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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 13 July 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. The Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every objection, 112(f) interpretation, 112(b) rejection, and a majority of the art rejections (i.e. 102 and 103 rejections) previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 15 April 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 July 2026 have been fully considered but some are not persuasive.
On pages 13-18, the Applicant argues that the amendments added to independent claims 2-4 overcome the rejection previously set forth, and the Examiner agrees. The rejection have been withdrawn.
On pages 18-19, the Applicant argues that the addition of “an excitation light source that outputs excitation light” overcomes the rejection of independent claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Stevenson in view of Habif and Arahira, however, the Examiner disagrees. Arahira clearly teaches two light sources, an excitation light source 12 and an auxiliary signal light source 14 (see figure 1). For the reasons set forth above, claim 14 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Additionally, claims 15, 17, 19, and 20 remain rejected under their respective previous 103 rejections.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3: “the polarizing beam splitter” in line 7 should be “the plurality of polarizing beam splitters” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 14: “the two photons” in lines 8 and 11 respectively should be “the at least two photons” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, “photons” in line 10 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same photons mentioned previously or different photons? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same photons mentioned previously.
Claims 5-8 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, “photons” in line 9 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same photons mentioned previously or different photons? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same photons mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 3, “photons” in line 10 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same photons mentioned previously or different photons? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same photons mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 4, “photons” in line 12 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same photons mentioned previously or different photons? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same photons mentioned previously.
Claims 9-13 are rejected for their dependency on claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, “light” in line 3 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claims 10 and 9, on which claim 11 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same light mentioned previously or different light? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same light mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 14, “the quantum entangled light” in line 7 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear.
Claims 15-20 are rejected for their dependency on claim 14.
Regarding claim 19, “one or more beam splitters that cause interference of the quantum entangled light” in lines 3-4 is unclear as a beam splitter that performs the same function (i.e. causing interference) has been mentioned previously in claim 14. This is a repeat limitation that is lacking proper antecedent basis. Additionally, “light receiving elements” in line 5 and “the plurality of light receiving elements” in line 9 are both unclear as a light receiving element has been mentioned previously in claim 14, on which claim 19 is dependent. Are these limitations referring to the same light receiving element mentioned previously or different light receiving elements? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations to be referring to the same light receiving element mentioned previously. Additionally, “photons” in line 9 is unclear as at least two photons have been mentioned previously in claim 14, on which claim 19 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same at least two photons mentioned previously or different photons? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same at least two photons mentioned previously. Additionally, “one or more beam splitters,” “a plurality of splitters,” and “the at least one beam splitter” all seem to be referring to the same element. If the Applicant wants these limitations to be referring to different beam splitters, that needs to be made clear in the claim language.
Regarding claim 20, “one or more beam splitters that cause interference of the quantum entangled light” in lines 3-4 is unclear as a beam splitter that performs the same function (i.e. causing interference) has been mentioned previously in claim 14. This is a repeat limitation that is lacking proper antecedent basis. Additionally, “light receiving elements” in line 5 and “the plurality of light receiving elements” in lines 9-10 are both unclear as a light receiving element has been mentioned previously in claim 14, on which claim 19 is dependent. Are these limitations referring to the same light receiving element mentioned previously or different light receiving elements? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting these limitations to be referring to the same light receiving element mentioned previously. Additionally, “photons” in line 12 is unclear as at least two photons have been mentioned previously in claim 14, on which claim 19 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same at least two photons mentioned previously or different photons? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same at least two photons mentioned previously. Additionally, “one or more beam splitters,” “a plurality of splitters,” and “the at least one beam splitter” all seem to be referring to the same element. If the Applicant wants these limitations to be referring to different beam splitters, that needs to be made clear in the claim language.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (USPGPub 20130322873 A1) in view of Habif (USPGPub 20120076503 A1) and Arahira (USPGPub 20120051755 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Stevenson teaches a measurement device comprising: a quantum entangled light source (21) that outputs at least two photons in a quantum entanglement state (see figure 2, entangled light source 21; and ¶10, a light emitting diode configured to produce a polarisation entangled photon pair); and a quantum entanglement generator that detects a detection timing of a photon by a light receiving element (27/29/31/33) provided corresponding to a path branched by at least one beam splitter (23) that causes interference of the quantum entangled light (see figure 2, timing unit 35 and beamsplitter 23; ¶19, the joint measurement unit comprises a beam splitter to permit two-photon-interference; and ¶67, Timing unit 35 measures the time between photons registered by each of the detectors 27, 29, 31, and 33 in order to determine the first delay time). However, Stevenson fails to explicitly teach an excitation light source that outputs excitation light; and wherein among a first light guide path that applies one of the two photons to an observation target, a second light guide path that guides a photon returning from the observation target to the at least one beam splitter, and a third light guide path that guides the other of the two photons to the at least one beam splitter, the quantum entanglement generator receives light from the second light guide path and the third light guide path.
However, Habif teaches wherein among a first light path (110) that applies one of the two photons to an observation target (102), a second light path (112) that guides a photon returning from the observation target to the receiver, and a third light path (108) that guides the other of the two photons to the receiver, the quantum entanglement generator receives light from the second light path (112) and the third light path (108) (see figure 1A, photon traveling along path 110 to surface 102 (i.e. observation target), second path 112 along which reflected photon is returning to receiver 118, and third path 108 along which second photon is traveling directly to receiver 118; and see ¶41 for details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stevenson to incorporate the teachings of Habif to include the detector in a spectrometer device in order to use the timing information from the photons to determine an encoded message. Encoding/encrypting devices commonly use quantum entanglement photon pairs because of their ultra secure communication capabilities. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach an excitation light source that outputs excitation light; and wherein the light paths are light guide paths.
However Arahira teaches an excitation light source (12) that outputs excitation light (102) (see figure 1, excitation light source 12); and wherein the light paths are light guide paths (¶114, channels 73 and 75, respectively, which may be formed by optical fiber or a free space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Stevenson and Habif to incorporate the teachings of Arahira to further include an excitation light source in order to adjust the efficiency of the differential-frequency generation, providing a tunable output. Additionally, it would have been obvious to instead have light guides for the light paths because it is merely a well-known optical equivalent to free space (see MPEP 2144.06 II).
Regarding claim 19, Stevenson as modified by Habif and Arahira teaches the measurement device according to claim 14, wherein the quantum entanglement generator includes one or more beam splitters (Stevenson 23) that cause interference of the quantum entangled light (Stevenson, see figure 2, beamsplitter 23; and ¶19, the joint measurement unit comprises a beam splitter to permit two-photon-interference), light receiving elements (Stevenson 27/29/31/33) provided corresponding to respective paths branched by a plurality of splitters (Stevenson 23/25) including at least the at least one beam splitter (Stevenson 23) (Stevenson, see figure 2, beamsplitter 23 and polarizing beamsplitters 25 splitting light to detectors 27, 31, 29, and 33), and a measurement instrument (Stevenson 35) that detects respective detection timings of photons in the plurality of light receiving elements (Stevenson 27/29/31/33) (Stevenson, see figure 2, timing unit 35; and ¶67, Timing unit 35 measures the time between photons registered by each of the detectors 27, 29, 31, and 33 in order to determine the first delay time).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (USPGPub 20130322873 A1) in view of Habif (USPGPub 20120076503 A1) and Arahira (USPGPub 20120051755 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Meyers et al. (USPGPub 20150055961 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Stevenson as modified by Habif and Arahira teaches the second light guide path (Habif 112) and the third light guide path (Habif 108) arranged towards the receiver (Habif, see figure 1A, photon traveling along path 110 to surface 102 (i.e. observation target), second path 112 along which reflected photon is returning to receiver 118, and third path 108 along which second photon is traveling directly to receiver 118; and see ¶41 for details; and Arahira, ¶114, channels 73 and 75, respectively, which may be formed by optical fiber or a free space). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a sum frequency generator arranged in at least one path.
However, Meyers teaches a sum frequency generator (307/310) arranged in at least one path (see figure 13, nonlinear medias 307 and 310 located within the light paths; and ¶133, The nonlinear media boxes 307 and 310 are the locations where the quantum frequency conversion takes place employing either sum-frequency-generation or difference-frequency-generation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Stevenson, Habif, and Arahira to incorporate the teachings of Meyers to further include sum frequency generator in order [t]o mitigate absorption or scattering losses inherent in long distance transmission of quantum information (Meyers, ¶209).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (USPGPub 20130322873 A1) in view of Habif (USPGPub 20120076503 A1) and Arahira (USPGPub 20120051755 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Roberts et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7822342 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Stevenson as modified by Habif and Arahira teaches the second light guide path (Habif 112) and the third light guide path (Habif 108) arranged towards the receiver (Habif, see figure 1A, photon traveling along path 110 to surface 102 (i.e. observation target), second path 112 along which reflected photon is returning to receiver 118, and third path 108 along which second photon is traveling directly to receiver 118; and see ¶41 for details; and Arahira, ¶114, channels 73 and 75, respectively, which may be formed by optical fiber or a free space). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a band pass filter arranged in at least one path.
However, Roberts teaches a band pass filter (F2) arranged in at least one path (see figure 2, bandpass filter F2 in receiver 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Stevenson, Habif, and Arahira to incorporate the teachings of Roberts to further include a bandpass filter in order to remove frequencies of light that are not in the desired band, thereby improving signal-to-noise ratio.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevenson et al. (USPGPub 20130322873 A1) in view of Habif (USPGPub 20120076503 A1) and Arahira (USPGPub 20120051755 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (USPGPub 20160315715 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Stevenson as modified by Habif and Arahira teaches the measurement device according to claim 14, wherein the quantum entanglement generator includes one or more beam splitters (Stevenson 23) that cause interference of the quantum entangled light (Stevenson, see figure 2, beamsplitter 23; and ¶19, the joint measurement unit comprises a beam splitter to permit two-photon-interference), light receiving elements (Stevenson 27/29/31/33) provided corresponding to respective paths branched by a plurality of splitters (Stevenson 23/25) including at least the at least one beam splitter (Stevenson 23) (Stevenson, see figure 2, beamsplitter 23 and polarizing beamsplitters 25 splitting light to detectors 27, 31, 29, and 33), and a measurement instrument (Stevenson 35) that detects respective detection timings of photons in the plurality of light receiving elements (Stevenson 27/29/31/33) (Stevenson, see figure 2, timing unit 35; and ¶67, Timing unit 35 measures the time between photons registered by each of the detectors 27, 29, 31, and 33 in order to determine the first delay time). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a branching unit including at least one optical member that branches light to be introduced into the plurality of light receiving elements.
However, Smith teaches a branching unit (44) including at least one optical member that branches light to be introduced into the plurality of light receiving elements (48) (see figure 3, initial beam splitter 44 followed by polarizing beam splitters 46, then followed by additional beam splitters 44 (i.e. branching unit) branching light into detectors 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Stevenson, Habif, and Arahira to incorporate the teachings of Smith to further include additional branching elements in order to disperse the light over more detectors, thereby increasing resolution/density of detected data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach a measurement device as claimed that receives quantum entangled light from one or more paths, the measurement device comprising: one or more beam splitters that cause interference of the quantum entangled light; a plurality of light receiving elements provided corresponding to respective paths branched by a plurality of splitters including at least the one or more beam splitters; more specifically in combination with a branching unit including at least one optical member that stochastically disperses photons in the plurality of light receiving elements; and a measurement instrument that detects respective detection timings of photons in the plurality of light receiving elements.
Claims 5-8 would be allowable for their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach a measurement device as claimed that receives quantum entangled light from a plurality of paths, the measurement device comprising: a plurality of beam splitters that cause interference of the quantum entangled light; a plurality of light receiving elements provided corresponding to respective paths branched by the plurality of beam splitters; more specifically in combination with a branching unit including at least one optical member that stochastically disperses photons in the plurality of light receiving elements; and a measurement instrument that detects respective detection timings of photons in the plurality of light receiving elements.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach a measurement device as claimed that receives quantum entangled light, the measurement device comprising: a beam splitter that causes interference of the quantum entangled light; a plurality of polarizing beam splitters that branches, in a polarization state, the quantum entangled light after the interference by the beam splitter; a plurality of light receiving elements provided corresponding to respective paths branched by the polarizing beam splitter; more specifically in combination with a branching unit including at least one optical member that stochastically disperses photons in the plurality of light receiving elements; and a measurement instrument that detects respective detection timings of photons in the plurality of light receiving elements.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach a measurement device as claimed that receives quantum entangled light from one or more paths, the measurement device comprising: one or more beam splitters that cause interference of the quantum entangled light; a plurality of light receiving elements provided corresponding to respective paths branched by a plurality of splitters including at least the one or more beam splitters; more specifically in combination with a branching unit including at least one optical member that stochastically disperses photons into the plurality of light receiving elements; and a measurement instrument that detects respective detection timings of photons in the plurality of light receiving elements.
Claims 9-13 would be allowable for their dependency on claim 4.
Claims 16 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the measurement device according to claim 14 as claimed, more specifically in combination with further comprising: a phase adjuster arranged in at least one of the second light guide path or the third light guide path.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the measurement device according to claim 14 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the excitation light source outputs the excitation light to the observation target.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights