DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statement(s) filed on various dates is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) filed on 05/02/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the boundary condition must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 1, 3, 8-9 and 11. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
A typo (missing what is in square bracket) in Claim 8: “…the parabolic mirror [is] adapted to guide the emission of the quantum emitter onto the SLM,…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 3 limitation “a controller adapted to control…” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This limitation, and in particular the controlling function thereof, does not have sufficient structure.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted by the Examiner to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4, 6 and 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 4-8 of copending Application No. 18/652,399 of Cerchiari et al. (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the elements of Claims 1, 4, 6 and 10-11 of the present application is met by corresponding Claims 1 and 4-8 of the copending application (see table of correlation below).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented (as of 06/12/2026).
Claim Number of Present Application
Claim Element of Present Application
Corresponding Claim Language of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/652,399 of Cerchiari et al.
1
An apparatus for guiding spontaneous emissions of a quantum emitter in a first spatial direction comprising:
the quantum emitter; and
a reflector adapted to reflect an emission of the quantum emitter in a second spatial direction according to a boundary condition, wherein the boundary condition comprises obtaining destructive interference of the reflected emission with the emission of the quantum emitter, and wherein the reflector comprises a portion adapted to guide an emission of the quantum emitter in the first spatial direction.
Claims 1 & 6 or claims 1, 4-5 & 7 recite:
An apparatus of two or more quantum emitters comprising: two or more quantum emitters, which are located in a plane (claim 1); wherein the apparatus further comprises a means for guiding the emission of the quantum emitter of the two or more quantum emitters onto the reflector, wherein the means for guiding the emission are located along the axis perpendicular to the plane [first spatial direction] (claim 6); and a reflector located along an axis perpendicular to the plane, the reflector adapted to reflect an emission of a quantum emitter of the two or more quantum emitters according to a boundary condition, wherein the boundary condition comprises obtaining destructive interference of the reflected emissions with the emissions of the quantum emitters (claim 1); apparatus comprises a means for guiding the emission of the quantum emitter (claim 7);
4
The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the reflector comprises one or more of a mirror and a spatial light modulator (SLM).
Claims 1, 4-5 & 7 recite:
wherein the reflector comprises one or more of a mirror and a spatial light modulator (SLM) (claim 4).
6
The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the portion for guiding the emission of the quantum emitter in the first spatial direction comprises an optical device for guiding the emission of the quantum emitter in the first spatial direction.
Claims 1, 4-5 & 7 recite:
wherein the apparatus further comprises a lens [optical device] as means for guiding the emission of the quantum emitter (claim 7).
10
The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus further comprises an array comprising two or more quantum emitters.
Claims 1 & 6 recite:
An apparatus of two or more quantum emitters comprising: two or more quantum emitters (Claim 1);
11
A method for guiding spontaneous emissions of a quantum emitter in a first spatial direction comprising:
reflecting, by a reflector, an emission of the quantum emitter in a second spatial direction according to a boundary condition,
wherein the boundary condition comprises obtaining destructive interference of the reflected emission with the emission of the quantum emitter, and
guiding an emission of the quantum emitter in the first spatial direction.
Claim 8 recites:
A method of spontaneous emissions of two or more quantum emitters comprising: reflecting, by a reflector, an emission of a quantum emitter of the two or more quantum emitters according to a boundary condition, wherein the two or more quantum emitters are located in a plane, wherein the reflector is located along an axis perpendicular to the plane, and wherein the boundary condition comprises obtaining destructive interference of the reflected emission with the emissions of the two or more quantum emitters.
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.
Claims 1-11 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.
1. Claims 1-11 recite limitations directed to the “quantum emitter”. It is unclear what is meant by a quantum emitter, since such a term may refer to an indeterminate multiplicity of structures such that one of ordinary skill in the art is unable to envisage what such an emitter refers to, especially in light of the as-filed specification stating “Such a quantum emitter may be, in some embodiments, an ion, an atom, a quantum dot, or any other type of quantum (information) entity” (see ¶0059 of PG-PUB (US 2024/0372033 A1) of originally-filed specification). Specifically, it is unclear which ions and atoms could be utilized as quantum emitters, and it is also unclear what is meant by “any other type of quantum (information) entity” as corresponding to a quantum emitter (italicized for emph.). Furthermore, not every quantum emitter can satisfy the claimed conditions directed to controlled and guided emission directions as recited in the claims, thereby resulting in the metes and bounds of the claimed invention to be unascertainable. The specification disclosure also renders the scope of the claim(s) uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure makes an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the specification at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention." Applicants are required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.03 citing In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971) and MPEP § 2173.05(a) citing In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Examiner respectfully suggests that the quantum emitter structure be clarified such that the claimed term finds clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the term may be ascertainable by reference to the specification.
2. Claims 1-3, 8-9 and 11 recite limitations directed to “obtaining destructive interference” corresponding to “a boundary condition”. It is generally unclear in what manner one can obtain destructive interference as a boundary condition. It is unclear what is meant by the boundary condition itself, i.e., is it a physical boundary within the apparatus and/or emitter? Is it a constraint of a function/equation? etc. The instant specification merely recites in ipsis verbis the generic claim language, and appears to be silent with respect to any explanation of how such a destructive interference can be obtained with any boundary condition. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as inherent.
3. The following limitation invoke(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function:
Regarding Claim 3 limitation: “controller adapted to control…”, the specification is silent to any definite structure required to meet the functional limitations of a controller beyond merely reciting the components of the generic placeholder: “the controller may control the positions of a reflector and/or an emitter and may additionally control further components included in the apparatus for suppressing or guiding an emission. Such a device may comprise memory 1110, processing circuitry 1120, and possibly a transceiver 1140 and a user interface 1130” (¶0132 of PG-PUB (US 2024/0372033 A1) of originally-filed specification).
Therefore, Claim 3 is rendered indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shields (US 2003/0063748 A1; as cited in the IDS filed 05/17/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Shields discloses: An apparatus for guiding spontaneous emissions of a quantum emitter in a first spatial direction (¶0106) comprising: the quantum emitter (¶0092, 0116: a schematic of a single-photon emitter 1 directing its output in a predetermined direction 3 [first spatial direction]); and a reflector adapted to reflect an emission of the quantum emitter in a second spatial direction according to a boundary condition (¶0106: light is emitted in a predetermined direction which is within the plane of the cavity layer; ¶0094: the optical modes are not restricted in the lateral directions. Thus, much of the light can also be emitted along the plane of the cavity layer [second spatial direction]; see FIG. 6), wherein the boundary condition comprises obtaining destructive interference of the reflected emission with the emission of the quantum emitter (¶0106: The photon generating portion is formed at an irregularity 25 in the pattern. The pattern of holes formed around photon generation portion 25 is regular in two dimensions except for preferred emission direction 26; ¶0126: the radius of the holes d.sub.b as well as their separation L.sub.p is determined so as to suppress the photonic modes), and wherein the reflector comprises a portion adapted to guide an emission of the quantum emitter in the first spatial direction (¶0094: the light of the resonant wavelength of the cavity is emitted into a narrow cone 19 centered about the normal 21 to the two mirrors; ¶0095: light is emitted trough the upper Bragg mirror because the upper Bragg minor has a higher transmittance than that of the lower Bragg mirror; see FIGS. 1-2 showing reflector comprising a portion 15 adapted to guide an emission of the quantum emitter in the first spatial direction 3).
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, Shields discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Shields further discloses: wherein the guiding of the emission in the first spatial direction comprises not obtaining a destructive interference with the emission of the quantum emitter in the first spatial direction (¶0094: the light of the resonant wavelength of the cavity is emitted into a narrow cone 19 centered about the normal 21 to the two mirrors; ¶0116: The output from single photon source 11 is then directed in predetermined direction 3).
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Shields discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Shields further discloses: wherein the apparatus further comprises: a controller adapted to control one or more of: a position of the reflector and/or a position of the quantum emitter based on the boundary condition, and/or a focal length of the reflector (¶0152-54: the strongly coupled device 101 has a control signal 103 and a signal which is to be controlled 105…This control signal will be absorbed by device 101, changing the reflectivity characteristics of the device to that of the dotted line shown in FIG. 21…[when] there is no control signal, the device 101 cannot absorb at this wavelength and main signal 105 is reflected as shown).
Regarding Claim 5, Shields discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Shields further discloses: wherein the portion for guiding the emission of the quantum emitter in the first spatial direction comprises an opening in the first spatial direction (¶0142, 0147: a substrate 51 is further etched in order to form a window 77. It will be appreciated that this window could also be formed at the top of the device; claim 35: “either of the first or second mirror regions are etched to form a window”).
Regarding Claim 6, Shields discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Shields further discloses: wherein the portion for guiding the emission of the quantum emitter in the first spatial direction comprises an optical device for guiding the emission of the quantum emitter in the first spatial direction (¶0041-47,0060, 0064: the optical device comprising: a quantum dot located in a three dimensional optical cavity which is configured to confine a photon to the order of the photon wavelength in all three dimensions, the quantum dot and optical cavity being configured such that there is strong coupling between the confined electronic modes of the quantum dot and the optical modes of the cavity; ¶0029: when emission is required from the upper surface of the emitter, the upper mirror may have 3 periods, whereas the lower mirror has 5 periods. This is to concentrate the emission to occur from just one surface of the device).
Regarding Claim 10, Shields discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Shields further discloses: wherein the apparatus further comprises an array comprising two or more quantum emitters (¶0119: A layer of quantum dots 63 is formed; ¶0124: The quantum dot layer 63).
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, Shields discloses: A method (¶0041-46, 0064) for guiding spontaneous emissions of a quantum emitter in a first spatial direction comprising: reflecting, by a reflector, an emission of the quantum emitter in a second spatial direction according to a boundary condition, wherein the boundary condition comprises obtaining destructive interference of the reflected emission with the emission of the quantum emitter, and guiding an emission of the quantum emitter in the first spatial direction (see rejection of claim 1 supra).
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.
Claims 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shields (US 2003/0063748 A1) in view of Futterer (US 2016/0327906 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 7, Shields discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Shields does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the reflector comprises one or more of a mirror and a spatial light modulator (SLM) (clm 4); wherein the reflector is a hemispherical mirror, and wherein a position of the hemispherical mirror and/or a position of the quantum emitter are adjusted such that the quantum emitter is located at a focal point of the hemispherical mirror (clm 7).
Futterer is related to Shields with respect to disclosing an illumination apparatus for guiding emissions of a quantum emitter comprising optical elements including a reflector with boundary condition comprising obtaining destructive interference of the reflected emission (¶0084-90, 0094-95, 0140, 0145), and Futterer teaches: wherein the reflector comprises one or more of a mirror and a spatial light modulator (SLM) (clm 4) (¶0055: the light passing the SLM is reflected by a mirror system in between arranged in the reflection plane; ¶0177-78: the light passing through the SLM propagates to a reflection plane RP which provides a pattern of structured reflectors in form of mirror elements M); wherein the reflector is a hemispherical mirror, and wherein a position of the hemispherical mirror and/or a position of the quantum emitter are adjusted such that the quantum emitter is located at a focal point of the hemispherical mirror (clm 7) (¶0267: a spherical mirror structuring in front of the SLM panel; ¶0268: To focus the light increases its divergence, that is the divergence present behind the focal plane, which is in this case the entrance plane of the SLM). Therefore, substituting the reflector of Shields for the reflector as taught by Futterer would yield the claimed mirror(s) and spatial modulator.
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 apparatus of Shields via a simple substitution of the reflectors as taught by Futterer to satisfy the claimed condition, because such an SLM used in conjunction with a hemispherical mirror is known and selected for beam shaping functionality and in order to achieve a complex modulation of sufficiently coherent light emitted by the illumination unit, as taught in paragraph ¶0018, 0267 of Futterer.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Shields discloses the apparatus according to Claim 1, as above. Shields further discloses: wherein the reflector is a flat mirror, the flat mirror comprises the portion for guiding the emission of the quantum emitter into the first spatial direction, the flat mirror is adapted to reflect the emission of the quantum emitter into a second spatial direction according to the boundary condition (clm 9) (¶0131, 0135: forming of Bragg mirror; ¶0122-23: the difference in the number of periods between the upper and lower Bragg mirrors 55, 67 means that the radiation is likely to be emitted through e upper Bragg mirror 67… The lower 55 and upper 67 Bragg mirrors serve to confine the optical mode; ¶0106: light is emitted in a predetermined direction which is within the plane of the cavity layer since the upper and lower Bragg mirrors have the same thickness).
Shields does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the reflector is a spatial light modulator (SLM), the SLM is configured to guide the emission of the quantum emitter into the first spatial direction and to reflect the emission of the quantum emitter into a second spatial direction according to the boundary condition; the apparatus further comprises a parabolic mirror, the parabolic mirror adapted to guide the emission of the quantum emitter onto the SLM, a position of the parabolic mirror and/or a position of the quantum emitter are adjusted such that the quantum emitter is located at a focal point within the parabolic mirror (claim 8); the apparatus further comprises a parabolic mirror, the parabolic mirror adapted to guide the emission of the quantum emitter onto the flat mirror, a position of the parabolic mirror and/or a position of the quantum emitter are adjusted such that the quantum emitter is located at a focal point within the parabolic mirror (claim 9).
Futterer is related to Shields with respect to disclosing an illumination apparatus for guiding emissions of a quantum emitter comprising optical elements including a reflector with boundary condition comprising obtaining destructive interference of the reflected emission (¶0084-90, 0094-95, 0140, 0145), and Futterer teaches: wherein the reflector is a spatial light modulator (SLM), the SLM is configured to guide the emission of the quantum emitter into the first spatial direction and to reflect the emission of the quantum emitter into a second spatial direction according to the boundary condition (clm 8) (¶0030: The redirection of the light is introduced by using the reflection plane, which is placed at one side of the spatial light modulator device; ¶0055: the light passing both the phase modulating pixels and the amplitude modulating pixels of the SLM is reflected; ¶0177-7); a parabolic mirror, the parabolic mirror adapted to guide the emission of the quantum emitter onto the flat mirror (¶0187: The mirror segments MS at the back end of the phase modulating pixels p or of the reflection plane RP can be e.g. made by dielectric mirror stacks), a position of the parabolic mirror and/or a position of the quantum emitter are adjusted such that the quantum emitter is located at a focal point within the parabolic mirror (claims 8 & 9) (¶0145: The collimation unit CU comprises a reflection element, preferably a parabolic mirror PM; ¶0255: off-axis parabolic mirror having a focal length of f.sub.coll.sub._.sub.OAPM=1 m and a diameter of Ø.sub.OAPM=200 mm. The off-axis parabolic mirror has a numerical aperture of 0.1; ¶0257: setup is used to image the exit plane onto the front focal plane of a collimating unit; ¶0238: a light source which is provided in the front focal plane of the collimating lens COL).
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 apparatus of Shields in view of Futterer to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a parabolic mirror and a flat mirror utilized in conjunction with the emitter and the SLM is known and would be utilized for collimation purposes and/or for redirecting the beam path, as taught in paragraphs ¶0145, 0152 of Futterer.
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Day et al. (US 8,050,307 B2) and Pushkarsky et al. (US 8,774,244 B2) disclose pertinent art directed to apparatus comprising a quantum emitter configured to guide emission in a controlled manner, a plurality of reflectors, and further satisfying some of the additional conditions as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-1800 (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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights