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 .
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 1-3, 7-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokish (US 20220062938 A1) in view of Natarajan (US 6,319,554 B1) and in further view of LibreTexts (LibreText Chemistry, “8.3: Factors Affecting Reaction Rates (Kinetics)”, 8.3: Factors Affecting Reaction Rates (Kinetics) - Chemistry LibreTexts, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Kokish teaches a method for dispensing atomic objects (Abstract), the method comprising:
Depositing a reaction component and a composition comprising the atomic objects inside a crucible chamber of a crucible (oven), wherein the crucible is disposed within a pressure-controlled chamber ([0006]), and
Heating the composition comprising the atomic objects to an atomizing reaction temperature to cause an atomizing chemical reaction to occur ([0006]), wherein (a) the reaction component comprises tantalum ([0007]) that is a participant in the atomizing chemical reaction (b) a result of the atomizing chemical reaction is elemental atomic objects (Ba, [0007]), and (c) the elemental atomic objects are dispensed during the atomizing chemical reaction ([0024]).
Kokish does not teach that the temperature is less than 900 C or that the reaction component (tantalum) is a powder.
Natarajan teaches a system in which a reactant metal inside a crucible is provided as a powder (claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the current claims to modify the system of Kokish to have the tantalum provided as a powder as this is a known equivalent means of providing a metal inside a crucible as described by Natarajan.
Based on the teaching of Libretexts, providing the tantalum metal as a powder would increase the reaction rate (due to increased surface area of the reactant, p. 1 “State of Subdivision of Reactants”) and therefore allow the reaction to proceed at a lower temperature than with a bulk reactant.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adjust the temperature in the system of Kokish to be below 900 C when the tantalum is provided as a powder, as a matter of routine optimization of the temperature with no unexpected result (as the reaction will implicitly occur at a lower temperature when the reactant is a powder). Also, it has been held that “generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).” (MPEP 2144.05 II A [R-01.2024]). In this case one of ordinary skill in the art could easily adjust the reaction temperature and observe the reaction rate to find a desired temperature for the reaction.
Regarding claim 2, Kokish teaches that the atomizing chemical reaction is a reduction reaction and tantalum (from the tantalum powder in the combination with Natarajan, above) is a reducing agent in the atomizing chemical reaction ([0007]).
Regarding claim 3, Kokish teaches that the atomic objects are barium ([0007]).
Regarding claim 7, Kokish teaches that the atomic objects are barium ([0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the temperature to approximately 800 C as a matter of routine optimization as argued above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Kokish teaches, before causing the atomizing chemical reaction, heating the crucible to a decomposition reaction temperature to cause a decomposition chemical reaction to occur (step 106, fig. 1, [0051]), wherein the atomizing chemical reaction is performed using at least a portion of molecules generated by the decomposition chemical reaction (step 108, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Kokish teaches that the decomposition reaction temperature is 630º C. It would have been obvious to adjust the temperature of the decomposition reaction to be approximately 600º C, as adjusting the temperature at which a chemical reaction is performed is a matter of routine optimization of a known result effective variable (as argued above with respect to the atomizing reaction).
Regarding claim 10, Kokish teaches that the dispenser is coupled to a first pressure-controlled chamber during the decomposition chemical reaction and coupled to a second pressure-controlled chamber during dispensing of the atomic objects ([0007]).
Regarding claim 12, Kokish teaches that the atomic objects are radioactive ([0007]).
Regarding claim 13, Kokish teaches trapping dispensed elemental atomic objects using an atomic object confinement apparatus ([0004]).
Regarding claim 14, Kokish teaches that the atomic object confinement apparatus is a component of a quantum computer ([0007]).
Regarding claim 15, Kokish teaches that the composition comprising the atomic objects is an aqueous solution ([0062]).
Regarding claim 16, Kokish teaches that the atomic objects are barium atoms and the composition comprising the atomic objects is barium nitrate ([0046]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokish in view of Natarajan and Libretexts and in further view of Yamamura (US 20020162419 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Kokish teaches before causing the atomizing chemical reaction, heating the crucible to a degassing temperature.
Kokish does not teach that the heating lasts at least an hour.
Yamamura teaches a chemical system in which a crucible is degassed for an hour ([0113[).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to conduct the degassing of Kokish for at least an hour,as Yamamura teaches that this a known length of time for degassing a crucible and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to adjust the length of the degassing of Kokish as a matter of routine optimization (i.e. continuing the degassing process until a desired level of degassing is obtained) with no unexpected result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Natarajan teaches a different type of reaction than Kokish, Natarajan is relied upon only for the teaching that source materials for a chemical reaction can be equivalently provided in the form of a filament or powder. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the tantalum of Kokish as a powder as a known equivalent way of providing tantalum to the reactor, with the known advantage of increasing the reaction rate as argued above. It is well known to provide solid materials in powder form, and the system of Kokish does not appear to require the reactant to have the specific form of a filament or bulk sample in order to operate.
Regarding the argument that Kokish does not teach an atomizing reaction temperature of less than 900 C, using a powder form of the tantalum reactant would naturally motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the reaction temperature due to the increased reaction rate (which is directly affected by temperature) as argued above. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the necessary reaction temperature to be lower than that of Kokish when the surface area of the reactant is greater due to the reactant being a powder. Therefore the specific temperature range cited in the current claims does not appear to be critical to the operation of the invention or to have any unexpected result (MPEP 2144.05 I [R-01.2024]).
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 DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights