4DETAILED 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 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.
Claims 4 and 21 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.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, which is canceled. In the following action claim 4 is assumed to depend on claim 1.
Claim 21 recites “the vacuum chamber has a protruding housing and houses..”. It is not clear whether the subject of the verb “houses” is the vacuum chamber or the protruding housing. Examiner suggests changing the limitation to “ a protruding housing which houses..” to clarify the language.
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 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11-15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kock (US 20170105276 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kock teaches a method of generating and trapping laser cooled metal atoms in a magneto-optical trap ([0045]), the method comprising:
Providing an apparatus comprising:
A vacuum chamber (14)
A magneto-optical trap (44, fig. 3) arranged to be generated within the vacuum chamber; and
An ablation laser (32);
Placing an sample (38) within the vacuum chamber then generating a vacuum within the vacuum chamber (placing sample in vacuum chamber before evacuation, [0028-0029]);
Irradiating the sample with the ablation laser to generate an atomic vapor formed of elemental metal atoms from the sample (strontium vapor [0030]); and
Trapping a plurality of the elemental metal atoms in the magneto-optical trap ([0045-0046]), wherein:
The wavelength of the ablation laser is from 400 to 2,000 nm (405 nm, [0031]).
Kock does not teach that the sample is an elemental metal sample, or that the ablation laser has a power from 1-100 W, or that a duration of the irradiation is from 0.1 ms to 5 seconds.
However Kock teaches that ablation of pure metal samples to provide a metal vapor is known in the prior art ([0023-0024]) and that doing so would result in an operable system despite the disadvantage of “background heat radiation causing difficulties for some applications”. It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the oxidized sample of Kock with a pure elemental sample as a known equivalent means of generating a metal vapor which does not require the additional step of oxidation taught by Kock, in order to simplify the invention (while possibly accepting a disadvantage caused by the heat radiation).
Kock also teaches that power and pulse duration of the laser diode may be adjusted by one of ordinary skill in the art ([0034]). In this case one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to find the power and pulse duration that would effectively sublimate the metal sample and produce a desired level of vaporization through routine optimization of the laser parameters, which are known result-effective variables easily controlled by one of ordinary skill in the art as stated by Kock, and the applicant has shown no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of the laser parameters (MPEP 2144.05 II A [R-01.2024]).
Regarding claims 2, 4 and 6-9, as argued above it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the laser power and the irradiation duration of Kock to any desired level which produces a desired level of vaporization of the sample which is a matter of routine experimentation with no unexpected or critical result as described above.
Regarding claim 11, Kock teaches that the sample (elemental earth sample in the combination above) is an alkaline earth metal (strontium, [0026]).
Regarding claims 12-13, Kock teaches that the metal is strontium.
Regarding claim 14, Kock teaches that the ablation laser wavelength may be adjusted depending on the material being ablated ([0031]) as multiple materials may be used in the system of Kock ([0054]). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kock to have a laser wavelength within the claimed range, as a matter of selecting the appropriate wavelength for a given material as known in the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Kock teaches that the ablation laser generates an ablation spot on the elemental metal sample, where the ablation spot is from 1-100 mm (50-100 mm, [0032]).
Regarding claim 17, Kock teaches that the ablation laser has direct line-of-sight to the elemental metal sample (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Kock teaches an apparatus for capturing cold metal atoms, comprising:
A vacuum chamber (14);
An apparatus that generates a magneto-optical trap (44) within the vacuum chamber;
An ablation laser (32); and
A sample holder (crucible 36); wherein
The sample holder is situated within the vacuum chamber.
Kock does not teach that the sample holder is situated within the vacuum chamber at a location that does not require the ablation laser to pass through the magneto-optical trap.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to move the sample holder of Kock to another location, as a matter of re-arranging the parts of the invention (MPEP 2144.04 VI C [R-01.2024]) in order to prevent the ablation laser from interfering with the magneto-optical trap with no unexpected result.
Kock does not teach that the sample is an elemental metal sample.
However Kock teaches that ablation of pure metal samples to provide a metal vapor is known in the prior art ([0023-0024]) and that doing so would result in an operable system despite the disadvantage of “background heat radiation causing difficulties for some applications”. It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the oxidized sample of Kock with a pure elemental sample as a known equivalent means of generating a metal vapor which does not require the additional step of oxidation taught by Kock, in order to simplify the invention (while possibly accepting a disadvantage caused by the heat radiation).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kock in view of King (US 20210049494 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kock teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kock does not teach that the total number of metal atoms trapped is on the order of from 1*106 to 1*107, or 1*103 to 1*105.
King teaches a magneto-optical trap having a total number of metal atoms trapped on the order of 1*106 or more to 1 ([0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kock to have the number of trapped ions to be within the claimed ranges, as King teaches that this is a known level of ion trapping used for various applications with no unexpected result.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kock in view of Kock (Kock et al, “Laser Controlled Atom Source For Optical Clocks”, Sci. Rep, 18 Nov. 2016, Vol. 6, 37321:1-6, hereinafter Kock 2).
Regarding claim 16, Kock teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kock does not teach that the vacuum chamber provides a vacuum that is less than or equal to 1*10-8 mbar.
Kock 2 teaches an MOT trap having a vacuum chamber that provides a vacuum of less than or equal to 1*10-8 mbar (p. 2 last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Kock to have the vacuum level of Kock 2, as a matter of selecting a known vacuum level known to be effective for magneto-optical trapping with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 19, Kock teaches that the magneto-optical trap is formed in part within the vacuum chamber by three pairs of mutually orthogonal laser beams for cooling the sample ([0045]).
Kock does not teach that each laser beam has a wavelength corresponding to a cooling transition of the sample.
Kock 2 teaches a magneto-optical trap having a laser beam with a wavelength corresponding to a cooling transition of a sample (p. 5 “MOT and Detection Method”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Kock to have the laser wavelength of the trap correspond to a cooling transition of the sample, as the wavelength of the MOT lasers may be easily selected to be any desired value in the system of Koch, and using the wavelengths taught by Kock 2 is a known method of cooling atoms in an MOT trap with no unexpected result.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kock in view of Pronko (US 20020166960 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kock teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kock does not teach that the ablation laser is redirected and focused onto the elemental metal sample by a mirror situated within the vacuum chamber.
Pronko teaches a laser ablation system in which the laser is redirected and focused onto a sample by a mirror within a vacuum chamber (laser beam focused on target by off-axis parabola mirror, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kock to have the mirror of Pronko, as a known equivalent means of efficiently focusing a laser to a small point on a sample for efficient ablation with no unexpected result.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kock in view of Sakai (US 20180292786 A1) and in further view of Pronko.
Regarding claim 21, Kock teaches all the limitations of claim 20 as described above. Kock does no teach that the vacuum chamber has a protruding housing that houses the elemental metal sample holder and a mirror, where the mirror is situated in the line of sight of a laser beam from the ablation laser such that it can direct and focus the laser beam onto an elemental metal sample when the apparatus is in use.
Sakai teaches a magneto-optical trap system with an atomic supply portion in a protruding part of a housing (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kock to have a separate protruding housing containing the sample holder, in order to prevent interference between the ablation system and the magneto-optical trap, and control the flow of atoms from the supply system into the trap as taught by Sakai ([0052]).
Kock and Sakai do not teach that the laser is redirected and focused onto a sample by a mirror within a vacuum chamber.
Pronko teaches a laser ablation system in which the laser is redirected and focused onto a sample by a mirror within a vacuum chamber (laser beam focused on target by off-axis parabola mirror, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kock to have the mirror of Pronko, as a known equivalent means of efficiently focusing a laser to a small point on a sample for efficient ablation with no unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881