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
Claims 3 and 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/9/26.
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 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 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. 2c. 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.
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.
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