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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 7/6/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,217,132 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented metasurfaces on a chip for confinement of claim 18 recite the necessary structural limitations of claim 1, 2, 6, and 7. Further, the structure of patented claim 18 is indistinguishable from pending claim 9, since the product by process limitation of claim 9 does not patentably define the claim over the identical structure of the patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6-7 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 6 recites, “(b) the at least one bridge optical element, or (c) the at least one delivery optical element.” Neither of these elements has sufficient antecedent basis. As such, the application is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0386581 A1 [Hoyt].
Regarding Claim 1:
Hoyt discloses an optics-integrated confinement apparatus system comprising:
a confinement apparatus chip (para 20, Fig. 3) having a confinement apparatus formed thereon (para 20, as shown in Fig. 3) and having at least one apparatus optical element disposed and/or formed thereon (gratings (120)).
Regarding Claim 2:
Hoyt discloses the optics-integrated confinement apparatus system of claim 1, wherein the at least one apparatus optical element comprises at least one of a diffractive optical element, a passive metasurface, an active metasurface, an optical modulator, a low loss waveguide, an amplifier, a laser, a photodetector, a grating coupler, a beam splitter, an edge coupler, an optical local oscillator, a taper, a reference cavity, a light absorbing structure, an anti-reflection coating, an optical routing element, or a resonant structures. Fig. 3 (120).
Regarding Claim 3:
Hoyt discloses the optics-integrated confinement apparatus system of claim 1, further comprising at least one of (a) a bridge chip having at least one bridge optical element disposed and/or formed thereon or (b) a delivery chip having at least one delivery optical element disposed and/or formed thereon. Fig. 3 – Upper chip.
Regarding Claim 4:
Hoyt discloses the optics-integrated confinement apparatus system of claim 3, wherein the at least one bridge optical element and/or the at least one delivery optical element comprises at least one of a diffractive optical element, a passive metasurface, an active metasurface, an optical modulator, a low loss waveguide, an amplifier, an on-chip laser, a photodetector, a grating coupler, an optical splitter, an edge coupler, an optical local oscillator, a taper, a reference cavity, a light absorbing structure, an anti-reflection coating, an optical routing element, or a resonant structures. Fig. 3 (120).
Regarding Claim 5:
Hoyt discloses the optics-integrated confinement apparatus system of claim 3, wherein the delivery chip is a cloud chip. Note cloud (105), which indicates that the chip is a “cloud chip.”
Regarding Claim 6:
Hoyt discloses the optics-integrated confinement apparatus system of claim 1, wherein the optics-integrated confinement apparatus system is configured for operation under cryogenic and/or ultra-high vacuum conditions. Fig. 3 (114), para 17.
Regarding Claim 7:
Hoyt discloses the optics-integrated confinement apparatus system of claim 6, wherein at least one of (a) the at least one apparatus optical element, (b) the at least one bridge optical element, or (c) the at least one delivery optical element is configured to be coupled to an optical fiber configured to provide a manipulation signal generated outside of a cryogenic and/or vacuum chamber within which the optics-integrated confinement apparatus system is disposed to the at least one of (a) the at least one apparatus optical element, (b) the at least one bridge optical element, or (c) the at least one delivery optical element. Fig. 3 (122), paras 19-20.
Regarding Claim 8:
Hoyt discloses the optics-integrated confinement apparatus system of claim 7, wherein the at least one of (a) the at least one apparatus optical element, (b) the at least one bridge optical element, or (c) the at least one delivery optical element is configured to be coupled to the optical fiber via a fiber block. Paras 26, 27.
Regarding Claim 9:
Hoyt discloses the optics-integrated confinement apparatus system of claim 1, wherein the optics-integrated confinement apparatus system is fabricated at least in part using a pick-and-place technique. Para 34.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8,288,712 B2 is directed to a similar device as that claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
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 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights