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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference character 203 seen in figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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 1-21 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 independent claims 1, 10 and 9 lack clarity to such an extent, that a meaningful search cannot be carried out. The claims mainly refer to results to be achieved without indicating any feature or step involved in reaching that results and further contain various terms which are vague, unspecific or broad in such a way as to be unclear as to what method steps and/or structure is being claimed. Specifically Claims 1, 10 and 19 all require a confinement apparatus however the confinement apparatus is so broadly defined in the claims so as to introduce indefiniteness as to what is being claimed when the confinement apparatus interacts with the rest of the claimed structure or method: Claim 1 requires a radio frequency null axis defined by the confinement apparatus as the confinement apparatus is broadly defined it is unclear how the radio frequency null axis is to be defined since ethe confinement apparatus is broadly defined and it is unclear how the axis would be limited/ oriented relative to the broadly defined confinement apparatus especially as the radio frequency null axis appears to be a critical component of the method of claim 1 since it defines the relative length of the object crystal. With claim 10 claiming “controlling one or more manipulation sources to cause a first instance of one or more manipulation signals to be incident on a target location defined at least in part by the confinement apparatus” and the confinement apparatus not being further defined it is unclear how it would define a target location. With claim 19 claiming “confinement apparatus and the one or more manipulation sources to cause the system to perform at least: causing the confinement apparatus to confine the object crystal at the target location” it is unclear what structure would or would not meet that limitation as the confinement apparatus and manipulation sources are broadly defined so as to be unclear as to what specific structure is being claimed.
Further regarding claim 1 which claims an object crystal comprising at least two atomic objects is unspecific, and broader than what would be justified by the description. A single crystal of Si would be covered by that definition, which in no case would make sense in view of disclosure. Controlling one or more voltage sources to cause an object crystal length to decrease is unclear, because the term object crystal length is not defined (note that the crystal is not limited to two objects), controlling one or more voltage sources is vague, and the entire phrase mentioned above defines merely a result to be achieved without specifying any particular method step contributing to it other than the generally disclosed controlling of voltage. Controlling the one or more voltage sources to cause coupling or decoupling is similarly a result to be achieved without mentioning the required method steps. Finally for the last paragraph in claim 1, which states the first motional mode of the object crystal to be degenerate with a second motional mode, it is unclear if this is the result of further method steps or a consequence of other features and properties which are not clearly claimed.
Further regarding claim 10 which claims an object crystal comprising at least two atomic objects is unspecific, and broader than what would be justified by the description. A single crystal of Si would be covered by that definition, which in no case would make sense in view of disclosure. Finally claim 10, additionally states an adiabatic transfer of phonons from a second motional mode of the object crystal to the first motional mode of the object crystal, it is unclear if this is the result of further method steps or a consequence of other features and properties which are not clearly claimed.
Further regarding claim 19 which claims an object crystal comprising at least two atomic objects is unspecific, and broader than what would be justified by the description. A single crystal of Si would be covered by that definition, which in no case would make sense in view of disclosure. Finally claim 19, additionally states an adiabatic transfer of phonons from a second motional mode of the object crystal to the first motional mode of the object crystal, it is unclear if this is the result additional structure or a consequence of other features and properties which are not clearly claimed.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for their dependency from claim 1. Claims 11-18 are rejected for their dependency from claim 10, and claims 20-21 are rejected for their dependency from claim 19.
Because the claims are so indefinite that "assumptions as to the scope of such claims" is needed, we do not address the merits of the Examiner's remaining rejections. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, (CCPA 1962) (holding that the Examiner and the Board were wrong in relying on what, at best, were speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims). See MPEP 2143.03 I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Monroe et al. (US 2022/0222560 A1), Cooper-Roy et al. (US 2020/0116623 A1) and Amini (US 2020/0005178 A1), Kumagai et al. (US 20020117612 A1), Chu et al. (US 20030136131 A1), Keesling Contreras et al. (US 20200185120 A1), King et al. (US 20210272006 A1), Price et al. (US 20240183583 A1), Bahns et al. (US 5620571 A), and Feig et al. (US 10733524 B1) all disclose relevant confinement apparatuses and or laser cooling systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANS R. WEILAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-3 EST and alternating Fridays.
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, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. 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.
/HANS R WEILAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights