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 Fig. 2h fail to show ““reflecting plates 212” as described in the specification (See Spec. para. [0039]). 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 Interpretation
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.
Such claim limitation is: “an optics component, configured to modulate the trapped atomic array” in claim 1;
The corresponding structure of this limitation is a “lens” (Spec. para. [0030]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-16 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 is indefinite for the following reasons:
First, claim 1 recites “a vacuum chamber configured to trap an atomic array.” However, the vacuum chamber itself does not appear to trap the atoms. Rather, the vacuum chamber provides an atomic gas/vacuum environment, in which atoms can be trapped by an optical trap array.
Second, claim 1 recites “an optics component, configured to modulate the trapped atomic array.” This is unclear because an optics component, such as a lens, would modulate/direct/focus/relay light or an optical trap pattern, not the already-trapped atoms themselves.
Third, claim 1 recites “a metasurface hologram, configured to … generate the trapped atomic array within the vacuum chamber.” This is also unclear because the metasurface hologram does not generate atoms or directly generate a trapped atomic array. According to the specification, the metasurface hologram forms an optical trap array, and then atoms from the atomic gas are trapped at the optical trap sites, thereby resulting in a trapped atomic array.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, and in light of the specification (Figs. 1a-1d and their descriptions), claim 1 will be interpreted as teaching a metasurface holographic system, comprising 1) a vacuum chamber provides an environment in which atoms may be trapped; 2) a laser generator generates laser beams; 3) a metasurface hologram receives laser light and forming an optical trap array; and 4) an optics component modulates optical array used for trapping atoms.
Claim 12 recites “the trapped atomic array is configured to split into two parts, corresponding to two orthogonal polarization states.” It is unclear how the trapped atomic array itself is configured to split into two parts corresponding to polarization states. The specification appears to describe a trapped array design or optical pattern, for example, a checkerboard arrangement, being split into two portions and realized by two orthogonal polarization states, rather than the trapped atomic array itself being split (See Spec. para. [0036]).
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang X.Y. et al., “Metasurface Holographic Optical Traps for Ultracold Atoms,” arXiv:2210.07425 (2022). [hereinafter Huang].
Regarding Claim 1:
Huang teaches a metasurface holographic system (Abstract), comprising:
a vacuum chamber configured to trap an atomic array (Pages 2-3- Fig. 1);
an optics component, configured to modulate the trapped atomic array (Page 23: an objective lens used to “used to transfer the array generated by a metasurface hologram into the vacuum chamber”);
a laser generator, configured to generate one or more incident laser beams (Pages 2-3- Fig. 1); and
a metasurface hologram, configured to receive the one or more incident laser beams and generate the trapped atomic array within the vacuum chamber (Pages 2-3- Fig. 1);
Regarding Claim 2:
Huang teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Huang further teaches
wherein the metasurface hologram is positioned outside the vacuum chamber (Pages 2-3- Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3:
Huang teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Huang further teaches
wherein the optics component is positioned between the metasurface hologram and the vacuum chamber (Page 23: an objective lens used to “used to transfer the array generated by a metasurface hologram into the vacuum chamber”).
Regarding Claim 4:
Huang teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Huang further teaches
wherein the optics component includes a lens (Page 23: an objective lens used to “used to transfer the array generated by a metasurface hologram into the vacuum chamber”).
Regarding Claim 5:
Huang teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Huang further teaches
wherein the metasurface hologram includes meta-units composed of polarization-independent and/or polarization-multiplexed units (Page 7-Section 4).
Regarding Claim 6:
Huang teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 5. Huang further teaches
wherein the meta-units include TiO2 nanopillars (Page 7-Section 4).
Regarding Claim 7:
Huang teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Huang further teaches
wherein the trapped atomic array includes at least a 3 × 3 square lattice array (Pages 2-3- Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 8:
Huang teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Huang further teaches
wherein the trapped atomic array includes periodic and/or aperiodic geometry configurations with dimensions from 1D to 3D (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 9:
Huang teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 8. Huang further teaches
wherein the trapped atomic array includes one or more geometries of quasi-crystals, Kagome lattices, and twisted bilayers (Page 2).
Regarding Claim 10:
Huang teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Huang further teaches
wherein the vacuum chamber is loaded with atomic gas (Page 2).
Regarding Claim 11:
Huang teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Huang further teaches
wherein the atomic array includes one or more atoms of alkali atoms, strontium, and ytterbium (Page 3- Section 2).
Regarding Claim 12:
Huang teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Huang further teaches
wherein the trapped atomic array is configured to split into two parts, corresponding to two orthogonal polarization states (Page 9).
Regarding Claim 13:
Huang teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Huang further teaches
wherein a variation of spot sizes for the trapped atomic array ranges from 3% to 5% (Page 21-Table 2).
Regarding Claim 14:
Huang teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Huang further teaches
wherein a variation of an intensity uniformity of the trapped atomic arrays ranges from 12% to 16% (Page 21-Table 2).
Regarding Claim 15:
Huang teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Huang further teaches
wherein a spacing between the trapped atomic array is equal to or less than 1.25 μm (Page 23).
Regarding Claim 16:
Huang teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Huang further teaches
wherein a thermal stability of the trapped atomic array includes a first drift less than 0.5 μm along a vertical direction thereof, and a second drift equal to or less than 2.5 μm along a horizontal direction thereof (Page 26).
Alternatively, Claims 1, 4-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu, T.-W., et al, (2021). Single-Atom Trapping in a Metasurface-Lens Optical Tweezer. 3(3). [hereinafter Hsu].
Regarding Claim 1:
Hsu teaches a metasurface holographic system (Abstract: optical metasurface used in an atomic trapping system), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
504
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a vacuum chamber (Fig. 1(c) -vacuum chamber) configured to trap an atomic array (Fig. 1(c) and Page 7: the atomic source is a MOT glass cell);
a laser generator, configured to generate one or more incident laser beams (Fig. 1(c) and Page 7: 852nm tweezer laser beams);
an optics component, configured to modulate the trapped atomic array (annotated Fig. 1(c) above and Page 8: the deflect beams, after passing 2-axis AOD, imaged by “relay lens” onto the back aperture of metalens, conditioning the optical beams used to form the optical trapping field); and
a metasurface hologram (Fig. 1(c) -metalens), configured to receive the one or more incident laser beams and generate the trapped atomic array within the vacuum chamber (Fig. 1(c) -1(d) and pages 2-3: “we use a high-contrast transmission-mode metasurface lens (metalens)…[and] create an array of traps with our focusing metasurface lens. Fig. 1(c) shows using the metalens set up to trap single atoms and Fig. 1(d) shows the generated trapped single atom array image).
Regarding Claim 4:
Hsu teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Hsu further teaches wherein the optics component includes a lens (“relay lens” in annotated Fig. 1(c) above).
Regarding Claim 5:
Hsu teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Hsu further teaches wherein the metasurface hologram includes meta-units composed of polarization-multiplexed units (Pages 5- 6: “The metalens used in this study consists of a square lattice” consisting of “nanopillar unit cells”, and using “polarization multiplexing” to “trap and collect fluorescence at the diffraction limit for two different wavelengths”) and/or polarization-independent unit.
Regarding Claim 6:
Hsu teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 5. Hsu further teaches wherein the meta-units include TiO2 nanopillars (Page 1: metalens include nanopillars and can be made from “a range of materials such as TiO2, HfO2, Si and GaN…”).
Regarding Claim 7:
Hsu teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Hsu further teaches wherein the trapped atomic array includes at least a 3 × 3 square lattice array (Fig. 1(d) labeled as a trapped single atom array image and shows a regular square array with more than 3 sites in each direction).
Regarding Claim 8:
Hsu teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Hsu further teaches specially note that wherein the trapped atomic array includes periodic and/or aperiodic geometry configurations with dimensions from 1D to 3D (the 2D array in Fig. 1(d) is regular and repeating, i.e., periodic).
Regarding Claim 10:
Hsu teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Hsu further teaches wherein the vacuum chamber is loaded with atomic gas (Page 9: “The atoms from the dispenser in the source cell are cooled in the transverse direction with MOT laser red detuned from 87Rb”).
Regarding Claim 11:
Hsu teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. Hsu further teaches wherein the atomic array includes one or more atoms of alkali atoms, strontium, and ytterbium (Page 9: “The atoms from the dispenser in the source cell are cooled in the transverse direction with MOT laser red detuned from 87Rb”).
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 Hsu in view of US20220390760A1 [hereinafter McGehee].
Regarding Claim 2:
Hsu teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. However, Hsu does not teach that the metasurface hologram is positioned outside the vacuum chamber. McGehee teaches wherein the metasurface hologram is positioned outside the vacuum chamber (Fig. 1F shows the metasurface MS 116 upstream of the vacuum chamber 140).
Both Hsu and McGehee teach a metasurface/metalens optical system in which laser light is relayed to a metasurface/metalens to form optical traps for a trapped Rb atoms array in a vacuum chamber. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to modify Hsu’s system by positioning the metalens outside the vacuum chamber, as taught by McGehee, to allow the metasurface element to be access, aligned, replaced, and thermally managed without disturbing the vacuum environment, while still delivering the shaped optical field into the chamber for trapping atoms, improving integration and serviceability of Hsu’s metasurface-based atom trapping system.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of US 6055106A [hereinafter Grier].
Regarding Claim 3:
Hsu teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. However, Hsu does not specially note that wherein the optics component is positioned between the metasurface hologram and the vacuum chamber.
Grier teaches a diffractive optical element 40 (DOE) “can include computer generated holograms which split the input light beam 12 into a preselected desired pattern a diffractive optical element.” As shown in Fig.3, DOE 40 receiving laser beam and forming plurality beams, with a telescope lens system 34 and an objective lens 20 downstream to form an array of optical traps (Fig. 3; 3-4:66-7).
As such, modify Hsu with Grier would add a lens between Hsu’s metasurface and the vacuum chamber to relay the metasurface-shaped optical field into the trapping region.
Hsu teaches the metasurface light delivery system for trapping atoms in a vacuum chamber. Grier teaches that, in optical trap system, a beam shaping diffractive/holographic element can be followed by downstream telescope/objective lens to form the optical trap array. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to place a lens/optical component between Hsu’s metasurface and the vacuum chamber to replay or focus the metasurface-shaped optical field into the trapping region.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of US 20240377701 A1 [hereinafter Tian].
Regarding Claim 9:
Hsu teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 8. However, Hsu does not specially note that wherein the trapped atomic array includes one or more geometries of quasi-crystals, Kagome lattices, and twisted bilayers. Tian teaches wherein the trapped atomic array includes one or more geometries of quasi-crystals, Kagome lattices, and twisted bilayers (para. [0060]:”FIG. 2A shows an example of rearranging a stochastically loaded 7×7 array into a defect-free kagome array 208”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure Hsu’s trapped atom array in one of Tian’s known target geometries, such as a Kagome lattice, because atom array geometry is a selectable design parameter in optical tweezer systems, and using Kagome geometries would provide a known method to yield predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Liu, M., et al., (2021). Multifunctional metasurfaces enabled by simultaneous and independent control of phase and amplitude for orthogonal polarization states. Light: Science & Applications, 10(1). [hereinafter Liu].
Regarding Claim 12:
Hsu teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. However, Hsu does not specially note that wherein the trapped atomic array is configured to split into two parts, corresponding to two orthogonal polarization states.
Liu teaches a polarization-multiplexed metasurface configured to independently control optical output wavefronts for two orthogonal polarization states, the orthogonal circular polarization and orthogonal linear polarization (See Fig. 2 annotation on Page 5), and thus Liu teaches the optical principle of splitting/encoding different optical patterns into two orthogonal polarization channels.
As such modify Liu to Hsu would entail the optical trapping pattern of Hsu using Liu’s polarization-multiplexed metasurface so that two portions of the optical trapping pattern are independently generated for two orthogonal polarization states. Once atoms are tapped in those two optical portions, the resulting trapped atomic array has two corresponding parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to implement Hsu’s metasurface optical trapping system using Liu’s polarization-multiplexed metasurface design so that different portions of the optical trapping pattern are generated for different orthogonal polarization states, to allow one compact metasurface to generate multiple independently controlled optical trapping portions, hereby forming a trapped atom array having two corresponding parts.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Bakr, W., et al. A quantum gas microscope for detecting single atoms in a Hubbard-regime optical lattice. Nature 462, 74–77 (2009). [hereinafter Bakr].
Regarding Claim 15:
Hsu teaches the metasurface holographic system of claim 1. However, Hsu does not specially note that wherein a spacing between the trapped atomic array is equal to or less than 1.25 μm. Bakr teaches wherein a spacing between the trapped atomic array is equal to or less than 1.25 μm (Page 3: “The lattice spacing in the atom plane is 640 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configure Hsu’s trapped atom array with a sub-micron lattice spacing, as taught by Bakr, since reducing the spacing of Hsu’s optical trap array to a known small spacing would increase array density and enable strong interaction for quantum simulation.
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