length is modulated to provide both a wavelength and amplitude control, as taught in Leger in modifying the apparatus of Schwindt and Yamada. The motivation would be wavelength selection means by controlling the temperature of the laser crystal. (see Leger: col. 3, ln. 50-53).
Regarding claim 11, Schwindt, Yamada and Leger discloses the magnetometer of claim 9, Leger discloses wherein the pump laser (fig. 4, elm. 30, abs.) is configured to generate light with wavelength selected by an external grating tuned by temperature (fig. 3, elm. 44, col. 5, ln. 16-22).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, Schwindt and Yamada discloses the magnetometer of claim 1, Schwindt and Yamada do not disclose wherein the pump laser comprises a wavelength-selective element configured to operate at a designated wavelength at the same temperature.
Leger discloses wherein the pump laser (fig. 2, elm. 30, abs.) comprises a wavelength-selective element (fig. 2, elm. 32, col. 5, ln. 2-15) configured to operate at a designated wavelength at the same temperature (fig. 4, col 5, ln. 34-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a laser includes crystal or fiber ensuring whose length is modulated to provide both a wavelength and amplitude control, as taught in Leger in modifying the apparatus of Schwindt and Yamada. The motivation would be wavelength selection means by controlling the temperature of the laser crystal. (see Leger: col. 3, ln. 50-53).
Regarding claim 16, Schwindt, Yamada and Leger discloses the magnetometer of claim 12, Leger discloses wherein the wavelength-selective element is a grating (fig. 3, elm. 44, col. 5, ln. 16-22).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 12.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt in view of Yamada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hahn et al. US 2017/0343621 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Hahn).
Regarding claim 13, Schwindt and Yamada discloses the magnetometer of claim 1, Schwindt and Yamada do not disclose wherein the pump laser is pulsed by a pulse driver internal to a magnetometer package.
Hahn discloses wherein the pump laser (fig. 26, elm. 2610, par. [0123]) is pulsed by a pulse driver (fig. 26, elm. 2630, par. [0124]) internal to a magnetometer package (fig. 26, elm. 2500, par. [0123]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide magnetometer that includes an excitation source, a magneto-optical defect center element, a collection device, a top plate, a bottom plate, and a printed circuit board, as taught in Hahn in modifying the apparatus of Schwindt and Yamada. The motivation would be to ensures that electrical contact etchings on the PCB can be used to electrically couple a corresponding circuitry to each corresponding component, thus eliminating unnecessary connections and/or wiring between components. (see Hahn: par. [0070]).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt in view of Yamada in view of Hahn as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Zheng CN 209133839 U.
Regarding claim 14, Schwindt, Yamada and Hahn discloses the magnetometer of claim 13, Schwindt, Yamada and Hahn do not explicitly disclose wherein the pulse driver is made with substantially non-magnetic components.
Zheng discloses wherein the pulse driver (fig. 1, semiconductor laser pump power, 2nd par.) is made with substantially non-magnetic components (fig. 2, non-magnetic elements, 4th par. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a semiconductor laser pump power provided by the utility model of the storage capacitor connected in series with an external laser, charging channel in parallel at the two ends of the laser, so it only uses two leads that can be connected with the constant-current charge unit as taught in Zheng in modifying the apparatus of Schwindt, Yamada and Hahn. The motivation would be to reduce the complexity of system and improves reliability and reduces the production cost. (see Zheng: abs.).
Regarding claim 15, Schwindt, Yamada and Hahn discloses the magnetometer of claim 13, Schwindt, Yamada and Hahn do not explicitly disclose wherein the pulse driver contains a capacitor that is charged only during specific periods.
Zheng discloses wherein the pulse driver (fig. 1, laser pump power) contains a capacitor (fig. 1, elm. 6, 2nd par.) that is charged only during specific periods (2nd par.) .
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 14.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt in view of Yamada in view of Gerginov.
Regarding claim 19, Schwindt discloses a method of operating a magnetometer comprising: providing an atomic magnetometer (fig. 1, elm. 10, col. 7, ln.66-67) that comprises a pump laser (fig. 1, laser 20, col. 8, ln. 17-18); a probe laser (fig. 1, laser 30, col. 9, ln. 38); an atomic vapor cell (fig. 1, vapor cell 12, col. 7, ln. 66-67); a field coil (fig. 1, coils 48, col. 10, ln. 53-54); and a detector (fig. 1, photodetectors 40, col. 10, ln. 33-34); wherein the pump laser is configured to generate light pulses (fig. 1, pump light beam 18, col. 8, ln. 17-18) into the atomic vapor cell along a pump axis (clm., 1, 2); the field coil is configured to generate a magnetic field parallel to the pump axis (col. 16, ln. 1-2); the probe laser is configured to generate a probe light (fig. 1, probe light beam 28, col. 9, ln. 38) into the atomic vapor cell; and the detector is configured to detect a signal (optical rotation of a linearly polarized probe light beam, col. 10, ln. 17-19) from the atomic vapor cell; providing a probe light (fig. 1, probe light beam 28, col. 9, ln. 38) to the atomic vapor cell using the probe laser (fig. 1, laser 30, col. 9, ln. 38) during a detection phase; and detecting a signal (signal 42, col. 10, ln. 36-38) from the atomic vapor cell using the detector.
Schwindt does not disclose field coil is configured to generate a pulsed magnetic field that has a component parallel to the pump axis; optically pumping the atomic vapor cell along the pump axis using the pulsed laser during a pumping phase with a pulse duration shorter than the Larmor period of the atoms in the atomic vapor cell from the atomic vapor cell; during pumping in the magnetometer and to aid the pumping, increasing, using the field coil, a background magnetic field of the atomic vapor cell, by generating the pulsed magnetic field that has a component parallel to the pump axis; providing a probe light to the atomic vapor cell using the probe laser during a detection phase; and detecting a signal from the atomic vapor cell using the detector.
Yamada discloses field coil (fig. 1-2, coil unit 6, par. [0032], [0042]) is configured to generate a pulsed magnetic field that has a component parallel to the pump axis (fig. 1-2, static magnetic field axis ASM is the same as the direction of the pump optical axis AP, par. [0032], [0042]) ; during pumping in the magnetometer (fig. 1-2, optically pumped magnetometer 1, par. [0032], [0042]) and to aid the pumping, increasing (par. [0004], [0058]-[0060]), using the field coil, a background magnetic field (static magnetic field, par. [0007]-[0008]) of the atomic vapor cell, (fig. 1-2, cell 2, par. [0032], [0042]), by generating the pulsed magnetic field (fig. 4, 6, magnetic pulse is output from a measurement object, par. [0051]-[0052], [0059]-[0060]) that has a component parallel to the pump axis (par. [0032], [0042]); providing a probe light (fig. 1-2, probe light source 4, par. [0032]) to the atomic vapor cell (fig. 1, vapor cell 12, col. 7, ln. 66-67) using the probe laser (par. [0038]) during a detection phase; and detecting a signal (fig. 4, 6, output signal, par. [0050]-[0052], [0057]-[0060]) from the atomic vapor cell using the detector (fig. 1-2. signal output unit 5, par. [0032], [0050]).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 1.
Gerginov discloses optically pumping the atomic vapor cell (fig. 19, vapor cell 1902, par. [0087]) along the pump axis using the pulsed laser during a pumping phase with a pulse duration shorter than the Larmor period of the atoms (par. [0070]) in the atomic vapor cell;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide optically pumped magnetometers operating in a nonzero DC bias magnetic field, as taught in Gerginov in modifying the apparatus of Schwindt and Yamada. The motivation would be increases the degree of atomic polarization in optically-pumped magnetometers based on zeroing the bias field during the optical pumping process (see Gerginov: pg. [0007]).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt in view of Yamada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Louis et al. US 3,133,243 A (hereinafter referred to as Louis).
Regarding claim 27, Schwindt and Yamada discloses the magnetometer of claim 1, Schwindt and Yamada do not disclose wherein the magnetic field coil is configured to be turned off faster than a Larmor precession period of a gas in one of the at least one atomic vapor cell.
Louis discloses wherein the magnetic field coil (fig. 1, elm. 6, col. 6, ln. 42-50)is configured to be turned off (fig. 1, switching device A, col. 6, ln. 49-55) faster than a Larmor precession period of a gas in one of the at least one atomic vapor cell (col. 5, ln. 30-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the free precession frequency of a system of atomic nuclei, in the magnetic field to be measured, this frequency being, as taught in Louis in modifying the apparatus of Schwindt and Yamada. The motivation would be to accurate measure of weak magnetic fields. (see Louis: col. 1, ln. 10-20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 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, EMAN ALKAFAWI can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
9/2/2026
Prosecution Insights