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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 10 recites “optical elements disposed on each blade”. However the specification and drawings do not describe or teach any optical element located on the blade electrodes. The specification states in ([0040]) that “The ion trap may optionally include optical elements that are embedded in the monolithic trap structure such as lenses, fibers, waveguides, etc.”. This appears to be the only mention of such optical elements in the specification or drawings, therefore there does not appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “optical elements disposed on each blade” as filed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not, based on the current specification, be able to select the proper arrangement (e.g. which elements or combination of elements to select, or how to arrange them on the electrode) in order to achieve a useful function such as coupling light into the optical trap.
Claim 11 is rejected on the same basis as claim 10.
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 9 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.
The term “small numerical aperture” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small numerical aperture” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holz (US 20240371624 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Holz teaches an ion trap apparatus (Abstract, fig. 1A), comprising:
A three-dimensional (Abstract), monolithic (body of the entire trap may be monolithic, [0046]) segmented blade trap (segmented blades 150, fig. 1A) with high optical access along four orthogonal directions (narrow blades allow optical access to trapping zone [0051], along four directions between the four blades), comprising:
A plurality of blades (electrode portions 100a-d; blade shaped, fig. 1A) wherein each blade comprises,
A glass material (body 120a-d fig. 1A, may be glass, [0044]); and
A metal coating ([0099]);
Wherein each blade is divided into a plurality of segments (fig. 1A, electrodes 150a-d each divided into segments).
Regarding claim 14, Holz teaches that the ion trap apparatus comprises a plurality of electrodes defined by the metal coating and a plurality of trenches (trenches, separating peak from side electrodes, [0055]).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz in view of Monroe (US 20170186595 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Holz teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Holz does not teach that each blade is divided into 5 segments.
Monroe teaches an RF system having a blade electrode divided into 5 segments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the filing date of the current invention to modify the system of Holz by selecting the number of segments to be five, as Holz teaches that the system “is not limited” in view of segmentation and Monroe teaches that this structure allows RF confinement of ions in a bladed trap with no unexpected result.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz in view of Kim (US 20170221693 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Holz teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Holz does not teach that the plurality of blades further comprises at least two of a first type of blade, wherein the first type of blade is a grounded direct current blade; and at least two of a second type of blade, wherein the second type of blade is a radio frequency blade.
Kim teaches an ion trap device which has two blade electrodes having a grounded direct current and two electrodes having an RF voltage (fig. 1a, [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the current invention to set the voltages supplied to the electrodes of Holz so that two of the blades receive an RF voltage and two are at ground in order to achieve the configuration of Kim which allows simple trapping of ions in two dimensions with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 4, connecting the blades of Holz according to the system of Kim would result in one of the first type of blade and one of the second type of blade forming a first angle along a trap axis on a first side of the apparatus, and another of the first type of blade and another of the second type of blade form a second angle along the trap axis on the opposite side of the apparatus (there may be n equally spaced blades, Holz [0024]; the blades closest to each other on one side form an angle of 360º /n with each other; on the other side, it is possible to select blades that form a second angle, which is the same angle if the blades are adjacent, or a different angle if non-adjacent blades are selected when n > 8.)
Regarding claim 5, the first angle will be 30º when the number of blades n taught by Holz is selected to be 12 (duodecapole trap).
Regarding claim 6, the second angle (between adjacent blades) will be 60º when n is selected to be 6 (hexapole trap).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the numerical aperture on each side of the apparatus can be reduced below a maximum value of 0.6 or 0.3 on either side of the apparatus by selecting the number n of electrodes (as taught by Holz) as a greater number of electrodes results in a smaller angle between them and a lower numerical aperture with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 9, selecting a large number of electrodes with resulting small angular separation will result in a small numerical aperture along the trap axis as argued above.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz in view of Lim (WO 2021006811 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Holz teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Holz does not teach optical elements disposed on each blade.
Lim teaches an ion trap having optical elements disposed under the electrodes (]0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Holz to have the optical elements of Lim, in order to provide optical addressing of a qubit held in the ion trap. It would further have been obvious to place the optical elements on electrodes rather than under them, as the exact arrangement of parts does not affect the separate functioning of the optical and electrical systems and so this a matter of arranging the parts of the invention with no unexpected result (MPEP 2144.04 VI C [R-01. 2024]).
Regarding claim 11, Lim teaches that the optical elements are waveguides ([0075]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz in view of Hansen (US 5,644,131 A).
Regarding claim 12, Holz does not teach that each blade further comprises an adhesion layer between the glass material and the metal coating.
Hansen teaches an ion trap with electrodes that comprise an adhesion layer between a glass substrate and a metal coating (col. 8 lines 6-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the system of Holz to have the adhesion layer between the metal layer and glass substrate taught by Hansen, in order to improve the bonding between the two layers.
Regarding claim 13, Holz does not teach that each metal coating comprises gold, gold eutectic alloys, platinum, tungsten or combinations thereof.
Hansen teaches an ion trap with electrodes having a metal coating comprising gold (col. 7 lines 62-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the current invention to select gold as the material of the metal coating of Holz, as a matter of selecting a known material based on its art-recognized suitability for forming electrodes as described by Hansen.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz in view of Steere (US 20230035661 A1) and in further view of Lim.
Regarding claim 15, Holz teaches a surrounding structure comprising a mechanical support further comprising electrical contact pads and an electrical interface.
Holz does not teach a trench with a trench geometry that has low capacitance, mounting holes, or a thermal interface.
Steere teaches a mounting support for an ion trap having mounting holes ([0023]) and a thermal interface (heat sink, [0020]).
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 Holz to have the mounting holes of Steere for simple alignment and insertion of an ion trap member, and to have a thermal interface for control of heat in the system.
Holz and Steere do not teach a trench arranged so that the trench geometry has low capacitance.
Lim teaches an ion trap having a trench (SiO2 trench) designed to reduce stray electric fields (i.e. capacitance) ([0051,0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the invention to manufacture the ion trap of Holz with a groove as taught by Lim , in order to limit the stray capacitance of the system as described by Lim. Lim teaches that the the capacitance of the trench is based on the depth ([0117], figs. 8A to 8E) so one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of designing the trench to have a low capacitance (i.e. below a desired threshold) as a matter of routine optimization 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
Prosecution Insights