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 8/12/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-15 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 3-13, 16-19, and 21 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 3 recites, “wherein at least one axis of confinement is created by an accordion mode formed from a folded, running-wave cavity.” Where the applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “accordion mode” in claim 3 is used by the claim to describe some unspecified use of a running wave cavity, while the accepted meaning deals with a musical instrument. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term, or explain what kind of arrangement defines the metes and bounds of “accordion mode.” For the purposes of examination, this phrase will be interpreted 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 3-13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0218617 A1 [Schuster] in view of US 2021/0336032 A1 [Anderson]
Regarding Claim 3:
Schuster teaches a device for forming an optical trap, the device comprising:
a cavity spacer comprising a plurality of mirrors (Fig. 12, para 55), wherein at least one axis of confinement is created by an accordion mode formed from a folded, running wave cavity (Fig. 12 shows such an accordion mode).
However, Schuster fails to teach a three-dimensional array of trapping potentials formed by electromagnetic energy within at least one optical cavity defined by the plurality of mirrors, wherein the three-dimensional array of trapping potentials is configured to trap a plurality of atoms.
Anderson teaches a three-dimensional array of trapping potentials formed by electromagnetic energy within at least one optical cavity, wherein the three-dimensional array of trapping potentials is configured to trap a plurality of atoms (paras 296-297, 328; eq 73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the 3D array of trapping potentials in a cavity as is discussed by Anderson with the optical cavity of Shuster discussed above. One would have been motivated to do so since Shuster suggests using its optical cavity in conjunction with a tweezer array, e.g., the array of Anderson, in order to improve photon collection probability and thus state detection of qubits in the array. Shuster paras 6-9.
Regarding Claim 4:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 3, wherein said one or more atoms comprise one or more qubits. Shuster para 7-8, Anderson paras 290, 313.
Regarding Claim 5:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 4, wherein said one or more qubits are configured to perform a quantum computation. Anderson para 129.
Regarding Claim 6:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 5, wherein said quantum computation comprises a gate-model quantum computation or an adiabatic quantum computation. The qubits of the above modified invention are configured for such operations since they are neutral atom qubits, and all neutral atom qubits are so configured.
Regarding Claim 7:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 3, wherein said one or more atoms comprise neutral atoms. Anderson para 288, 298-304, et al; Shuster paras 3, 8.
Regarding Claim 8:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 3, wherein said folded, running wave cavity comprises a first arm and a second arm, wherein said first and said second arm are folded to form a point of intersection. Shuster Fig. 12, see also Shuster para 53 describing Bow-tie geometry.
Regarding Claim 9:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 8, wherein said point of intersection is coincident with an imaging axis of an imager configured to obtain one or more images of said one or more atoms. Interrogating trapped atoms, as is described in Shuster para 8, would entail the intersection being an imaging axis of an imager.
Regarding Claim 10:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 3, wherein said folded, running wave cavity is a ring cavity. Shuster Figs. 11, 12, see also Shuster para 53 describing Bow-tie geometry.
Regarding Claim 11:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 10, wherein said ring cavity comprises a bow-tie configuration, wherein said bow-tie configuration comprises a point of intersection (Shuster para 53), wherein said point of intersection is coincident with an imaging axis of an imaging unit configured to obtain one or more images of said one or more atoms (Interrogating trapped atoms, as is described in Shuster para 8, would entail the intersection being an imaging axis of an imager.).
Regarding Claim 12:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 10, wherein said ring cavity comprises four cavity mirrors, wherein said four cavity mirrors are oriented to form a point of intersection within said ring cavity. Shuster Fig. 12.
Regarding Claim 13:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 12, but fails to specify that each of said four cavity mirrors has a radius of curvature of at least 40 millimeters (mm).
Optimizing the radius of curvature of each of the mirrors is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Shuster teaches that the radius of curvature of the cavity mirrors can be modified to adjust cooperativity. Para 27.As such, Shuster identifies radius of curvature as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize radii of curvature in the above modified invention to be at least 40 millimeters since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 16:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 3, further comprising said plurality of atoms disposed within said three-dimensional trapping potential, wherein said plurality of atoms comprises a temperature of 10 microkelvin (μk). Anderson paras 167, 494.
Regarding Claim 17:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 3, wherein said three-dimensional trapping potential comprises a plurality of optical trapping sites, wherein each optical trapping site of said plurality of optical trapping sites is spatially distinct. Anderson Fig. 7.
Regarding Claim 18:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 17, wherein each optical trapping site of said plurality of optical trapping sites is spatially separated from each other optical trapping site by at least 200 nanometers (nm). Anderson para 330.
Regarding Claim 19:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 17, wherein each optical trapping site of said plurality of optical trapping sites is configured to trap a single atom of said plurality of atoms. Anderson paras 129, 130.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0218617 A1 [Schuster] in view of US 2021/0336032 A1 [Anderson] as applied to claim 3, and further in view of US 2022/0301738 A1 [Blatt].
Regarding Claim 21:
The above modified invention teaches the device of claim 3, but fails to teach that said cavity spacer comprises ultra-low thermal expansion glass, wherein said ultra-low thermal expansion glass comprises a coefficient of thermal expansion of at most 400+/−30 parts per billion (ppB)/° C. at 5 to 35° C.
Blatt teaches an optical trap (Figs. 1, 2) using a cavity spacer comprising ultra-low thermal expansion glass 9paras 47, 53), wherein said ultra-low thermal expansion glass comprises a coefficient of thermal expansion of at most 400+/−30 parts per billion (ppB)/° C. at 5 to 35° C (para 75). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the ultra-low thermal expansion glass of Blatt as the spacer glass of the above modified invention. One would have been motivated to do so since this would ensure proper alignment despite thermal influences. Blatt para 47.
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 3, 10, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,875,227 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claim describes the same limitations and structures, albeit in slightly different words, as the instant claims.
Conclusion
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
