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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woetzel et al. (“Lifetime improvement of micro-fabricated alkali vapor cells by atomic layer deposited wall coatings”, hereinafter “Woetzel”).
Woetzel discloses an atomic vapor cell (Fig.1(5)) comprising:
a bottom transparent substrate (bottom glass substrate in Figs.1(2)-(5)) having a floor surface (interior surface);
a top transparent substrate (top glass substrate in Fig.1(5)) having a ceiling surface (interior surface);
a frame (middle silicon wafer layer; see pg.159, left column) having (i) a bottom surface bonded to the floor surface (see Fig.1(2) and pg.159, left column), (ii) a top surface opposite the bottom surface and bonded to the ceiling surface (see Fig.1(5) and pg.159, left column), and (iii) a probe aperture (aperture formed by the etched hole in step Fig.1(1));
a top protective layer on the ceiling surface (top coating of aluminum oxide shown in Fig.1(5) and described in pg.159, right column, section 2.2, described as protection layers on pg.158, last paragraph) and including a first layer-region that covers a region of the ceiling surface spanning across the probe aperture (the region covering the ceiling surface of the aperture in Fig.1(5);
a bottom protective layer on the floor surface (bottom coating of aluminum oxide shown in Fig.1(5) and described in pg.159, right column, section 2.2, described as protection layers on pg.158, last paragraph) and including a second layer-region that covers a region of the floor surface that spans across the probe aperture (the region covering the floor surface of the aperture in Fig.1(5)); and
an atomic-vapor source (Cs; see steps Fig.1(4) and Fig.1(5) and pg. 159, left column) that (i) includes an alkaline earth metal (Cesium) and (ii) is located in the probe aperture and between the bottom and the top transparent substrates (see Fig.1(5)).
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nieradko et al. (“FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION TO THE CHARACTERISATION AND ASSEMBLING OF MICROFABRICATED OPTICAL ALCALI VAPOR CELL FOR MEMS ATOMIC CLOCKS”, hereinafter “Nieradko”).
Claim 16: Nieradko discloses a vapor-cell fabrication method (Fig.2), comprising:
loading an atomic-vapor source (Cs dispenser) into a chamber (formed by the silicon and bottom glass following “Anodic bonding 1” step) of an unsealed atomic vapor cell (at “Cs dispenser insertion) to yield a loaded vapor cell (see the third step of Fig.2); and
sealing the loaded atomic vapor cell by bonding a top window to the unsealed atomic vapor cell (“Anodic bonding 2 Annealing” step in Fig.2; see also pg.46, last left column-first right column).
Claim 18: Nieradko discloses after loading and before bonding, placing the loaded vapor cell in a chamber evacuated to a pressure less than two hectopascal and at a temperature between 200 °C and 400 °C (see pg.46, right column, where after loading the cesium dispenser, the sample is first evacuated to a pressure less than two hectopascal of 10-3 Pa, then heated to 450 °C, thus between 200 °C and 400 °C as the heated table heats the sample to the 450 °C annealing temperature).
Claim 19: Nieradko discloses in said step of loading, the atomic-vapor source including one of an alkali metal and an alkali metal precursor (Cesium; see Fig.2 and pg.46, left column).
Claim 20: Nieradko discloses bonding comprising one of anodically bonding (anodic bonding; see Fig.2 and pg.46, right column), fusion bonding, eutectic bonding, optical contact bonding, and hydrogen catalysis bonding.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liew et al. (“Microfabricated alkali atom vapor cells”, hereinafter “Liew”) in view of Nieradko.
Liew discloses a vapor-cell fabrication method (Fig.1), comprising:
loading an atomic-vapor source into a chamber of an unsealed atomic vapor cell to yield a loaded vapor cell (step 1d, where Cesium and a buffer gas are loaded into the chamber formed by step 1c);
sealing the loaded atomic vapor cell by bonding a top window to the unsealed atomic vapor cell (step 1e; see pg.2695, left column); and
before loading, placing the atomic- vapor source (Cesium) and the unsealed atomic vapor cell (shown in Fig.1d) in a buffer gas medium (see pg.2695, right column, last paragraph, where the unsealed cell is placed in a glove box filled with dry nitrogen), said loading being performed in the buffer gas medium (via pipette; see pg.2695, right column).
Liew, however, only discloses nitrogen as a buffer gas and not a “noble gas medium” during the direct injection of liquid cesium within a low vacuum anaerobic chamber method of loading. Nieradko discloses that a buffer gas may be “nitrogen or argon (or a mixture of these gases)” (see pg.46, right column). As argon or a nitrogen/argon mixture are discloses as suitable alternatives to a buffer gas, the results of substituting nitrogen with argon or a mixture of nitrogen and argon would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided a buffer gas of argon or a mixture of nitrogen and argon during the alkali metal loading step of Liew as the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 1-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara (US 9,595,973) in view of Woetzel.
Claim 1: Ishihara discloses an atomic vapor cell (Figs.4-6; see col.6,15-16), comprising:
a bottom transparent substrate (22, a “window part”) having a floor surface (interior surface of 22);
a top transparent substrate (23, a “window part”) having a ceiling surface (interior surface of 23);
a frame (21) having (i) a bottom surface bonded to the floor surface (see col.6,25-27), (ii) a top surface opposite the bottom surface and bonded to the ceiling surface (see col.6,27-29), (iii) a reservoir hole (S2), (iv) a probe aperture (S1), and (iv) a channel (S3) that connects the reservoir hole to the probe aperture (see Figs.4-6); and
an atomic-vapor source (M) that (i) includes an alkaline earth metal (see col.6,49-50) and (ii) is located in the reservoir hole (s2) and between the bottom and the top transparent substrates (see Figs.4-6).
Ishihara does not disclose a top protective layer on the ceiling surface and including a first layer-region and a second layer-region that cover respective regions of the ceiling surface spanning across the reservoir hole and the probe aperture; and a bottom protective layer on the floor surface and including a third layer-region that covers a region of the floor surface that spans across the probe aperture”. Woetzel discloses that interior surfaces of an atomic vapor cell may be coated with aluminum oxide protection layers on all surfaces (pg.158, last paragraph, pg.159, section 2.2), thus a top protective layer surface and a bottom protective layer surface, in order to increase the lifetime of the vapor cell (see pg.158, last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the protective layers of Woetzel on all surfaces of the atomic cell of Ishihara in order to have provided the benefits of increased lifetime of the vapor cell.
Claim 2: the combination discloses the bottom protective layer including a bottom periphery region that (i) surrounds the third layer-region and (ii) is between the floor surface and the frame, such that the frame is bonded to the floor surface through the bottom periphery region (see Fig.1(3) of Woetzel, where the coating is formed on the bonded surfaces of the silicon frame and bottom glass substrate, thus forming a periphery region between the floor surface and frame, the frame being bonded to the floor surface directly).
Claim 3: the combination discloses the reservoir hole being a through hole (in the embodiment of Fig.5), the bottom protective layer further including a fourth layer-region that covers a region of the floor surface that spans across the reservoir hole (in the combination of Ishihara and Woetzel, all surfaces of the interior are provided with the ALD protective coating, thus providing a region of the floor surface that spans across the reservoir hole).
Claim 4: the combination discloses a bottom protective layer including a bottom periphery region that (i) surrounds each of the third and the fourth layer-regions and (ii) is between the floor surface and the frame, such that the frame is bonded to the floor surface through the bottom periphery region (see Fig.1(3) of Woetzel, where the coating is formed on the bonded surfaces of the silicon frame and bottom glass substrate, thus forming a periphery region between the floor surface and frame, the frame being bonded to the floor surface directly).
Claim 5: the combination discloses a thickness of the bottom periphery region being between twenty nanometers and fifty nanometers (Woetzel discloses a thickness of 20 nm; see pg.159, right column, section 2.2).
Claim 6: the combination discloses the top protective layer including a top periphery region that (i) surrounds each of the first and the second layer-regions and (ii) is between the floor surface and the frame, such that the frame is bonded to the ceiling surface through the top periphery region (the “top” and “bottom” merely being the result of the physical orientation of the device, thus the “bottom” glass window of Woetzel may instead be considered the “top” when the device is flipped, and the same interpretation of claim 4 applies).
Claim 7: the combination discloses a thickness of the top periphery region being between twenty nanometers and fifty nanometers (Woetzel discloses a thickness of 20 nm; see pg.159, right column, section 2.2).
Claim 8: the combination discloses the frame being formed of one of silicon, glass, a ceramic, or a combination thereof (Ishihara discloses a silicon or glass frame in col.7,6-7).
Claim 9: the combination discloses ach of the bottom protective layer and the top protective layer including one of aluminum oxide, diamond, and a combination thereof (Woetzel discloses aluminum oxide; see pg.159, right column, section 2.2).
Claim 12: the combination discloses the reservoir hole being one of a blind hole and a through hole (Fig.5), the frame having: a first interior surface that defines the reservoir hole (surface interior surface of 21 in S2) and being one of (i) when the reservoir hole is a blind hole, a concave surface between the top surface and the bottom surface, and (ii) when the reservoir hole is the through hole (Fig.5), a first interior surface spanning between the top surface and the bottom surface (surface interior surface of 21 in S2); a second interior surface that defines the probe aperture (S1) and spans between the top surface and the bottom surface (see Fig.5); and a channel surface (S3) that (i) defines the channel, (ii) spans between the first and the second interior surface, and (iii) is between the bottom surface and the top surface (see Fig.5).
Claim 13: the combination discloses an inter-frame protective layer covering the first interior surface, the second interior surface, and the channel surface (a protective layer coating on all interior surfaces of Ishihara, as disclosed by Woetzel, including first interior surface, second interior surface, and channel surface).
Claim 14: the combination discloses the inter-frame protective layer including one of aluminum oxide, diamond, and a combination thereof (aluminum oxide; see pg.159, right column, section 2.2).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Woetzel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roper et al. (US 10,056,913, of record and hereinafter “Roper”).
The combination of Ishihara and Woetzel disclose the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. However, Ishihara only discloses rubidium, cesium, or sodium as the alkali metal (see col.6,15-16) and does not explicitly disclose that the alkali metal is strontium. Roper discloses that an alkali metal for a similar vapor cell may be selected from a group consisting of sodium, potassium, cesium, rubidium, or strontium (see col.2,28-30). As Roper discloses strontium as a suitable alternative to the rubidium, cesium, or sodium of Ishihara, and both elements are suitable alkali metals for vapor cells, substituting rubidium, cesium, or sodium of Ishihara with the strontium of Roper would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided strontium as the alkali metal of Ishihara as the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Woetzel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nathanson et al. (US 6,570,459, of record and hereinafter “Nathanson”).
The combination of Ishihara and Woetzel disclose the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not disclose “the channel being optically occluded such that it lacks a line-of-sight therethrough”. Nathanson discloses that a similar channel connecting a reservoir hole to a probe aperture (94) may be optically occluded such that it lacks a line-of-sight therethrough (via a right angle in channel 94 to reservoir 90). Since an optically occluded channel that lacks a line of sight, such as Nathanson, also provides a means for the alkali vapor to migrate to the probe aperture (see col.3,43-46 of Nathanson), the results of providing an optically occluded channel in place of the straight channel of Ishihara would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the channel of Ishihara with a right angle turn, as disclosed by Nathanson, as the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Menna Youssef can be reached at (571)270-3684. 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.
/RYAN JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849