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
Upon further review of the restriction requirement mailed 9/4/2025, it is the opinion of the examiner that the claimed groups are not patentability distinct and no undue burden is required in examination of each group. Therefore, the previous restriction requirement has been withdrawn.
In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
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.
Claims 1-12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (US 2015/0270843, hereinafter “Nakajima”) in view of Ishihara (US 2016/0105149).
Claim 1: Nakajima discloses a vapor cell (Figs.9A, 9B), comprising:
a body (21B) having walls (211a) defining a cavity (S1) thereinbetween, the cavity containing an amount of a subject material (M; see [0143]); and
a pore structure (24; see Fig.6A) comprising a substrate (211b) material having pores (see Fig.6A and [0121], where “fine concave” portions are formed in the substrate by dry etching) of a substantially uniform (see Fig.6A, which shows “substantially uniform dimensions) diameter formed therein, the pore structure disposed along a portion of one or more of the walls (see Figs.9A, 9B).
There are two differences between the recited invention and Nakajima. First, Nakajima does not explicitly disclose the pores having a “diameter” (thus requiring a circular shape). However, the examiner notes that such a shape is at least implied by the use of “concave” language disclosed in [0121]. Second, Nakajima does not disclose “a liner material disposed over one or more internal surfaces of the pores”.
Regarding the first difference, it has previously been held that mere changes in shape that do not provide a significant difference supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.B. As the “holding portion” of Nakajima would behave the same whether the shape has a “substantially uniform diameter” or of another shape, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found no significant difference with a circular shape having a “significantly uniform diameter” versus another shape of substantially uniform characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the concave portions of Nakajima of a circular shape specifically, thus having a substantially uniform diameter, as the mere change in shape that does not provide a significant difference.
Regarding the second difference, Ishihara discloses providing a coating film (24) on all interior surfaces of a similar vapor cell (see Figs.8A, 8B) in order to stabilize the alkaline metal atoms in the atomic cell, thus improving frequency stability. See [0158]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided a liner in the form of the coating film of Ishihara on all interior surfaces including pore structure 24 of Nakajima in order to have stabilized the alkaline metal atoms in the atomic cell, improving frequency stability.
Claim 2: Nakajima discloses wherein the body includes at least one window disposed on a different one of the one or more walls (formed by 23, 22 where light LL passes through; see Figs.9A,9B).
Claim 3: Nakajima discloses wherein the pore structure is disposed along the portion of the one of the one or more walls a distance apart from the at least one window (e.g. in the embodiment of Figs.7A,7B, 24 is provided spaced away at a distance from the window in which light passes).
Claim 4: Nakajima discloses wherein the pore structure is integrally formed in the portion of the one of the one or more walls (see Figs.9A and [0121], where the pore structure is formed by dry etching the wall of the cavity).
Claim 5: Nakajima discloses wherein the substrate material comprises silicon (see [0103]).
Claim 6: Nakajima discloses the limitations of claim 5, as well as forming the pore structure by etching (see [0121]). While Nakajima does not disclose using deep reactive ion etching specifically as the etching method, the examiner takes Official Notice that deep reactive ion etching is extremely well-known in the art for excavating trenches and holes in silicon. As the result would be the same regardless of etching method, providing the pore structure by DRIE in substitute of another etching method would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the use of a known technique (DRIE) to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claims 7-8: Nakajima discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nakajima, however, discloses a roughness between 10 nm to 980 nm rather than having a diameter from about 500 nm to about 5000 nm or about 1000 nm. However, it has previously been held that “in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” or approaching or similar ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a uniform diameter of about 500 nm to about 5000 nm or about 1000 nm as mere overlapping, similar, and/or approaching ranges.
Claim 9: the combination discloses wherein the pores comprise a cylindrical configuration (see the discussion above with regard to the discussion of the shape of the pore structure).
Claim 10: Nakajima discloses wherein the internal surfaces of the pores include a bottom and pore sidewalls (see Fig.6A, which shows a bottom and sidewalls of the pores).
Claim 11: the combination discloses wherein the liner material is disposed over at least the pore sidewalls of the pores (i.e. on all interior surfaces in the combination of Nakajima and Ishihara).
Claim 12: while Ishihara does not explicitly disclose a uniform thickness, the examiner notes that such a uniform thickness is implied by a “coating film”. As Ishihara discloses the coating film improving frequency stability, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found providing a uniform thickness over at least the pore sidewalls of the pores as useful in providing improved frequency stability without altering the shape of the pores of Nakajima.
Claim 15: Nakajima discloses wherein the subject material comprises an alkali metal (see [0143]).
Claims 17-20: Nakajima does not explicitly disclose the shape of the subject material disposed within the pores recited in claims 17-20. However, the examiner notes that the shape of the subject material, i.e. a concave or uniform shaped meniscus as merely a result of the amount of alkali material within a gaseous state and the amount in a liquid state adhered to on the walls of Nakajima. Accordingly, as the modification of Nakajima is a similar shape, the modification can be expected to behave in similar manner when a portion of the alkali is brought into gaseous state during operation of the vapor cell, thus providing the meniscus characteristics of claims 17-20.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Miyakawa et al. (US 2023/0266716, hereinafter “Miyakawa”).
Nakajima discloses a vapor cell (Figs.9A, 9B), comprising:
a body (21B) having walls (211a) defining a cavity (S1) thereinbetween, the cavity containing an amount of a subject material (M; see [0143]); and
a pore structure (24; see Fig.6A) comprising a substrate (211b) material having pores (see Fig.6A and [0121], where “fine concave” portions are formed in the substrate by dry etching) of a substantially uniform (see Fig.6A, which shows “substantially uniform dimensions) diameter formed therein, the pore structure disposed along a portion of one or more of the walls (see Figs.9A, 9B).
There are two differences between the recited invention and Nakajima. First, Nakajima does not explicitly disclose the pores having a “diameter” (thus requiring a circular shape). However, the examiner notes that such a shape is at least implied by the use of “concave” language disclosed in [0121]. Second, Nakajima does not disclose “a liner material disposed over one or more internal surfaces of the pores”, “wherein the liner material comprises a metal or metal alloy” (claim 13).
Regarding the first difference, it has previously been held that mere changes in shape that do not provide a significant difference supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.B. As the “holding portion” of Nakajima would behave the same whether the shape has a “substantially uniform diameter” or of another shape, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found no significant difference with a circular shape having a “significantly uniform diameter” versus another shape of substantially uniform characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the concave portions of Nakajima of a circular shape specifically, thus having a substantially uniform diameter, as the mere change in shape that does not provide a significant difference.
Regarding the second difference, Miyakawa discloses providing a coating film (20) on all interior surfaces of a similar vapor cell (see Fig.4) in order to prevent relaxation of the electron spin state of the alkali metal, wherein the coating film comprises a metal or a metal alloy (e.g. titanium oxide in coating layer 22; see [0079]). See [0005]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided a liner in the form of the coating film of Miyakawa on all interior surfaces including pore structure 24 of Nakajima in order to have prevented relaxation of the electron spin state of the alkali metal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-26 are allowed.
Claims 14 and 16 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not clearly or explicitly disclose “wherein the liner material comprises platinum” (claims 14 and 21) or “wherein the subject material exhibits a wetting angle on the liner material which is less than a wetting angle of the subject material on the substrate material” (claims 16, 21, and 26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Menna Youssef can be reached at (571)270-3684. 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.
/RYAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849