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 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 11 is 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. Regarding claim 11, the phrase "preferably" and the parenthetical “(is applicable)” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) at issue are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Furthermore, the recitation of “the third counterpropagating beam pair” lacks antecedent basis, and as such is indefinite. The claim will be examined as best understood in light of the specification, and as though it depended from claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,952,154 B2 [Sinclair].
Regarding Claim 1:
Sinclair discloses a mirror arrangement (See Fig. 7a) for a magneto-optical trap (the intended use of the mirror arrangement is a not a positive limitation, and as such is not given patentable weight), the mirror arrangement comprising:
a first deflector mirror (inset B);
a second deflector mirror (inset C);
a first combiner mirror (inset A); and
a second combiner mirror (inset D),
the first deflector mirror being arranged to deflect part of a source beam, from a direction along an optical axis of the mirror arrangement to a first deflected direction, in a first plane, towards the first combiner mirror, as a first deflected beam,
the first combiner mirror being arranged to deflect the first deflected beam, in a first orthogonal direction in the first plane which is orthogonal to the direction of the source beam, as a first orthogonal beam,
the second deflector mirror being arranged to deflect part of the source beam, from the direction along the optical axis of the mirror arrangement, to a second deflected direction, in the first plane, towards the second combiner mirror, as a second deflected beam,
the second combiner mirror being arranged to deflect the second deflected beam, in a second orthogonal direction in the first plane which is orthogonal to the direction of the source beam, as a second orthogonal beam,
wherein the second combiner mirror is arranged to deflect the first orthogonal beam as a first re-deflected beam in a direction towards the second deflector mirror, the second deflector mirror is arranged to deflect the first re- deflected beam as part of an outgoing beam in a direction opposing the direction of the source beam, the first combiner mirror is arranged to deflect the second orthogonal beam as a second re-deflected beam in a direction towards the first deflector mirror, and the first deflector mirror is arranged to deflect the second re- deflected beam as part of the outgoing beam, such that the source beam and the outgoing beam form a first counter propagating beam pair in a trap location and the first orthogonal beam and the second orthogonal beam form a second counter propagating beam pair in the trap location which is orthogonal to the first counter propagating beam pair.
PNG
media_image1.png
912
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7a of Sinclar, annotated and inset above, demonstrates the claimed mirror arrangement. The italicized portion of the claim above functionally describes the interaction of the mirror arrangement. Sinclair’s mirror arrangement anticipates the claimed arrangement because its mirrors are arranged in an identical fashion, and as such there is a presumption that they would inherently have the same functional configuration.
Regarding Claim 2:
Sinclair discloses the mirror arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the first deflector mirror and the second deflector mirror are adjacent to one another (inset B and C).
Regarding Claim 3:
Sinclair discloses the mirror arrangement according to claim 2, wherein a cut out section is provided between the first deflector mirror and the second deflector mirror (between inset B and C).
Regarding Claim 4:
Sinclair discloses the mirror arrangement according to claim 3, wherein the cut out section is in the form of hole or a slit (between inset B and C). .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 12-20 are 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.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10,531,554 B2 discloses a similar MOT.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881