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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species A in the reply filed on 8/17/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species share a common special technical feature in the amended invention of claim1. This is not found persuasive because claim 1 is anticipated, as is shown in the rejection below. Since Claim 1 is anticipated, its technical features and combinations thereof cannot be considered special technical features.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-13 are withdrawn.
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 1-11 and 14 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 claim(s) contains 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to recite, “wherein the three laser beams from the first illumination portion and the two laser beams from the second illumination portion are disposed such that radiation pressures acting on the atoms due to the laser beams are balanced with each other in the trap space.” There is no discussion in the original disclosure of “laser beams are balanced with each other in trap space.” As such, this limitation is new matter, and the claims are rejected for failing the written description requirement.
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 5 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. Claim 5 recites, “one laser beam of the at least three laser beams which propagate on the same plane is used also as a slowing laser beam of Zeeman slower which decelerates an atomic beam with a laser beam and a magnetic field.” This language describes the use of laser beam, i.e., a step. However, the claim is directed to an apparatus. As such, the claim recites an apparatus and a method of its use in the same claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). MPEP 2173.05(p) (II); and See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). This limitation makes the claim indefinite because the step claim language makes it unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates the system that allows for the step, i.e. provides a laser that can be used as a Zeeman slower, or whether infringement occurs when the step actually occurs. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be treated as though it positively recites the elements and relationships described in instant PgPub paras 92-94.
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, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Di Stefano, A., et al. "Five-beam magneto-optical trap and optical molasses." Applied Physics B 69.4 (1999): 263-268 [hereinafter Di Stefano].
Regarding Claim 1:
Di Stefano teaches a magneto-optical trap apparatus which traps atoms with a magnetic field formed in a trap space in which atoms are trapped, and a plurality of laser beams supplied to the trap space (Section 1 Experimental setup, first paragraph), the magneto-optical trap apparatus comprising:
a first illumination portion that illuminates three laser beams which propagate on a same plane to the trap space (Fig. 1 - three planar (σ+)); and
a second illumination portion that illuminates two laser beams which intersect the plane to the trap space (Fig. 1 - (σ+ and σ- oriented opposing each other));
wherein the three laser beams from the first illumination portion and the two laser beams from the second illumination portion are disposed such that radiation pressures acting on the atoms due to the laser beams are balanced with each other in the trap space (Section 1 Experimental setup, first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 2:
Di Stefano teaches the magneto-optical trap apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the first illumination portion illuminates the three laser beams which propagate on the same plane to the trap space with angles between the laser beams being equal to each other. Fig. 1, Section 1 Experimental setup, first paragraph.
Regarding Claim 6:
Di Stefano teaches the magneto-optical trap apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the second illumination portion illuminates the two laser beams which intersect the plane to the trap space from directions opposite each other. As shown in Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 8:
Di Stefano teaches the magneto-optical trap apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the plane is a plane which passes through a point of symmetry of a magnetic field formed in the trap space for trapping atoms. Fig. 1, Section 1 Experimental setup, first paragraph.
Regarding Claim 9:
Di Stefano teaches a physics package comprising:
the magneto-optical trap apparatus according to claim 1. Abstract.
Regarding Claim 10:
Di Stefano teaches an optical lattice clock, comprising:
the physics package according to claim 9. Fig. 1 is the MOT of such a clock.
Regarding Claim 11:
Di Stefano teaches an atomic clock, comprising:
the physics package according to claim 9. Fig. 1 is the MOT of such a clock.
Regarding Claim 14:
Di Stefano teaches a physics package system comprising:
the physics package according to claim 9 (Fig. 1); and
a control apparatus that controls an operation of the physics package (as described in Fig. 1b, Section 1 Experimental setup, second-third paragraph; Section 1 Delayed shadow-image technique, third paragraph.).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Stefano in view of US 2010/0033255 A1 [Strabley].
Regarding Claim 3:
Di Stefano teaches the magneto-optical trap apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach that the first illumination portion generates the three laser beams which propagate on the same plane from one laser beam through reflections.
Strabley teaches a magneto-optical trap (para 23) wherein a first illumination portion generates three laser beams which propagate on the same plane from one laser beam through reflections. Paras 12, 23-24, Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the mirror techniques of Strabley to form the three laser beam arrangement of Di Stefano. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since it would reduce the number of lasers, the size, and the power consumption needed to operate the MOT. Strabley para 25.
Regarding Claim 4:
The above modified invention teaches the magneto-optical trap apparatus according to claim 3, wherein
the first illumination portion comprises a plurality of mirrors (Strabley Paras 12, 23-24, Fig. 1), and
the plurality of mirrors are placed in such a manner that the three laser beams which propagate on the same plane are illuminated to the trap space with angles between the laser beams being equal to each other (Di Stefano Fig. 1 shows such an arrangement of lasers, Strabley, at Paras 12, 23-24, describes arranging mirrors to create the trap).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the mirror techniques of Strabley to form the three-laser beam arrangement of Di Stefano Fig. 1. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since it would reduce the number of lasers, the size, and the power consumption needed to operate the MOT. Strabley para 25.
Regarding Claim 7:
Di Stefano teaches the magneto-optical trap apparatus according to claim 6, but fails to specify that the second illumination portion reflects one laser beam of the two laser beams which intersect the plane, to generate the other laser beam of the two laser beams.
Strabley teaches a magneto-optical trap (para 23) wherein the second illumination portion reflects one laser beam of the two laser beams which intersect the plane, to generate the other laser beam of the two laser beams. Paras 12, 23-24, Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the mirror techniques of Strabley to form the laser beam arrangement of Di Stefano. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since it would reduce the number of lasers, the size, and the power consumption needed to operate the MOT. Strabley para 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights