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 Objections
Claim 1 and 4-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2, recites “wherein” and it should be “comprising”.
Claim 4, line 1, recited “Device (10)” and it should be “Device”.
Claim 5, line 1, recited “Device (10)” and it should be “Device”.
Claim 6 depends on Claim 1, but recites limitations “second stepped mirror” and third stepped mirror”, where are not recited in Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 and 7 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.
The term “preferably” in claims 2 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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) 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meinert (EP 4016400 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Meinert teaches a device (Fig. 1), comprising
a laser beam source (10) for generating a laser beam, and
at least one acousto-optic deflector (11) for generating an array of partial beams of the laser beam,
wherein the array comprises rows (Fig. 1),
wherein the device has a stepped mirror unit (12) comprising at least one first stepped mirror,
wherein the first stepped mirror comprises mirrors, a stepped distance between adjacent mirrors and a stepped height (an array of micro mirrors; ¶ 0051; stepped distance and height as shown in Fig. 1).
Meinert fails to explicitly teach that the stepped mirror is configured to reduce a row distance of the partial beams of the array.
However, Meinert teaches that the position and tilt of the plurality of mirrors is changeable to adjust the direction of an intermediate beam onto a focusing optic (¶ 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to position and tilt Meinert’s plurality of stepped mirrors to adjust the direction of the partial beams of the array onto a desired position, and one would be motivated to adjust the beams to have a reduced row distance, so that Meinert can further achieve space conservation in the device.
Regarding claim 2, Meinert teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the stepped mirror unit is multi-stage (beam path is changeable for each mirror; multiple dimensional array; ¶ 0051 and 0053).
Regarding claim 3, Meinert teaches the device according to claim 1, but fails to teach that the stepped mirror unit comprises a second stepped mirror, nor that the second stepped mirror comprises mirrors, a stepped distance between adjacent mirrors and a stepped height, nor that the stepped distance of the second stepped mirror corresponds to the stepped height of the first stepped mirror.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to duplicate the first stepped mirror to have a second stepped mirror with corresponding distance and height, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 4, Meinert teaches the device according to claim 3, but fails to further teach that the stepped mirror unit comprises a third stepped mirror, nor that the third stepped mirror comprises mirrors, a stepped distance between adjacent mirrors and a stepped height, nor that the stepped distance of the third stepped mirror corresponds to the stepped height of the second stepped mirror.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to duplicate the first stepped mirror to have a third stepped mirror with corresponding distance and height, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 6, Meinert teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the stepped height of the first stepped mirror is smaller than the stepped distance of the first stepped mirror (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Meinert teaches the device according to claim 1, but fails to further teach that the stepped distance of the first stepped mirror is between 4 mm and 12 mm, preferably between 6 mm and 10 mm, most preferably between 7 mm and 9 mm, and/or the stepped height of the first stepped mirror is between 0.5 mm and 3.5 mm, preferably between 1 mm and 3 mm.
However, Meinert teaches that the mirrors are micro or macroscopic (¶ 0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate single-digit millimeter length and height in Meinert’s device, since such length/height would be in compliance with the scale in Fig. 1, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only, routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) 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.
Regarding claim 8, Meinert teaches the device according to claim 3, but fails to further teach that the stepped distance of the second stepped mirror is between 0.5 mm and 3.5 mm, preferably between 1 mm and 3 mm, and/or the stepped height of the second stepped mirror is between 0.25 mm and 0.75 mm, preferably between 0.4 mm and 0.6 mm.
However, Meinert teaches that the mirrors are micro or macroscopic (¶ 0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate single-digit millimeter length and height in Meinert’s device, since such length/height would be in compliance with the scale in Fig. 1, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only, routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) 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.
Regarding claim 9, Meinert teaches the device according to claim 4, but fails to further teach that the stepped distance of the third stepped mirror is between 0.25 mm and 0.75 mm, preferably between 0.4 mm and 0.6 mm, and/or the stepped height of the third stepped mirror is between 0.10 mm and 0.30 mm, preferably between 0.150 mm and 0.20 mm.
However, Meinert teaches that the mirrors are micro or macroscopic (¶ 0051). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to incorporate single-digit millimeter length and height in Meinert’s device, since such length/height would be in compliance with the scale in Fig. 1, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only, routine skill in the art. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) 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.
Regarding claim 10, Meinert teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the device comprises a beam splitter unit (¶ 0049) for splitting the laser beam into partial beams in a first direction, wherein the device comprises one acousto-optic deflector per partial beam for dividing the partial beams into rows and thus for generating the array of partial beams (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Meinert teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the device comprises relay optics comprising a microscope objective (¶ 0025) for reducing the row distance and the distance of partial beams within a row, wherein the partial beams after the relay optics form optical tweezers for capturing atoms (¶ 0020).
Regarding claim 12, Meinert teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the device has a unit for coupling radiation to excite atoms captured by means of the optical tweezers and/or for decoupling radiation originating from atoms captured by means of the optical tweezers, wherein the unit is configured for coupling and/or decoupling in a pupil plane of the relay optics (¶ 0020).
Regarding claim 13, Meinert teaches a method (Fig. 1) for generating optical tweezers (¶ 0020), wherein the method comprises generating an array of partial beams by means of at least one acousto-optic deflector (11), wherein the array comprises rows (Fig. 1), wherein the method comprises a stepped mirror unit (12) having at least a first stepped mirror, wherein the first stepped mirror comprises mirrors, a stepped distance between adjacent mirrors and a stepped height (an array of micro mirrors; ¶ 0051; stepped distance and height as shown in Fig. 1).
Meinert fails to explicitly teach that the stepped mirror is a means to reduce a row distance of the partial beams of the array.
However, Meinert teaches that the position and tilt of the plurality of mirrors is changeable to adjust the direction of an intermediate beam onto a focusing optic (¶ 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to position and tilt Meinert’s plurality of stepped mirrors to adjust the direction of the partial beams of the array onto a desired position, and one would be motivated to adjust the beams to have a reduced row distance, so that Meinert can further achieve space conservation in the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest a device for generating optical tweezers, comprising a laser beam source for generating a laser beam, and at least one acousto-optic deflector for generating an array of partial beams of the laser beam, wherein the array comprises rows, wherein the device has a stepped mirror unit comprising at least one first stepped mirror for reducing a row distance of the partial beams of the array, wherein the first stepped mirror comprises mirrors, a stepped distance between adjacent mirrors and a stepped height, wherein the device comprises a coupling unit for coupling the partial beams into the stepped mirror unit, wherein the coupling unit comprises mirrors, a stepped distance between adjacent mirrors and a stepped height, wherein the stepped height of the coupling unit corresponds to the stepped distance of the first stepped mirror.
The claims in the instant application are deemed to be directed to a nonobvious improvement over the prior art of record, particularly Meinert (EP 4016400 A1), who teaches a device for generating optical tweezers, comprising a laser beam source for generating a laser beam, and at least one acousto-optic deflector for generating an array of partial beams of the laser beam, wherein the array comprises rows, wherein the device has a stepped mirror unit comprising at least one first stepped mirror, wherein the first stepped mirror comprises mirrors, a stepped distance between adjacent mirrors and a stepped height; however, Meinert fails to further teach a coupling unit for coupling the partial beams into the stepped mirror unit, wherein the coupling unit comprises mirrors, a stepped distance between adjacent mirrors and a stepped height, wherein the stepped height of the coupling unit corresponds to the stepped distance of the first stepped mirror.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims is the combination of the device’s laser beam source for generating a laser beam, and the least one acousto-optic deflector for generating an array of partial beams of the laser beam, wherein the array comprises rows, wherein the device has a stepped mirror unit comprising at least one first stepped mirror for reducing a row distance of the partial beams of the array, wherein the first stepped mirror comprises mirrors, a stepped distance between adjacent mirrors and a stepped height, wherein the device comprises a coupling unit for coupling the partial beams into the stepped mirror unit, wherein the coupling unit comprises mirrors, a stepped distance between adjacent mirrors and a stepped height, wherein the stepped height of the coupling unit corresponds to the stepped distance of the first stepped mirror.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HSIEN C TSAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday (8-5).
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.
/HSIEN C TSAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881