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 .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference label “Photon 3” has been used to designate both the 2nd photon and the 3rd photon. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 7, 9, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bornman et al. (“Bornman”) (Bornman, N., Agnew, M., Zhu, F. et al. Ghost imaging using entanglement-swapped photons. npj Quantum Inf 5, 63 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-019-0176-5).
Regarding claim 7, Bornman discloses a method comprising: obtaining, at a server via a first optical fiber, a second photon of a first pair of entangled photons that includes the second photon and a first photon (fig. 1b and its description, and Results section 1st paragraph, photon B of the A/B entangle pair, to the Bell-state measurement arrangement and page 2 col. 1 full paragraph; the arrangement reads on “server” under the BRI in light of the specification, since the disclosure uses “server” to broadly refer to quantum network and entanglement swapping postprocessing subject matter presented as symbolic rectangles, which diverges from the plain meaning of server in the art); obtaining, at the server via a second optical fiber from a second location, a third photon of a second pair of entangled photons that includes the third photon and a fourth photon (fig. 1b photon C and Results section 1st paragraph); entanglement swapping the second photon and the third photon to entangle the first photon and the fourth photon (Methods section 1st paragraph); and providing an indication that the entanglement swapping was successful and configured to facilitate generation of a ghost image from the fourth photon, of an object interacted with by the first photon (fig. 1b and its description and page 3 col. 1 1st full paragraph, ghost image λ, the output of the path A detector providing indication). The claimed two locations are not particular and are not functionally consequential in the claim, thus the difference between the claimed component locations and Bornman’s component locations is mere rearrangement of parts, which is a prima facie obvious difference (see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). It would have been obvious to have the indication and ghost image generation at a second location, because the claimed particular placement is a prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a mere arrangement of parts difference that does not affect the function/operation the arrangement, per MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 9, Bornman discloses the method of claim 7, wherein entanglement swapping the second photon and the third photon comprises entanglement swapping the second photon and the third photon in a quantum network (Bornman: fig. 1b and its description, the Bell-state measurement arrangement reads on quantum network, page 2 col. 1 full paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Bornman discloses the method of claim 7, wherein entanglement swapping the second photon and the third photon comprises performing a Bell-state measurement on the second photon and the third photon (Bornman: fig. 1b and its description, the Bell-state measurement arrangement reads on quantum network, page 2 col. 1 full paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, Bornman discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber comprise multimode optical fibers (Bornman: Methods section last paragraph).
Claims 1-6, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bornman et al. (“Bornman”) (Bornman, N., Agnew, M., Zhu, F. et al. Ghost imaging using entanglement-swapped photons. npj Quantum Inf 5, 63 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-019-0176-5) in view of Spillane et al. (“Spillane”) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0037996).
Regarding claim 1, Bornman discloses a method comprising: generating, at a first location, a first pair of entangled photons comprising a first photon and a second photon at a telecommunication wavelength (fig. 1b and its description, photons A and B and section Methods); interacting the first photon with an object (fig. 1b and its description, element λ and page 2, the paragraph spanning col. 1 and 2); detecting, at the first location, the first photon at a detector without spatial resolution (fig. 1b and its description, path A detector detecting “a photon” and page 2 col. 2 first full paragraph, in light of Introduction section 3rd-4th paragraphs); providing the second photon to a server via an optical fiber, wherein the second photon is configured to be entanglement swapped with a third photon of a second pair of entangled photons generated at a second location to entangle the first photon with a fourth photon of the second pair of entangled photons (fig. 1b and its description, the Bell-state measurement arrangement and page 2 col. 1 full paragraph; the arrangement reads on “server” under the BRI in light of the specification, since the disclosure uses “server” to broadly refer to quantum network and entanglement swapping postprocessing subject matter presented as symbolic rectangles, which diverges from the plain meaning of server in the art); and providing an indication of the detecting the first photon (fig. 1b and its description, the output of the path A detector), wherein the indication is configured to facilitate generation of a ghost image of the object from the fourth photon (fig. 1b and its description and page 3 col. 1 1st full paragraph, ghost image λ). Bornman does not disclose that the first and second photons are different wavelengths or that the indication and ghost image generation is at a second location. Spillane discloses a source for producing entangled photons at different wavelengths (fig. 8 and paragraph 0116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the source of Bornman to generate the entangled photons on two different wavelengths, as taught by Spillane, to provide the benefit of the ability to filter or direct by wavelength in addition to by physical path.
Further, the claimed two locations are not particular and are not functionally consequential in the claim, thus the difference between the claimed component locations and Bornman’s component locations is mere rearrangement of parts, which is a prima facie obvious difference (see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). It would have been obvious to have the indication and ghost image generation at a second location, because the claimed particular placement is an prima facie obvious matter of design choice for a mere arrangement of parts difference that does not affect the function/operation the arrangement, per MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bornman and Spillane discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first wavelength comprises a visible or near infrared wavelength (Bornman: Method section first paragraph and Spillane: paragraph 0116, as applicable for the modification).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bornman and Spillane discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the telecommunication wavelength comprises a wavelength between 1260 nm and 1675 nm, inclusive (Spillane: paragraph 0116, as applicable for the modification).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bornman and Hodges discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the optical fiber comprises a multimode optical fiber (Bornman: Methods section last paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bornman and Hodges discloses the method of claim 1, wherein providing the indication of the detecting the first photon comprises providing the indication to the second location via the server (Bornman: fig. 1b and its description, the Bell-state arrangement, as applicable for the obvious location modification).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bornman and Hodges discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the detector without spatial resolution comprises a photon bucket detector (Bornman: Introduction section 3rd-4th paragraphs).
Regarding claim 11, Bornman discloses the method of claim 7, but does not disclose that the second photon has a first telecommunication wavelength, and the third photon has a second telecommunication wavelength. Spillane discloses a source for producing entangled photons at different wavelengths (fig. 8 and paragraph 0116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the source of Bornman to generate the entangled photons on two different wavelengths, among the values taught by Spillane, to provide the benefit of the ability to filter or direct by wavelength in addition to by physical path.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bornman and Spillane discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the first telecommunication wavelength and the second telecommunication wavelength are between 1260 nm and 1675 nm, inclusive (Spillane: paragraph 0116, as applicable for the combination).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 13 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.
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ghost imaging related – US Patent No. 8242428; US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0340570.
Quantum communication with entanglement – US Patent No. 11728902; US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0046754.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN M CORS whose telephone number is (571)272-3028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at 571-272-3078. 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.
/NATHAN M CORS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634