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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 4-8, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0344416 A1 [Allcock] in view of Day, Matthew L., et al. "A micro-optical module for multi-wavelength addressing of trapped ions." Quantum Science and Technology 6.2 (2021): 024007, hereinafter Day.
Regarding Claim 1:
Allcock teaches a micro-fabricated device for controlling trapped ions (para 7), the micro-fabricated device comprising:
a first substrate having a main surface (see annotated Fig. 2B (210));
a structured first metal layer disposed over the main surface of the first substrate, the structured first metal layer comprising electrodes of at least one ion trapping zone configured to trap an ion in a space above the structured first metal layer (Fig. 2B (230)); and
a dielectric element fixedly attached to the first substrate (Fig. 2b (220)), wherein the dielectric element comprises at least one waveguide (Fig. 2B (206)) configured to direct laser light towards an ion trapped in the at least one ion trapping zone (para 76).
However, Allcock does not specify that the waveguide is short-pulse-laser direct written (SPLDW) waveguide. Day teaches using a femtosecond-laser direct written waveguide, i.e. a SPLDW waveguide, to apply laser light to trapped ions (sections 2.1-2.2 discussing the formation of the waveguide, section 4 discussing its use with an ion trap.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to replace the generic waveguide (206) of Allcock with the femtosecond-laser direct written waveguide of Day. One would have been motivated to do so since would allow for the routing and focusing of multiple laser beams to various trapping sights within the ion trap. See Day abstract, section 5.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2:
The above modified invention teaches the micro-fabricated device of claim 1, wherein the dielectric element is glass, quartz glass, alkali-free glass, borosilicate glass, sapphire, or fused silica. Day Section 2.2, last paragraph.
Regarding Claim 4:
The above modified invention teaches the micro-fabricated device of claim 1, but fails to teach that the at least one SPLDW waveguide extends in a plane which is substantially parallel to the main surface of the first substrate. However, Day shows a waveguide oriented with a trench of a micro-ion tap. See Fig. 1a, c, as described in section 2.1-2.2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to reorient the waveguide of Allcock to move parallel to the trench, like the waveguide of Day. This would have been obvious because merely changing the orientation of a portion of the waveguide would offer no change in the function of the apparatus, and it would simplify the adjustment to the laser interrogation position along the axis facing into Allcock Fig. 2B.
Regarding Claim 5:
The above modified invention teaches the micro-fabricated device of claim 1, further comprising:
at least one optical fibre configured to guide the laser light, the at least one optical fibre being fixedly connected to an input of the at least one SPLDW waveguide. Day Fig. 2a.
Regarding Claim 6:
The above modified invention teaches the micro-fabricated device of claim 1, further comprising:
a second substrate spaced apart from the first substrate (see annotated Fig. 2B (210)),
wherein the at least one ion trapping zone is located in a space between the first substrate and the second substrate (Allcock Fig. 2B (202) is an ion so trapped), and
wherein the dielectric element forms a spacer structure between the first substrate and the second substrate (as shown in Allcock Fig. 2B (202) where the dielectric spaces one element (210) from the other).
Regarding Claim 7:
The above modified invention teaches the micro-fabricated device of claim 1, wherein the dielectric element comprises a plurality of SPLDW waveguides configured to direct laser light towards the same ion trapped in the ion trapping zone. Day Fig. 2a is an SPLDW waveguide array, i.e., it is multiple waveguides in that it remaps a plurality of input lights to a plurality of output positions.
Regarding Claim 8:
The above modified invention teaches the micro-fabricated device of claim 1, wherein the dielectric element comprises a plurality of SPLDW waveguides configured to direct laser light towards at least a first ion trapped in the ion trapping zone and a second ion trapped in another ion trapping zone. Day Fig. 2a is an SPLDW waveguide array, i.e., it is multiple waveguides in that it remaps a plurality of input lights to a plurality of output positions. As shown, the different lasers are directed to different ions at A and B.
Regarding Claim 16:
Allcock teaches a micro-fabricated device for controlling trapped ions (para 7), the micro-fabricated device comprising:
a first substrate having a main surface (see annotated Fig. 2B (210) is the substrate, the interior surface thereof facing the other (210) is the main surface);
a structured first metal layer disposed over the main surface of the first substrate, the structured first metal layer comprising electrodes of at least one ion trapping zone configured to trap an ion in a space above the structured first metal layer (Fig. 2B (230)); and
a dielectric element fixedly attached to the first substrate (Fig. 2b (220)), wherein the dielectric element comprises at least one waveguide (Fig. 2B (206)) configured to direct laser light towards an ion trapped in the at least one ion trapping zone (para 76).
However, Allcock does not specify that the waveguide is short-pulse-laser direct written (SPLDW) waveguide, or that the at least one SPLDW waveguide extends in a plane which is substantially parallel to the main surface of the first substrate
Day teaches using a femtosecond-laser direct written waveguide, i.e. a SPLDW waveguide, to apply laser light to trapped ions (sections 2.1-2.2 discussing the formation of the waveguide, section 4 discussing its use with an ion trap.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to replace the generic waveguide (206) of Allcock with the femtosecond-laser direct written waveguide of Day. One would have been motivated to do so since would allow for the routing and focusing of multiple laser beams to various trapping sights within the ion trap. See Day abstract, section 5
Further, Day shows a waveguide oriented with a trench of a micro-ion tap. See Fig. 1a, c, as described in section 2.1-2.2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to reorient the waveguide of Allcock to move parallel to the trench, like the waveguide of Day. This would have been obvious because merely changing the orientation of a portion of the waveguide would offer no change in the function of the apparatus, and it would simplify the adjustment to the laser interrogation position along the axis facing into Allcock Fig. 2B.
Regarding Claim 17:
Allcock teaches a micro-fabricated device for controlling trapped ions (para 7), the micro-fabricated device comprising:
a first substrate having a main surface (see annotated Fig. 2B (210) is the substrate, the interior surface thereof facing the other (210) is the main surface);
a second substrate spaced apart from the first substrate (see annotated Fig. 2B (210)),
a structured first metal layer disposed over the main surface of the first substrate, the structured first metal layer comprising electrodes of at least one ion trapping zone configured to trap an ion in a space above the structured first metal layer (Fig. 2B (230)); and
a dielectric element fixedly attached to the first substrate (Fig. 2b (220)) and forming a spacer structure between the first substrate and the second substrate (as shown in Allcock Fig. 2B (202) where the dielectric spaces one element (210) from the other).
wherein the dielectric element comprises at least one waveguide (Fig. 2B (206)) configured to direct laser light towards an ion trapped in the at least one ion trapping zone (para 76);
wherein the at least one ion trapping zone is located in a space between the first substrate and the second substrate (Allcock Fig. 2B (202) is an ion so trapped);
However, Allcock does not specify that the waveguide is short-pulse-laser direct written (SPLDW) waveguide, or that the at least one SPLDW waveguide extends in a plane which is substantially parallel to the main surface of the first substrate
Day teaches using a femtosecond-laser direct written waveguide, i.e. a SPLDW waveguide, to apply laser light to trapped ions (sections 2.1-2.2 discussing the formation of the waveguide, section 4 discussing its use with an ion trap.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to replace the generic waveguide (206) of Allcock with the femtosecond-laser direct written waveguide of Day. One would have been motivated to do so since would allow for the routing and focusing of multiple laser beams to various trapping sights within the ion trap. See Day abstract, section 5
Further, Day shows a waveguide oriented with a trench of a micro-ion tap. See Fig. 1a, c, as described in section 2.1-2.2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to reorient the waveguide of Allcock to move parallel to the trench, like the waveguide of Day. This would have been obvious because merely changing the orientation of a portion of the waveguide would offer no change in the function of the apparatus, and it would simplify the adjustment to the laser interrogation position along the axis facing into Allcock Fig. 2B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the instant claims are not obvious over Allcock in view of Day. In particular applicant asserts that the proposed modification “overlooks key teaching of the respective references that would discourage a person of ordinary skill in the art from making the Office’s proposed modification.” Arguments 5/18/26, pg 6. This is not persuasive. Applicant misconstrues the construction process and teachings of Allcock and suggests that there is something unique about the waveguide of Allcock that would teach away from its modification. There is nothing unique about the waveguide of Allcock, rather Allcock uses a generic waveguide (para 76) set into a semiconductor wafer (para 65), presumably in a generic Photonic chip fashion. Allcock proposes a wafer, including its waveguide, attached to printed 3D trap electrodes – not, as alleged by applicant, a 3D printed wafer with specialized waveguides. The modification proposed above with respect to Day would simply replace the generic waveguide with another waveguide that is described in the context of a 3D ion trap.
Further, applicant quotes a portion of Day and argues that Day “is silent with respect to wafer level integration, clearly indicating that such an application relating to the disclosed arrangement is not considered or contemplated.” Arguments 5/18/26, pg 8, emphasis in original. From this, applicant argues that Allcock’s teaching of an integrated wafer-level solution are in direct conflict with Day’s teaching of separate components, and thus it would not be obvious to combine the references. This is not persuasive. First, applicant’s assertion as to Day’s teaching of separate components is, at best, false. This is evident in Day section 2.1, which states
The individual elements are intended to be in direct contact with each other, as well as being bonded together to ensure long-term stability. The module was developed specifically for an ion microtrap with a 3D electrode geometry; all beams are intended to propagate through the microtrap aperture (see cross section in figure 1(c)). A micromachined spacer will be required to ensure a 2 mm working distance from the ions and facilitate bonding the module to the microtrap chip.
Second, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the advantages provided by the waveguides of Day in the context of ion traps are explicitly noted, and would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed modification.
With respect to claim 4, applicant again asserts that the wafer of Allcock is fabricated via layered fabrication, and thus the proposed changes would significantly increase the complexity of construction. This is not persuasive. The wafer (220) of Allcock is a silicon wafer (para 65) and its various elements are integrated therein by traditional CMOS techniques (paras 76, 220), not whatever unusual scheme is proposed by applicant. The dielelectric structure is printed on top of it, but the wafer itself is not printed.
Further applicant argues re-orienting the waveguide with respect to the thickness of the wafer would render the wafer unsuitable. This is not persuasive. The claims requires that the waveguide be parallel a main surface. The main surface is a 2D plane. There are infinitely many parallel directions to a 2D plane. Applicant argues against one particular direction without acknowledging any of the others. Noting this, the proposed modification does not require some ridiculously thick wafer, it simply orients the waveguides along one of the infinitely many lines parallel to the plane defined by the main surface. Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the case at hand, one of ordinary skill would have more than enough suggestion to integrate the waveguide of Day into Allcock in a direction parallel to the main surfaces for at least the distance necessary to achieve the propagation and control taught by Day.
Finally, applicant argues that the wafer of Allcock is not between the first and second substrate. This is not persuasive. It is unclear what definition of “between” the applicant is proposing, but the applicant is reminded that the office is obligated to interpret claims with their broadest reasonable interpretation. MPEP 2111. Words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01. In the case at hand, the specification offers no particular guidance as to the meaning of the word “between,” so “between” is understood by its ordinary and customary meaning given to it by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. In the instant case, “between” would mean something like occupying an interval that separates two things. In the context of the claim, it is clear that the portion of the wafer (220) that sits in the interval (Fig. 2b (W)) separating the two substrates is between the two substrates.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mehta, Karan K., et al. "Integrated optical addressing of an ion qubit." Nature nanotechnology 11.12 (2016): 1066-1070.
McGuinness, Hayden J., et al. "Integrated photonics for trapped ion quantum information experiments at Sandia National Laboratories." Quantum Nanophotonic Materials, Devices, and Systems 2022. Vol. 12206. SPIE, 2022.
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 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