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 with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 3/19/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has failed to show a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because, regarding case (C), cited on page 2 of Applicant’s response, it is necessary to search for each of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other inventions. As stated in MPEP § 808.02, a different field of search is shown, even though the inventions are classified together (Applicant contends that case (C) does not apply because the Examiner has identified that the inventions are classified under the same classification code G21K1/30). In the immediate case, different fields of search are required for each of the disparate limitations of the claims of each group, as identified on pages 3-5 of the Restriction Requirement 1/20/2026. Because of these differences in features among the groups of claims, a search for the features of one group of claims would not be a complete and/or appropriate search (a different field of search) for the claims of any other group. Therefore, a search and/or examination burden would exist if restriction were not required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ashkin U.S. Patent No. 3,808,550.
Regarding claim 1, Ashkin discloses a method of manipulating a particle by using an optical tweezer (as described in [col. 2; lines 50-58]), the method comprising: accelerating the optical tweezer in which the particle is trapped (“Particles that drifted near either beam were drawn in, accelerated to the region of substantially equal and opposite radiation pressures, were then decelerated by the counter-acceleration of the opposing beam” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12]); turning off the optical tweezer (“When the opposing beam was again turned on, the particle returned to the equilibrium region more slowly than it left it in a single beam, since it was acted on only by the differential radiation-pressure force” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12]); and to catch the particle thrown by the optical tweezer that is turned off, turning on and decelerating the optical tweezer (“Particles that drifted near either beam were drawn in, accelerated to the region of substantially equal and opposite radiation pressures, were then decelerated by the counter-acceleration of the opposing beam” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12]).
In Ashkin, a first optical tweezer (beam) imparts an acceleration that is opposed by a second optical tweezer (beam) (“Particles that drifted near either beam were drawn in, accelerated to the region of substantially equal and opposite radiation pressures, were then decelerated by the counter-acceleration of the opposing beam, and eventually brought to rest by viscous damping in the region of nearly equal radiation pressures, which was a region of stable equilibrium” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12]) during a first time when the first optical tweezer is turned on (since the first optical tweezer is subsequently “again turned on” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12]) a second optical tweezer (beam) accelerates a particle while a first optical tweezer (beam) is turned off (“interrupting one beam and allowing the particle to accelerate rapidly in the remaining beam” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12]), and then the accelerated particle experiences deceleration when the first optical tweezer (beam) is turned on again, and the particle returns to equilibrium (“When the opposing beam was again turned on, the particle returned to the equilibrium region more slowly than it left it in a single beam, since it was acted on only by the differential radiation-pressure force” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12]).
Regarding claim 2, Ashkin discloses that the accelerating of the optical tweezer comprises accelerating the optical tweezer in a direction crossing a traveling direction of a laser beam of the optical tweezer (“Particles that drifted near either beam were drawn in, accelerated to the region of substantially equal and opposite radiation pressures, were then decelerated by the counter-acceleration of the opposing beam, and eventually brought to rest by viscous damping in the region of nearly equal radiation pressures, which was a region of stable equilibrium” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12] – see figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Ashkin discloses that the turning on and decelerating of the optical tweezer comprises decelerating the optical tweezer in a direction crossing a traveling direction of a laser beam of the optical tweezer (“When the opposing beam was again turned on, the particle returned to the equilibrium region more slowly than it left it in a single beam, since it was acted on only by the differential radiation-pressure force” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12] – see also figure 1, where four laser beams are used in a crossing pattern).
Regarding claim 6, Ashkin discloses that the turning on and decelerating of the optical tweezer comprises turning on the optical tweezer at a position away from a position where the optical tweezer is turned off in a direction in which the particle is thrown (since the particle has been accelerated from where it was when the beam was turned off – “The stability of a particular particle in this region was checked by interrupting one beam and allowing the particle to accelerate rapidly in the remaining beam. When the opposing beam was again turned on, the particle returned to the equilibrium region more slowly than it left it in a single beam, since it was acted on only by the differential radiation-pressure force” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12]).
Regarding claim 10, Ashkin discloses that the particle comprises at least one neutral particle (“Neutral Particle Accelerator” [col. 11; line 8]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashkin U.S. Patent No. 3,808,550.
Regarding claim 4, Ashkin discloses the claimed invention except that while Ashkin discloses that “Particles that drifted near either beam were drawn in, accelerated to the region of substantially equal and opposite radiation pressures, were then decelerated by the counter-acceleration of the opposing beam” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12], and that “a single pulse from a ruby laser operating at 0.6943 micron will accelerate particle 27 to a final velocity between 1X105 cm/sec and 1X106 cm/sec” [col. 9; lines 27-43], there is no explicit disclosure that the accelerating of the optical tweezer comprises accelerating the optical tweezer at an acceleration in a range of about 4.80*102 m/s2 to about 1.20*106 m/s2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to accelerate the optical tweezer at an acceleration in a range of about 4.80*102 m/s2 to about 1.20*106 m/s2 since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to accelerate the optical tweezer at an acceleration in a range of about 4.80*102 m/s2 to about 1.20*106 m/s2 for the purpose of ensuring an amount of acceleration which can be counteracted by a decelerating force from another beam in order to sufficiently trap the particle for analysis. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 7, Ashkin discloses the claimed invention except that while Ashkin discloses that “The stability of a particular particle in this region was checked by interrupting one beam and allowing the particle to accelerate rapidly in the remaining beam. When the opposing beam was again turned on, the particle returned to the equilibrium region more slowly than it left it in a single beam, since it was acted on only by the differential radiation-pressure force” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12], there is no explicit disclosure that the turning on and decelerating of the optical tweezer comprises turning on the optical tweezer after the particle that is thrown flies a preset distance, the preset distance being about 200 µm or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to throw a particle a preset distance of about 200 µm or less since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to throw a particle a preset distance of about 200 µm or less for the purpose of ensuring that the particle is moved a distance great enough to accurately check the stability of particle, while ensuring that the particle is not moved a distance so great that it may exit an optical trapping region, such that it would be impossible to recapture the particle when the opposing beam is again turned on. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 8, Ashkin discloses the claimed invention except that while Ashkin discloses that “The stability of a particular particle in this region was checked by interrupting one beam and allowing the particle to accelerate rapidly in the remaining beam. When the opposing beam was again turned on, the particle returned to the equilibrium region more slowly than it left it in a single beam, since it was acted on only by the differential radiation-pressure force” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12], there is no explicit disclosure that the turning on and decelerating of the optical tweezer comprises turning on the optical tweezer after the particle that is thrown flies for a preset time, the preset time being about 18 µs or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to throw a particle for a preset time of about 18 µs or less since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to throw a particle for a preset time of about 18 µs or less for the purpose of ensuring that the particle is moved for an amount of time great enough to accurately check the stability of particle, while ensuring that the particle is not moved an amount of time so great that it may exit an optical trapping region, such that it would be impossible to recapture the particle when the opposing beam is again turned on. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 9, Ashkin discloses the claimed invention except that while Ashkin discloses that “All of the foregoing apparatuses are illustratively within vacuum chamber 61 evacuated by pump 36” [col. 11; lines 23-25], there is no explicit disclosure that the method is performed in a pressure environment of 1X1011 torr or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method in a pressure environment of 1X1011 torr or less since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to perform the method in a pressure environment of 1X1011 torr or less for the purpose of controlling the amount of viscous force opposing movement of a particle in an optical tweezers trap (as suggested at [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12]). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashkin U.S. Patent No. 3,808,550 in view of Chu et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 5,338,930.
Regarding claim 11, Ashkin discloses the claimed invention, except that while Ashkin discloses a method of manipulating a particle by using an optical tweezer (as described in [col. 2; lines 50-58]), wherein the particle comprises at least one neutral particle (“Neutral Particle Accelerator” [col. 11; line 8]), there is no explicit disclosure that the particle comprises at least one of Rb- 87, Rb-85, Cs, or Li.
Chu discloses “Beams of laser light trap and cool cesium atoms in a small vapor cell and put the atoms in a particular quantum mechanical state” [Abstract].
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ashkin to trap cesium atoms, as suggested by Chu, in order to perform the measurements of Ashkin on particular particles (such as the cesium of Chu) where a practitioner of the art may be interested in learning about an environment comprising the particular particles in a comprehensive analysis of such an environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3; Ashkin U.S. Patent No. 3,808,550 discloses a method of manipulating a particle by using an optical tweezer (as described in [col. 2; lines 50-58]), the method comprising: accelerating the optical tweezer in which the particle is trapped (“Particles that drifted near either beam were drawn in, accelerated to the region of substantially equal and opposite radiation pressures, were then decelerated by the counter-acceleration of the opposing beam” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12]); turning off the optical tweezer (“When the opposing beam was again turned on, the particle returned to the equilibrium region more slowly than it left it in a single beam, since it was acted on only by the differential radiation-pressure force” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12]); and to catch the particle thrown by the optical tweezer that is turned off, turning on and decelerating the optical tweezer (“Particles that drifted near either beam were drawn in, accelerated to the region of substantially equal and opposite radiation pressures, were then decelerated by the counter-acceleration of the opposing beam” [col. 5; line 55-col. 6; line 12]). However, Ashkin does not disclose that a magnitude of acceleration of the optical tweezer is less than or equal to a value obtained by dividing a depth of a potential well of the optical tweezer by a product of a radial distance of the optical tweezer and a mass of the particle.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a method of manipulating a particle by using an optical tweezer, the method comprising: accelerating the optical tweezer in which the particle is trapped; wherein a magnitude of acceleration of the optical tweezer is less than or equal to a value obtained by dividing a depth of a potential well of the optical tweezer by a product of a radial distance of the optical tweezer and a mass of the particle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-5:00PM 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.
/JASON L MCCORMACK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights