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 § 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 1-42 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 “a cloud of atoms” and also “the atom cloud”. It is unclear if these are the same features. For the purpose of examination, the “a cloud of atoms” is being interpreted as being the same as an “atom cloud”.
Claim 1 recites “a targeted quantum state” (lines 4 and 18-19) but the limitation is positively recited in line 2. It is unclear if this is a different “targeted quantum state”. For the purpose of examination the targeted quantum states are being interpreted as being the same.
Claim 1 recites “an input signal” (lines 10 and 12) but it unclear if these are the same. For the purpose of examination, these have been interpreted as being the same.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the laser light" in lines 13-14 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “approximately an integer multiple” and “associated with each individual peak” (lines 3 and 4, respectively). The examiner is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of “approximately an integer multiple” or “associated with”. It is unclear how a frequency spacing can be “approximately an integer multiple”. Further, its unclear what degree of association “associated with” is required.
Claim 5 recites “any claim 1” (line 1). There is only one claim 1 and it is unclear what other claim 1 it is referring to.
Claim 7 recites “approximately equal in amplitude” (line 2). The examiner is unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of “approximately equal”.
Claim 28 recites “an atomic transition” (line 2), which is positively recited in claim 1. It is unclear if this is the same atomic transition. For the purpose of examination, this atomic transition is being interpreted as being the same as the one in claim 1.
Claim 29 recites “an atomic transition” (line 2), which is positively recited in claim 1. It is unclear if this is the same atomic transition. For the purpose of examination, this atomic transition is being interpreted as being the same as the one in claim 1.
Claim 30 recites “the apparatus for use in large momentum transfer, LMT, interferometry”. This appears to merely be an intended use of the apparatus of claim 1 and fails to further limit claim 1. No additional structure is provided.
Claim 34 recites “a cloud of atoms” and also “the atom cloud”. It is unclear if these are the same features. For the purpose of examination, the “a cloud of atoms” is being interpreted as being the same as an “atom cloud”.
Claim 34 recites “a targeted quantum state” (lines 4 and 17) but the limitation is positively recited in line 2. It is unclear if this is a different “targeted quantum state”. For the purpose of examination the targeted quantum states are being interpreted as being the same.
Claim 34 recites “an input signal” (lines 8-9 and 10) but it unclear if these are the same. For the purpose of examination, these have been interpreted as being the same.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the laser light" in lines 11 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9-33 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
Claims 35-42 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 34.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Biedermann et al. (US 8,941,053) teaches an atom interferometer with a laser system that includes a modulator and waveform generator that factors in the Rabi frequency (col. 5 lines 57-67 and col. 6 lines 1-10). Biedermann et al. remains silent as to a comb of frequencies around the resonant frequency of the atomic transition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW V DO whose telephone number is (571)270-3420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Walter L Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/A.V.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2852