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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04 September 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement; please see attached forms PTO-1449
.Drawings
The drawings submitted have been reviewed and determined to facilitate understanding of the invention. The drawings are accepted as submitted.
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, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Cavity electro-optic circuit for microwave-to-optical conversion in the quantum ground state” by Fu et al. (“Fu”), cited in Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding Claim 1, Fu describes a system (see Fig 1, Abstract, and Page 2, Column 1 – Page 3 Column 1) comprising:
a resonant bulk cavity (see Figs 1(b)-(c) and Page 2, Column 1); and
at least one electro-optic crystal configured in the resonant bulk cavity (see Figs 1(b)-(d), Abstract, Page 1 Columns 1-2).
Regarding Claim 7, Fu describes the electro-optic crystal comprising Aluminum Nitride (AIN) (see Page 1 Column 1, Page 2 Column 2-Page 3 Column 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Fu describes the resonant bulk cavity comprising a superconducting cavity (see Abstract, Page 2 Column 2-Page 3 Column 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Fu describes the resonant bulk cavity comprising a split ring cavity (see Figs 1(b)-(c)) .
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Non-destructive optical readout of a superconducting qubit.” By Delaney et al. (“Delaney”), cited in Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding Claim 17, Delaney describes a system (see Fig 1 and Page 1 Column 1-Page 3 Column 2) comprising:
an EO transducer (see Page 2 Column 1);
a resonant cavity (see Fig 1(c)) coupled to the EO transducer;
a transmon qubit coupled to the EO transducer (see Fig 1(a)); and
an RF source configured to provide a signal to the EO transducer (see Fig 1(b)).
Regarding Claim 18, Delaney describes the EO transducer comprises:
an RF resonating cavity (see Page 3 Column 1); and
electro-optic crystal configured in the RF resonating cavity (see Fig 1(a)).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Delaney.
Fu describes the system of claim 1. Fu does not describe the resonant bulk cavity comprising an RF resonating cavity. Delaney describes an RF resonating cavity (see Page 3 Column 1). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Fu to include an RF resonating cavity as taught by Delaney, for the benefit of performing a non-destructive optical readout of a transmon qubit (see Delaney at Page 1 Column 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of "Electro-optic time profile monitors for femtosecond electron bunches at the soft x-ray free-electron laser FLASH" by Steffen et al. (“Steffen”), cites in Applicant’s IDS.
Fu describes the system of claim 1. Fu does not describe a beam pipe associated with the resonant bulk cavity wherein the at least one electro-optic crystal is configured proximate to the beam pipe. Steffen describes at least one electro-optic crystal configured proximate to a beam pipe (see Page 5 Column 2). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Fu to include the at least one electro-optic crystal configured proximate to the beam pipe as taught by Steffen, for the benefit of achieving an improved time resolution in electro-optic analysis (see Steffen at Page 15 Column 2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of "RF basics; TM cavity design and fabrication" by Belomestnykh (“Belomestnykh”), cited in Applicant’s IDS.
Fu describes the system of claim 1. Fu does not describe the resonant bulk cavity comprising a TESLA shaped cavity. Belomestnykh describes a TESLA shaped cavity (see Pages 5, 28). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Fu to include a TESLA shaped cavity as taught by Belomestnykh, for the benefit of an improved Epk/Eacc RF parameter ratio (see Belomestnykh at Page 34).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of “Modal Properties of Photonic Crystal Cavities and Applications to Lasers” by Saldutti et al. (“Saldutti”), cited in Applicant’s IDS.
Fu describes the system of claim 1. Fu does not describe the resonant bulk cavity comprising a bow-tie cavity. Saldutti describes a bow-tie cavity (see Fig 15). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Fu to include a bow-tie cavity, as taught by Saldutti, for the benefit of using a bow-tie structure for the cavity to exhibit spatial confinement of light deep below the wavelength of light in the material (see Saldutti at Introduction).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney as applied to Claim 18 above, and further in view of Fu.
Regarding Claim 19, Delaney describes the system of claim 18. Delaney does not describe the RF resonating cavity comprising one of: a TESLA shaped cavity; a reentrant cavity; a split ring cavity; a bow-tie cavity; and a custom designed RF cavity. Fu describes a split ring cavity (see Figs 1(b)-(c)). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Delaney to include a split ring cavity as taught by Fu, for the benefit of incurring low radiative losses (see Fu at Page 2 Columns 1-2).
Regarding Claim 20, Delaney describes the system of claim 18. Delaney does not describe the electro-optic crystal comprising Lithium Niobate (LiNbO3) and Aluminum Nitride (AIN). Fu describes the electro-optic crystal comprising LiNbO3 and AIN (see Page 1 Column 1, Page 2 Column 2, and Page 6 Column 1). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Delaney to include the materials taught by Fu, for the benefit achieving much larger electromechanical coupling in an acoustic resonator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-16 are allowed.
Claim 3 describes at least one rod extending from the electro-optic crystal.
Claim 12 describes:
at least one electro-optic crystal configured in the resonant RF cavity proximate to a beam pipe associated with the resonant RF cavity; and
at least one rod extending from the electro-optic crystal into the beam pipe.
These limitations represent subject matter not described or reasonably suggested, in conjunction with the further limitations of the present claims, by the prior art of record.
Claims 4-5 depend from Claim 3 and therefore contain at least the same allowable subject matter.
Claims 13-16 depend from Claim 12 and therefore contain at least the same allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art cited in the attached form PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior are describes various systems including electro-optical crystals or transducers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY RAHLL whose telephone number is (571)272-2356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/JERRY RAHLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights