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 .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites the same range for the quantum spin defect from the surface as is now in claim 11. Thus, claim 11 does not further limit claim 1.. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13 to 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Markham et al (GB 2570583).
The Markham et al reference teaches a single crystal CVD diamond and method of making, note entire reference. A single crystal CVD diamond component comprising a surface, wherein at least a portion of the surface has been processed by chemical mechanical polishing,, note page and a layer of quantum spin defects. The layer of quantum spin defects being disposed within 500 nm of the surface note page 5 lines 20-30. The method of fabricating the single crystal CVD diamond component by providing a single crystal CVD diamond having a surface, processing at least a portion of the surface using chemical mechanical polishing and having a layer of quantum spin defects. The reference teach a diamond with at least one dimension, lateral of 0.5 mm or more, note example 1.
With regards to claim 4, the Markham et al reference teaches quantum spin defects containing silicon, chromium, and nitrogen(NV-), note page 1.
With regards to claims 6, 7, 20, 20 and 22, the Markham et al reference teaches a quantum spin defect concentration which overlaps the entire range note page 5.
With regards to claims 10, 24 and 25 the Markham et al reference teach a nitrogen content less then 300ppb, note example and the layer distal to the surface, note example.
With regards to claim 13, the Markham et al reference teaches diamond sizes greater then 0.5 mm such as 3 mm, note example 1.
With regards to claim 14, the Markham et al reference using the CVD diamond in a magnetic field sensing device, note page 11.
With regards to claim 18, the Markham et al reference teaches ion implanting nitrogen to create the quantum spin defect layer and then annealing the diamond where the layer is less than 500nm deep, note page 3 lines 30 -35.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markham et al (GB 2570583) in view of Scarsbrook (WO 2010/010352).
The Markham et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the type of etching. However, the Scarsbrook reference teaches etching diamonds with a quantum spin defects by inductively couple etching, page 29 or mechanical etching page 30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Markham et al reference by the teachings of the Scarsbrook reference to use known etching methods on the diamond in order to obtain a uniform and smooth surface.
Claim(s) 9 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markham et al (GB 2570583) in view of Twitchen (WO 2021/159896).
The Markham et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the surface roughness. However, the Twitchen reference discloses a single crystal CVD diamond component comprising a surface, wherein at least a portion of the surface has been processed such that the surface roughness Ra is less than 0.5 nm, and a layer of quantum spin defects disposed within 100 nm of the surface ( page 17, line 21, to page 18, line 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Markham et al reference by the teachings of the Twitchen reference to a low roughness on the diamond surface in order to allow for further uniform processing.
Examiner’ Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in diamond manufacture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714