DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on May 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 22, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-9 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.
5. Regarding claim 1:
The term “confided” is unclear in the context of the invention. It is presumed the applicant intended to use the term “confined”. As currently written, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over A. Schwarzkopf, D. A. Anderson, N. Thaicharoen, and G. Raithel (2013). "Spatial correlations between Rydberg atoms in an optical dipole trap," Physical Review A, 88(6), 061406.DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.88.061406 (hereinafter referred to as Schwarzkopf) in view of Haaf, G., Wouters, S. H. W., Mutsaers, P. H. A., & Vredenbregt, E. J. D. (2017). Cavity-enhanced photoionization of an ultracold rubidium beam for application in focused ion beams. Physical Review A, 96(5), 053412. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.053412 (hereinafter referred to as Haaf), further in view of Cox, K. C., Meyer, D. H., Schine, N. A., Fatemi, F. K., & Kunz, P. D. (2018). Increased atom-cavity coupling and stability using a parabolic ring cavity. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 51(19), 195002. doi.org (hereinafter referred to as Cox).
9. Regarding claim 1:
Schwarzkopf teaches a method for generating an ion beam (pg. 1 teaches that the ions resulting from field ionization are accelerated along the radially divergent electric field lines. Generating and directing ions corresponds to generating an ion beam), comprising:
positioning atoms in an optical dipole trap, where the atoms collect at a waist of light (pg. 1 teaches exciting the Rydberg atoms in an optical dipole trap with 4W of power and a focal spot of
w
0
=
23
μ
m
. The atoms are positioned in an optical dipole trap, collected at the waist of the trapping light (
w
0
=
23
μ
m
));
exciting the atoms while the atoms are trapped in the optical dipole trap using two or more laser beams (pg. 1 teaches exciting the Rydberg atoms in an optical dipole trap using crossed excitation beams, the 780-nm beam and 480-nm beam), thereby forming ions (pg. 1 teaches the ions resulting from filed ionization); and driving the ions along an output axis towards a target by applying an electric field to the ions (pg. 1 teaches that the ions resulting from field ionization are accelerated along the radially divergent electric field lines. The ions are detected by a microchannel plate).
Schwarzkopf does not teach positioning atoms in a cavity of an optical resonator.
However, Haaf teaches positioning atoms in a cavity of an optical resonator and a waist of light confined in the optical resonator (under broadest reasonable interpretation, positioning means that the atoms are at a defined position in the cavity. Atoms drifting through a cavity are at the moment of interaction, positioned at the waist. Pg. 2 teaches ionizing the atoms inside the ionization laser cavity or an external build-up cavity, which corresponds to the optical resonator, to which the ionization light is coupled. Pg. 8 teaches the beam waist is inside the cavity).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf to include the build-up cavity as taught in TH as part of the optical dipole trapping system in Schwarzkopf to trap atoms. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification so that the ionization laser beam can be focused less tightly to get the same laser beam intensity, which enables a larger current at the optimal achievable brightness and energy spread (as taught in Haaf pg. 2).
Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf fails to teach that where the atoms confined in the optical resonator.
However, Cox teaches that where the atoms confined in the optical resonator (pg. 2 teaches ring cavity with parabolic mirrors and that rubidium atoms are trapped in a vacuum cell at the small cavity given as the waist).
PNG
media_image2.png
375
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox to include that where the atoms confined in the optical resonator. Such modification would allow for a cavity with strong coupling with atoms (Cox pg. 2).
10. Regarding claim 2:
Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf teaches the method of claim 1. Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf fails to teach that wherein the optical dipole trap is a running wave in a ring cavity.
However, Cox teaches that wherein the optical dipole trap is a running wave (pg. 5 teaches running-wave optical dipole trap) in a ring cavity (pg. 5 teaches the parabolic ring cavity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox to include that wherein the optical trap is a running wave in a ring cavity. Such modification would allow for a cavity with strong coupling with atoms (Cox pg. 2).
