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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because the specification describes Fig. 3 A in para. [0066] and Fig. 3B in para. [0067], but the submitted drawings only include a single Fig. 3. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claims 1-9 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 1 recites “where, during one or more active periods of …transfer a first portion of the IAMs…and transfer a second portion of the IAMs…”, which appears to recite actions performed during operation of the apparatus rather than structural limitations or capabilities of the apparatus. As written, it is unclear whether infringement/patentability is based on the apparatus being merely capable of performing of the recited transfer steps, or on actual performance of the recited transfer steps during use. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 7-11, 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeDesma, C., et al., (2023). Demonstration of a programmable optical lattice atom interferometer. Physical Review Research, 6(4) [hereinafter LeDesma] in view of Chih, L.-Y., et al., (2022). How to Train Your Gyro: Reinforcement Learning for Rotation Sensing with a Shaken Optical Lattice. ArXiv.org. [hereinafter Chih].
Regarding Claim 1:
LeDesma teaches an apparatus (a system for quantum optimal control (QOC)) comprising:
a housing configured to provide a low-pressure environment (Pages 2 and 8: “Condensates are created in two crossed 1064 nm dipole laser beams (blue) that intersect inside a science cell,” MOT/BEC produced in the science cell);
a gaseous cloud of ions, atoms, or molecules (IAMs) located in the housing and characterized by a first distribution of momentum states (Fig.1C and Page 1: “we produce 2 × 104 Bose-condensed 87Rb atoms,” which transferred “into the ground-state wavefunction with the momentum distribution.” Fig. 1C shows the TOF absorption image and “integrated momentum distribution”);
a laser configured to emit one or more optical waves (Page 1: “The lattice is formed by two counter-propagating 852 nm laser beams”);
a memory storing information associated with a set of control signals for controlling at least one of an intensity, frequency, phase, start time, or duration of the one or more optical waves emitted by the laser (Pages 1,8 : the optical lattice is “formed by two counter-propagating 852 nm laser beams, whose intensity and phase are each controlled by independent acousto-optic modulators (AOMs),” and further “apply phase modulation to the optical lattice by updating the RF frequency driving one of the lattice AOMs.” The resulting time-dependent optical lattice phase ϕ(t) is identified as “a control, or shaking function,” i.e., the claimed control signals);
one or more control modules configured to control at least one of the intensity, frequency, phase, start time, or duration of the one or more optical waves emitted by the laser based at least in part on the set of control signals (Pages 1 and 8: the optical lattice phase is controlled by AOMs and modulation waveform, produced by the waveform generator);
at least one photodetector configured to measure a measurement signal associated with a final distribution of momentum states of the IAMs (Page 2: “After TOF, an absorption image of the cloud is taken by a 780 nm probe laser,” and “Normalized atom numbers for each momentum state are extracted from the integrated optical density of the probe image.” Fig. 1(B) shows the camera used to obtain the absorption image); and
a computing device comprising one or more processors in communication with the photodetector and configured to estimate an estimation parameter associated with the IAMs (Page 5: estimates acceleration from output momentum populations, where the output is “the momentum state population fractions p …viewed after recombination and TOF…P(p|a) provides a unique fingerprint for each acceleration a, which allows the value of the acceleration to be determined from the measured momentum populations using statistical methods”);
where, during one or more active periods of time over which at least one of an amplitude, frequency, or phase of the one or more optical waves emitted by the laser are modified, the one or more optical waves overlap with and interact with the IAMs (Pages 1-2: Fig. 1 A shows “the lattice is shaken to implement the interferometer components,” by applying the shaken function ϕ(t) to laser beams whose intensity and phase are controlled by AOMs, during this active period of times, the atoms are loaded into the optical lattice and are subject to the optical potential V(r,t) which defined by ϕ(t) as in equation 1 (page 1), such that the momentum-state contribution of the atom is changed via the overlapping and interaction with the optical lattice waves); and
transfer a first portion of the IAMs from the first distribution of momentum states to a second distribution of momentum states (Page 3: atoms are initially loaded into the optical-lattice ground state momentum distribution (“first distribution”) as shown in Fig. 1C. “The first component in the interferometer sequence is an atomic beamsplitter,” which shaking sequence redistributes atom population into a split momentum distributed “primarily composed of the two ± 4ħk momentum states with equal weight (approximately 47% in each)” (“second distribution”), as shown in Fig.2 B/D), and
transfer a second portion of the IAMs from the second distribution of momentum states to a third distribution of momentum states (Page 4: the full interferometer sequence further includes a recombiner after the split/transport/mirror state, “the atoms are largely returned to the ground state of the lattice” (“third distribution”), Fig. 4A/B shows the experimental/theoretical momentum probability distribution overtime).
LeDesma teaches “one or more quantum states associated with the IAMs” since LeDesma teaches QOC in which the atom state |Ψ(t)⟩ evolves according to the optical lattice Schrödinger equation under the optical-lattice Hamiltonian (S.2 Page 9) and the goal of QOC is “to find the optimal shaking function ϕ(t) so that the state starts at an initial state |Ψ⟩ and evolves to a target state |ΨT⟩” (Page 9).
However, LeDesma does not teach the control signals is determined based on “a constraint determined based at least in part on a set of optical wave parameters … and a set of quantum state …, or a partial derivative of one or more quantum states associated with the IAMs, where the partial derivative is with respect to an optimization parameter determined based at least in part on the one or more optical waves or the estimation parameter.”
Chih teaches the control signals is determined based on a partial derivative of one or more quantum states associated with the IAMs, where the partial derivative is with respect to an optimization parameter determined based at least in part on the one or more optical waves or the estimation parameter (Pages 2-3: Chih determines the optical wave control sequence by reinforcement learning, where the control sequence is a sequence of
∂
ϕ
∂
t
actions, which “are selected from a finite set of discrete options for the time derivative of the phase…represents a frequency difference between interfering laser beam pairs.” The RL is used “to find a sequence of
∂
ϕ
∂
t
steps that optimizes the Fisher information evaluated at the terminal time.” The Fisher information is computed using the derivative
∂
P
r
(
p
|
Ω
)
∂
Ω
as shown in equation (2) on page 3, where
P
r
(
p
|
Ω
)
is “the probability for measuring a momentum p at the gyroscope output for the given
Ω
.” Because Chih obtains that output momentum probability distribution from the evolved atomic wave packet “calculated by numerical solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation,” the derivative is tied to the atom’s quantum state evolution. The derivative is also taken with respect to
Ω
, which identified as “the metrological parameter that we wish to measure with high accuracy,” i.e., “estimation parameter”).
LeDesma teaches using RL/QOC to find lattice shaking/control functions for an atom interferometer. Chih teaches that selecting
∂
ϕ
∂
t
laser shaking steps to optimize Fisher information improves gyroscope sensitive by making the final momentum distribution more responsive to changes in the rotation parameter. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify LeDesma’s machine designed optical lattice atom interferometer to determine the optical wave control sequence using Chih’s Fisher information based RL, because both references are directed to shaken optical lattice matter wave inertial sensors in which laser phase/frequency control is used to manipulate atom momentum state distributions for estimating an inertial parameters, and thus using Chih’s derivative/Fisher information reward in LeDesma’s optical lattice control system would improve sensitivity and optimize the measured momentum state output for estimating the inertial parameter.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites a method performed by the apparatus of claim 1, and includes substantially identical elements as recited in claim 1. LeDesma in view of Chih teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and thus the combined references also teach the method of claim 10.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11:
LeDesma in view of Chih teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, respectively. Chih further teaches where the set of control signals are further determined based at least in part on one or more free evolution periods of time over which at least one of the amplitude, frequency, or phase of the one or more optical waves emitted by the laser are not modified (Page 2: “In the x-direction, the 1D beam-splitting protocol is applied, allowing free propagation for a duration, denoted as T,” then reflecting, “free propagation occurs for a duration 2T,” the reflecting again, followed by “free propagation for a duration T,” and finally recombing”).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16:
LeDesma in view of Chih teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, respectively.
Chih further teaches the one or more optical waves form two or more standing waves at the location of the gaseous cloud (Page 2: “atoms are confined in a two-dimensional optical lattice. The lattice in each dimension can be ‘shaken’ by varying the phases of the corresponding pairs of interfering laser beams,” thus the x- and y-direction interfering laser-beam pairs form at least two standing-wave optical lattices at the atom cloud).
LeDesma further teaches the estimation parameter is associated with acceleration (LeDesma teaches a shaken optical-lattice atom interferometric used as an accelerometer).
As such, the combined references teach the estimation parameter is associated with at least one angular acceleration or at least two different directions of acceleration since using LeDesma’s acceleration-sensing method in Chih’s two-dimensional shaken lattice would allow acceleration sensing along the two lattice directions.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17:
LeDesma in view of Chih teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, respectively. LeDesma further teaches where each of the first, second, third, and final distributions of momentum states comprises a plurality of population quantities each corresponding to a different respective momentum state of a plurality of momentum states (Pages 2, 5: “Normalized atom numbers for each momentum state are extracted from the integrated optical density of the probe image.” “The accelerometer output is momentum-stage population fractions the momentum state population fractions p ∈ {-6ħk, -4ħk, … ,6ħk}”).
Regarding Claims 9 and 20:
LeDesma in view of Chih teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and the method of claim 10, respectively. Chih further teaches where the set of control signals are further determined based at least in part on classical Fisher information associated with (1) the final distribution of momentum states and (2) the one or more optical waves or the estimation parameter (Page 3: Chih computes Fisher information from
P
r
(
p
|
Ω
)
, the probability of measuring output momentum p for rotation rate
Ω
, and then uses RL “to find a sequence of
∂
ϕ
∂
t
steps that optimizes the Fisher information evaluated at the terminal time”).
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeDesma in view of Chih, and further in view of Cheng, Y., et al., (2018). Effect of Raman-pulse duration related to the magnetic field gradient in high-precision atom gravimeters. Chinese Physics B, 27(3), 030303 [hereinafter Cheng].
Regarding Claims 3 and 12:
LeDesma in view of Chih teaches the apparatus of claim 2 and the method of claim 11, respectively. However, the combined references do not specifically note that where at least one of the one or more free evolution periods of time is at least twice as long in duration as at least one of the one or more active periods of time. Cheng teaches where at least one of the one or more free evolution periods of time is at least twice as long in duration as at least one of the one or more active periods of time (Pages 3: as shown in Fig. 1, the Raman pulse durations τ are separated by free propagation time durations T, and Cheng specifies that τ = 4 × 10 -5 s, while T =25 ms (equation 41)).
LeDesma/Chih teaches inserting free evolution periods between laser interaction time durations. Cheng teaches the active pulse duration can be much shorter than the free-propagation time. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use Cheng’s known atom-interferometer timing arrangement in the LeDesma/Chih shaken lattice interferometer, because all three references concern atom interferometers in which short active laser-control periods are separated by longer free propagation periods, and using a free evolution periods at least twice as long as active laser control period would have been an obvious design choice to increase interrogation time and thereby improving inertial sensitivity while keeping the active optical control pulse short.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13:
LeDesma in view of Chih teaches the apparatus of claim 2 and the method of claim 11, respectively. However, the combined references do not specifically note that where the set of control signals are further determined based at least in part on one or more matrices associated with the IAMs during the one or more free evolution periods. Cheng teaches where the set of control signals are further determined based at least in part on one or more matrices associated with the IAMs during the one or more free evolution periods (Page 3: “the atomic wave function Ψ(t) can be described as | Ψ(t)⟩ = U(t) |Ψ(0)⟩ (1), with U(t) the time-propagation operator, which can be decomposed into two parts,” including “the interaction operator Ulaser(t)” and “the atomic free-propagation operator Upro(t), ” which can be expressed as Upro(T+ τ1), Upro(T+ τ2), Upro(T+ τ3)…which is the matrices associated with IAMs during free evolution periods).
Chih teaches determining optical-lattice control sequence including free propagation time. Cheng teaches that the atomic wavefunction during an atom interferometer is defined by both interaction operators and free-propagation operators. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to determine LeDesma/Chih’s control sequence based on the free evolution propagation matrices to account for how the atomic quantum state evolves during the unshaken/free propagation intervals.
Claims 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeDesma in view of Chih and Cheng, and further in view of Shao, J. et al., (2023). How to solve Quantum Optimal Control Problems using Projection Operator-based Newton Steps. ArXiv.org. [hereinafter Shao].
Regarding Claims 5 and 14:
LeDesma in view of Chih and Cheng teaches the apparatus of claim 4 and the method of claim 13, respectively. Cheng teaches that during atom-interferometer free propagation, the atomic state is propagated by Upro(t), such that the atom state at a later time is related to an earlier state during the free propagation period. However, the combined references do not specifically note that where the set of quantum state parameters comprises a first quantum state parameter and a second quantum state parameter that are associated with different times during one of the one or more free evolution periods of time and satisfy the constraint.
Shao teaches a quantum optimal control problem where the quantum state | Ψ(t)⟩ must satisfy the Schrödinger equation constraint iħ|
Ψ
(
t
)
⟩
˙
=
H(u(t)) Ψ(t)⟩, (1b), “where H0 describes the free evolution of the system” (Page 1).
As such, modify the combined references with Shao would entail that in the modified system, the quantum state parameters, including the atomic state at a first/earlier time during free evolution, and the atomic state at a second/later time during free evolution, would both satisfy the Schrödinger/free propagation constraint, because the later state is obtained from the earlier state according to the free evolution dynamics.
LeDesma and Chih both use machine designed optical lattice control to optimize atom interferometer performance. Shao teaches a known QOC framework for determining control inputs while enforcing the Schrödinger dynamics of the quantum state. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to incorporate Shao’s constrained quantum optimal control framework into the LeDesma/Chih system, to ensure that the optimized control sequence remains physically consistent with the atom’s free evolution dynamic during the free propagation periods, thereby improving reliability of the optimized interferometer control sequence.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15:
LeDesma in view of Chih, Cheng, and Shao teaches the apparatus of claim 5 and the method of claim 14, respectively. Cheng further teaches where the second quantum state parameter is equal to a multiplication product of (1) the first quantum state parameter and (2) at least one of the one or more matrices (Cheng teaches | Ψ(t)⟩ = U(t) |Ψ(0)⟩, demonstrating a later atomic wavefunction/state (“second quantum state parameter”) | Ψ(t)⟩ is equal to a multiplication product of the earlier atomic wavefunction/state (“first quantum state parameter”) |Ψ(0)⟩, and metrices U(t)).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeDesma in view of Chih, further in view of Weidner, C. A., et al., (2017). Atom interferometry using a shaken optical lattice. Physical Review A, 95(4) [hereinafter Weidner].
Regarding Claim 18:
LeDesma in view of Chih teaches the method of claim 17. However, the combined references do not specifically note that where the second distribution of momentum states comprises a first population quantity of a corresponding momentum state characterized by zero momentum and the third distribution of momentum states comprises a second population quantity of a corresponding momentum state characterized by zero momentum, and where the second population quantity is larger than the first population quantity. Weidner teaches where the second distribution of momentum states comprises a first population quantity of a corresponding momentum state characterized by zero momentum and the third distribution of momentum states comprises a second population quantity of a corresponding momentum state characterized by zero momentum, and where the second population quantity is larger than the first population quantity (Page 6:Weidner teaches momentum population vectors where each component represents relative atom population in a momentum state 2nħkL, as shown in Table I, the split final distribution (“second distribution of momentum states”) has 0ħkL (“zero momentum”) population of 0.0001 (“first population quantity”), and the recombined final distribution (“third distribution of momentum states”) has 0ħkL (“zero momentum”) population of 0.7258 (“second population quantity”)).
LeDesma and Chih both teach using optical-lattice shaking to transfer atoms among momentum state distributions for inertial sensing. Weidner provides explicit population values for the split and recombined momentum distribution. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to use Weidner’s split/recombination population relationship to characterize the expected zero-momentum population change in the LeDesma/Chih interferometer, so that the recombined distribution would have a larger zero-momentum population than the split distribution, because splitting operation transfers atoms away from the zero momentum/ground state into oppositely propagation momentum states, while the recombination operation is designed to return the split matter waves back to the ground-state momentum distribution, which has a larger zero momentum population.
Regarding Claim 19:
LeDesma in view of Chih and Weidner teaches the method of claim 18.
Weidner teaches the splitting protocol transfers the ground state into the split distribution, and the recombination modulation sequence “returns all of the atoms in the two split matter waves to the ground Bloch state” (Page 5). Weidner further teaches “Atoms begin in the ground Bloch state of the lattice … are split into two oppositely propagating wavepackets” (Page 1). As such, it would be obvious to apply a further active splitting/shaking sequence to the recombined/ground state third distribution to produce a fourth split distribution, and according to Table 1 of Weidner, the recombined final distribution population (“second population quantity”, 0.7258) is larger than the re-split final distribution population (“third population quantity”, 0.0001), as recited in claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights