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 4/7/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-18, directed to non-elected invention II, are withdrawn.
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 1-12 and 19-20 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 1 recites “the center point” with respect to the bias fields of the claim’s coils. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 7 recites, “wherein the longitudinal magnetic bias field γ is initially a π/2 offset angle to the transverse magnetic bias field β and the offset angle is subsequently reduced to balance gravity.” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). MPEP 2173.05(p) (II); and See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The claim recites “the offset angle is subsequently reduced to balance gravity.” This limitation is a step because it recites an action to be taken. This limitation makes the claim indefinite because the step claim language makes it unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates the system that allows for the step, or whether infringement occurs when the step actually occurs.
Claim 10 recites, “wherein the wide cross loads atoms into the atom trap, current is reduced from the wide cross and increased to the thin cross to complete loading and generate evaporative cooling.” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). MPEP 2173.05(p) (II); and See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The claim recites steps of “the wide cross loads atoms into the atom trap” and “current is reduced from the wide cross and increased to the thin cross to complete loading and generate evaporative cooling.” these limitations are steps because they recite actions to be taken. These limitations make the claim indefinite because the step claim language makes it unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates the system that allows for the steps, or whether infringement occurs when the steps actually occur.
Claim 12 is replete with informalities and failures of antecedent basis. Further, the table provided in the claim fails to define the invention in a reasonable fashion, and is not a practical way to recite the parameters of the claimed trap. Owing to its extensive recitations, the claim is presumed to properly depend from claim 11.
Claim 10 recites, “load a time-averaged trap along the z axis near the thin cross center, the x-axis current and the y-axis current are reduced to the wide cross and applied to the thin cross to maintain the time-average trap with the thin cross.” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). MPEP 2173.05(p) (II); and See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The claim recites steps of “load a time-averaged trap along the z axis near the thin cross center” and “the x-axis current and the y-axis current are reduced to the wide cross and applied to the thin cross to maintain the time-average trap with the thin cross.” These limitations are steps because they recite actions to be taken. These limitations make the claim indefinite because the step claim language makes it unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates the system that allows for the steps, or whether infringement occurs when the steps actually occur.
Claim 20 recites, “generating evaporative cooling using the atoms in the time-average trap.” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). MPEP 2173.05(p) (II); and See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The claim recites the step of “generating evaporative cooling using the atoms in the time-average trap.” This limitation is a step because it recites an action to be taken. This limitation makes the claim indefinite because the step claim language makes it unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates the system that allows for the step, or whether infringement occurs when the step actually occurs.
The above indefinite claims will be examined as best understood in light of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1,2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichel, J., W. Hänsel, and T. W. Hänsch. "Atomic micromanipulation with magnetic surface traps." Physical review letters 83.17 (1999): 3398 [hereinafter Reichel I] in view of Reichel, J. (2011). Trapping and Manipulating Atoms on Chips. In Atom Chips (eds J. Reichel and V. Vuletić). https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527633357.ch2 [hereinafter Reichel II].
Regarding Claim 1:
Reichel I teaches an atom trap (abstract) comprising:
an x-axis wire carrying an x-axis current I0cos Ωt, wherein I0 is current amplitude, Ω is a trap field frequency, and t is time (Fig. 3- wire from bottom carrying current IM2);
a y-axis wire carrying a y-axis current I0sin Ωt (Fig. 3- wire from top carrying current IM1);
a β-field coil generating a transverse magnetic bias field β rotating about the center point and perpendicular to a z axis (as shown in Fig. 4);
a γ-field coil generating a longitudinal magnetic bias field γ rotating about the center point and perpendicular to the z axis (as shown in Fig. 4); and
wherein the x-axis wire, the y-axis wire, the transverse magnetic bias field β, and the longitudinal magnetic bias field γ form a time-averaged trap along the z axis near the cross center (pg 3399-right column).
However, Reichel I fails to teach that the y-axis wire intersects the x-axis wire at a cross center.
Reichel II teaches a similar atom trap (section 2.4.7) wherein the x and y axis wires intersect (Fig. 2.6(b)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the intersecting, two layer wires taught by Reichel II in the magnetic conveyor of Reichel I. One would have been motivated to do so in order to better control atom movement along the chip surface. Reichel II Section 2.4.7.
Regarding Claim 2:
The above modified invention teaches the atom trap of claim 1, wherein the β-field coil and the γ-field coil are a single coil. Either of the coils in Reichel I could arbitrarily be considered the β-field coil and the γ-field coil, since the coils are not defined with respect to the rest of the traps.
Regarding Claim 3:
The above modified invention teaches the atom trap of claim 1,atom trap of claim 1, wherein an x-axis driver circuit provides the x-axis current (this is inherent as the wire has a oscillating current), a y-axis driver circuit provides the y-axis current (this is inherent as the wire has a oscillating current), and the x-axis driver circuit and the y-axis driver circuit maintain the center point at a common ground potential (since the currents are offset by π/2, the center point would be at a common ground).
However, the above modified invention does not specify that the x-axis driver circuit and the y-axis driver circuit float with respect to ground. A floating ground is one of two available arrangements for a circuit, to wit floating vs earth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use a floating ground rather than an earth ground in the above modified invention, since there are only two possible grounding arrangements, both of which are routinely used and highly predictable. Further, one would have been motivated to choose a floating ground since it is easier to use and since it mitigates noise from ground loops.
Regarding Claim 4:
The above modified invention teaches the atom trap of claim 1, wherein the current amplitude I0=2πβz0/μ0, a trap distance z0≡μ0I0/2πβ and μ0 is a permeability constant. This is inherently true, and is noted in Reichel II Section 2.4.3.
Regarding Claim 6:
The above modified invention teaches the atom trap of claim 1, wherein the current amplitude I0 is in the range of 0.2 to 100 amperes (A). See Reichel I description of Fig. 3.
Regarding Claim 8:
The above modified invention teaches the atom trap of claim 1, wherein the x-axis wire is a thin x-axis wire and the y-axis wire is a thin y-axis wire that form a thin cross and a wide x-axis wire and a wide y-axis wire form a wide cross. Reichel II – the wires cross multiple times, effecting both the thin and wide crosses at various positions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 5, 7, 9-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/0154570 A1 describes a relevant Atom trap.
US 2007/0006519 A1 describes a trap for Bees, and was suggested as relevant art by the Office’s AI system.
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