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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
2. Claims 6 and 7 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 Interpretation
2. 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.
3. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 6: a layered assembly
Claim 13: a control apparatus
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for a layered assembly is taken to include a plurality of circular tubular ceramic members, which are nested, and a conductive wire wound around each of the plurality of circular tubular ceramic members (as taught in [0032]).
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for a control apparatus is taken to include a computer (as taught in [0042]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3, 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Camargo, Francisco. Strontium Laser Cooling and Trapping Apparatus. 2015. Rice University, Master's thesis. Rice University Ultracold Publications (hereinafter referred to as Camargo), further in view of Nagasaka (JP 2020109889A).
5. Regarding claim 1:
Camargo teaches an atomic beam generation apparatus (pg. 22 fig. 4.1) comprising: an atomic oven (pg. 10 fig. 3.2) comprising an atomic source, a reservoir which houses the atomic source (pg. 10 teaches that strontium is housed beneath the nozzle head. Such strontium is considered as the atomic source, and the housing corresponds to the reservoir), and an opening (pg. 10 teaches that the atom comes out of the capillary tubes); a deceleration portion having a bore through which an atomic beam and a laser beam pass, and that decelerates, with a laser beam and a magnetic field, an atomic beam emitted from the atomic oven (pg. 22-23, fig. 4.1 element 11 teaches a Zeeman slower having a bore. Such bore is capable for atomic beam and laser beam to pass and decelerates a laser beam with a magnetic field); Camargo teaches a separate heating coil (pg. 10) and Zeeman slower coil (pg. 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
973
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
653
1012
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Camargo fails to teach a coil portion that supplies Joule heat to the atomic oven and that generates a magnetic field in the deceleration portion.
Nagasaka teaches a coil that can both generate heat and magnetic field ([0082] teaches that the coil 4 generates the magnetic field. [0050] teaches that the coil 4 generates heat when energized, so that the inside of the atomic cell 3 can be heated).
Camargo teaches a separate heating coil (pg. 10) and Zeeman slower coil (pg. 15). 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 Camargo’s coil to be also able to generate heat and magnetic field, as taught by Nagasaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification so that it is possible to omit providing a separate heating element for heating the atomic cell separately from the coil, and thus the structure of the device can be simplified (Nagasaka [0050]).
6. Regarding claim 2:
The above modified invention teaches the atomic beam generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the opening of the atomic oven is formed by a nozzle, and the nozzle comprises one or a plurality of holes, one or a plurality of capillaries, or one or a plurality of slits, and is configured to -collimate the atomic beam (Camargo pg. 10 fig. 3.2 teaches an oven nozzle. The opening is defined by capillary tubes).
7. Regarding claim 3:
The above modified invention teaches the atomic beam generation apparatus according to claim 2. Camargo further teaches that wherein the nozzle is placed in a distribution of a magnetic field generated by the coil portion (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, "in a distribution of a magnetic field" means being within the magnetic field generated by the coil . Because the coil generates a surrounding magnetic field , nozzle 10 is placed within the magnetic field generated by the Zeeman slower 11, as shown on pg. 22-23, FIG. 4.1).
12. Regarding claim 8:
The modified invention above teaches the atomic beam generation apparatus according to claim 1.
Camargo teaches a physics package (fig. 4.3) comprising: a vacuum chamber surrounding a clock transition space in which atoms are placed (pg. 25 teaches the MOT vacuum chamber when atoms enter).
13. Regarding claim 9:
The modified invention above teaches the physics package according to claim 8.
Camargo teaches an optical lattice clock (fig. 4.3).
14. Regarding claim 10:
The modified invention above teaches the physics package according to claim 8.
Camargo teaches an atomic clock (fig. 4.3, no further structure for an atomic clock is claimed).
15. Regarding claim 11:
The modified invention above teaches the physics package according to claim 8.
Camargo teaches an atomic interferometer (fig. 4.3, no further structure for an atomic interferometer is claimed).
16. Regarding claim 12:
The modified invention above teaches the physics package according to claim 8.
Camargo teaches a quantum information processing device for atoms or ionized atoms (fig. 4.3, no further structure for an atomic interferometer is claimed).
17. Regarding claim 13:
The modified invention above teaches the physics package according to claim 8.
Camargo teaches physics package system (fig. 4.3)
Camargo does not teach a control apparatus that controls an operation of the physics package.
However, Nagasaka teaches a control apparatus (the control apparatus is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to correspond to a computer. [0130] teaches a computer. [0134] teaches various control circuits).
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 Camargo in view of Nagasaka to include a control apparatus that controls an operation of the physics package. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to control the operation of an atomic cell (Nagasaka [0020]).
8. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Camargo in view of Nagasaka, further in view of Miteva (US 20100012826).
9. Regarding claim 4:
The above modified invention teaches the atomic beam generation apparatus according to claim 3. Camargo in view of Nagasaka fails to teach that wherein the coil portion generates- the magnetic field which becomes a maximum at a tip of the nozzle.
However, Miteva teaches a Zeeman coil generating a longitudinally decreasing magnetic field ([0045]. As the magnetic field decreases longitudinally, it is at a maximum at one end of the coil).
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 Camargo in view of Nagasaka, further in view of Miteva to include that the coil generates the magnetic field which becomes a maximum at a tip of the nozzle. One or ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to compensate for the Doppler shift of the atoms as they slow down, thereby keeping them in resonance with the cooling laser (Miteva [0060]).
10. Regarding claim 5:
The above modified invention teaches the atomic beam generation apparatus according to claim 4. Camargo in view of Nagasaka fails to teach that wherein the coil portion generates the magnetic field which decreases with increasing distance from the tip of the nozzle.
Miteva teaches a Zeeman coil generating a longitudinally decreasing magnetic field ([0045]).
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 Camargo in view of Nagasaka, further in view of Miteva to include that the coil portion generates the magnetic field which decreases with increasing distance from the tip of the nozzle. One or ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to compensate for the Doppler shift of the atoms as they slow down, thereby keeping them in resonance with the cooling laser (Miteva [0060]).
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