11. Regarding claim 3:
Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox teaches the method of claim 1.
Schwarzkopf fails to teach that wherein the optical dipole trap is a two mirror cavity.
Haaf teaches a two mirror cavity (pg. 8 teaches that the build-up cavity consists of two concave mirrors).
Schwarzkopf teaches the optical dipole trap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarzkopf’s optical dipole trap to incorporate the two mirror cavity as taught in Haaf. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification so that the ionization laser beam can be focused less tightly to get the same laser beam intensity, which enables a larger current at the optimal achievable brightness and energy spread (as taught in Haaf pg. 2).
12. Regarding claim 4:
Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox teaches the method of claim 1. Schwarzkopf does not teach that wherein the cavity is cylindrical and the output axis is perpendicular to longitudinal axis of the cavity.
However, Haaf teaches that wherein the cavity is cylindrical and the output axis is perpendicular to longitudinal axis of the cavity (under broadest reasonable interpretation, “cylindrical” means any optical resonator that defines an elongated, rotationally symmetric interaction volume along a longitudinal axis, which in the case includes linear two-mirror build-up cavity. Pg. 2 fig. 1 teaches such cylindrical build-up cavity. As shown in fig. 1, the atoms travel in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the cavity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical dipole trap in Schwarzkopf to include the cylindrical build-up cavity in Haaf. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to achieve consistent ionization, and the ionization laser beam can be focused less tightly to get the same laser beam intensity, which enables a larger current at the optimal achievable brightness and energy spread (as taught in Haaf pg. 2).
13. Regarding claim 5:
Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox teaches the method of claim 4. Schwarzkopf fails to teach applying the electric field using electrodes arranged symmetrically and circumferentially around the cavity of the optical resonator.
However, Haaf teaches applying the electric field using electrodes arranged symmetrically and circumferentially around the cavity of the optical resonator (pg. 2 fig. 1 teaches that the build-up cavity runs-along x-axis. Pg. 8 teaches that the photoionization takes place in the middle between two electrodes which are separated be a 3 mm gap. Two electrodes at opposed angular positions satisfy the circumferential arrangement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical dipole trap in Schwarzkopf to incorporate the build-up cavity and electrode arrangement in Haaf. Such modification would ensure that the ionization laser beam can be focused less tightly to get the same laser beam intensity, which enables a larger current at the optimal achievable brightness and energy spread. The ionization usually takes place inside an electric field to preserve the brightness (as taught in Haaf pg. 2).
14. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox, further in view of Viteau, M., Radogostowicz, J., Bason, M. G., Malossi, N., Ciampini, D., Morsch, O., & Arimondo, E. (2011). Rydberg spectroscopy of a Rb MOT in the presence of applied or ion created electric fields. Optics Express, 19(7), 6007-6019 (hereinafter referred to as Viteau).
15. Regarding claim 6:
Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox teaches the method of claim 1. Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox fails to teach acquiring an atomic excitation spectrum of atoms in the ion beam while the ion beam is being generated; and changing ion density of the ion beam based on the atomic excitation spectrum.
However, Viteau teaches acquiring an atomic excitation spectrum of atoms in the ion beam (pg. 6014 teaches acquiring Rydberg spectra. Fig. 3 teaches detected ion number) while the ion beam is being generated (pg. 6014 teaches that the spectra are built from the ions produced by laser excitation. Ion generation and spectrum acquisition as taught are inseparable, where each data point in the Rydberg spectrum is a measurement of ions generated at that laser frequency. Pg. 6009 teaches that the reported spectra are modified by the electric field generated by the ions produced by the laser excitation); and changing ion density of the ion beam based on the atomic excitation spectrum (pg. 6019 teaches that the ion production causes a deformation of the Rydberg spectra and is unwanted for quantum information applications. For such a target, the ion production is drastically reduced by detuning the blue laser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox to include Viteau’s technique of acquiring the Rydberg spectrum and spectrum-based ion density control. Such modification would allow for a precise control of the ion production (Viteau pg. 6009) and quantum information applications (Viteau pg. 6019).
16. Regarding claim 7:
Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox, further in view of Viteau teaches the method of claim 6. Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox fails to teach that wherein acquiring an atomic excitation spectrum further comprises diagnosing the ion beam with a measurement laser, and counting the excited atoms as a function of wavelength of the measurement laser.
However, Viteau teaches diagnosing the ion beam with a measurement laser (pg. 6014 teaches acquiring Rydberg spectra by scanning the frequency of the IR laser at fixed frequency of the blue laser), and counting the excited atoms as a function of wavelength of the measurement laser (pg. 6014 fig. 3 teaches detected ion number versus
δ
I
R
, the IR laser detuning. The channel electron multiplier (CEM) counts are a direct count of the atoms that were excited at each IR frequency setting.
δ
I
R
is equivalent to wavelength of the IR laser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox to include Viteau’s laser scanning and charged-particle counting technique. Such modification would allow for a precise control of the ion production (Viteau pg. 6009).
17. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox, further in view of Viteau, further in view of Anderson (US 20190187198).
18. Regarding claim 8:
Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox, further in view of Viteau teaches the method of claim 6, wherein acquiring an atomic excitation spectrum (Viteau pg. 6014 teaches acquiring Rydberg spectra. Fig. 3 teaches detected ion number). Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox, further in view of Viteau fails to teach determining energy level shifts of Rydberg atoms in the ion beam using electro-magnetically induced transparency.
However, Anderson teaches determining energy level shifts of Rydberg atoms in the plasma using electro-magnetically induced transparency ([0006] teaches electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) being used as a non-destruction optical detection technique for Rydberg spectra. [0178]-[0179] teaches that using EIT as high-resolution quantum-optical probe of energy-level shifts of plasma-embedded Rydberg atoms).
Schwarzkopf teaches the ion beam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox, further in view of Viteau, to include the EIT optical probe method as taught in Anderson. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to allow for a nondestructive optical detection technique for Rydberg spectra (as taught by Anderson [0006]).
19. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox, further in view of Viteau, further in view of McClelland (US 20080296483).
20 Regarding claim 9:
Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox, further in view of Viteau teaches the method of claim 6. Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox fails to teach that wherein changing the ion density includes controlling the power of the two or more laser beams with an acoustic-optic modulator and using feedback from the feedback loop.
However, Viteau teaches that wherein changing the ion density (pg. 6019 teaches that the ion production causes a deformation of the Rydberg spectra and is unwanted for quantum information applications. For such a target, the ion production is drastically reduced by detuning the blue laser) includes controlling the power of the two or more laser beams with an acoustic-optic modulator (pg. 6013 teaches that the blue/IR laser beams were applied as a pulse having a 0.5-10
μ
s
duration with a gaussian rise time of 0.08
μ
s
controlled by an acousto-optic modulator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox, further in view of Viteau to include that wherein changing the ion density includes controlling the power of the two or more laser beams with an acoustic-optic modulator. Such modification would allow for a precise control of the ion production (Viteau pg. 6009).
Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox, further in view of Viteau fails to teach inputting the atomic excitation spectrum into a feedback loop and using feedback from the feedback loop.
McClelland teaches inputting the ion current into a feedback loop and using feedback from the feedback loop ([0049] teaches the output current of each of the trap ion source could also be easily controlled and optimized in a feedback loop by tuning the individual currents by adjusting the intensity or frequency of the lasers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarzkopf in view of Haaf, further in view of Cox, further in view of Viteau to include the feedback loop in McClelland to adjust the lasers based on the Rydberg excitation spectrum as taught in Viteau. Such modification would allow for active feedback to control and adjust the lasers during operation (as taught in McClelland [0049]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights