DEATILED 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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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(s) is/are:
“wireless transfer means” in claim 1; its corresponding structure is “induction coil 214” or “light source 720” (See Spec. paras. [0068 and 0167]);
“control apparatus” in claim 19. Although the limitation does not use the term “means,” the term “control apparatus” is used as a generic placeholder for structure, is modified by the functional language “configured to control operation of the physics package,” and the claim does not recite sufficient structure for performing the recited control function.
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.
Claim 7 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 7 recites the limitation ““the atomic beam ejected from…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 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 19 is further 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. Specifically, the claim limitation “control apparatus configured to control operation of the physics package” and “a movable closure to stop irradiation” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. The specification merely states that control apparatus 16 “controls the physics package 12 and the optical system apparatus 14” and that, for example, control apparatus 16 performs “operation control of the physics package 12,” operation control of the optical system apparatus 14, and frequency-analysis processing (See Spec para. [0048]). Thus, the disclosure essentially identifies the control apparatus by the same function recited in the claim without explaining the structure or manner by which the claimed control of the physics package is performed. The specification additionally discloses PC 18 as a general-purpose computer having a processor and memory and states that an application program is installed for controlling the optical lattice clock and that the PC may control the physics package (See Spec para. [0049]). However, the specification does not disclose an algorithm, sequence of operations, control logic, or other particular structure by which the computer performs the claimed function of controlling operation of the physics package. For a computer-implemented §112(f) function that is not merely a basic function coextensive with a general-purpose processor, disclosure of a general-purpose computer or software alone is insufficient; the specification must disclose the algorithm or other sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. MPEP § 2181. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Further, the claim lacks written description support and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1, and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0345475 A1 [hereinafter Cashen] in view of US 2023/0226508 A1 [hereinafter Bough].
Regarding Claim 1:
Cashen teaches an atomic beam generator (Abstract: a collimated beam atomic ovens and collimated atomic beam sources), comprising:
a vacuum chamber (Fig. 2- vacuum chamber 62);
a sample reservoir (Fig. 2- tube 32) installed inside the vacuum chamber and configured to contain an atom source (Fig. 2 and paras. [0026, 0035]: “a tube 32 having a portion 34 and a portion 36. A source of atoms 38 is disposed in the portion 34, and “the tube 32 being disposed entirely in the vacuum chamber 62”);
a heated element (Fig. 2- heater 52) installed inside the vacuum chamber and configured to be heated by energy supplied from an [inductive heating source] so as to heat the atom source (para. [0032]: “the heater assembly 42 may include a resistive heater ... an inductive heating source, or a radiative heating source... a heater 52 configured to heat the source of atoms 38.” As shown in Fig. 2, the heater assembly 42 is entirely installed inside the vacuum chamber 62); and
a nozzle installed on the sample reservoir (Fig. 4; para. [0026]: “a tube 32 having ... a portion 36...aperture 40 is disposed in the portion 36.” “the nozzle 80 includes the aperture 40.” Fig. 4 also shows the nozzle 80 is installed on the tube 32) and configured to eject from the sample reservoir an atomic vapor generated by heating the atom source (paras. [0012, 0041]: “maintaining the tube at an operating temperature sufficient to establish a vapor pressure sufficient to emit atoms”. “atoms can be emitted from the source of atoms,” “allowing the atomic beam to effusively emanate from the nozzle”)
Cashen teaches using inductive heating source as its energy generator; however, Cashen does not expressly teach the inductive heating source is a wireless transfer means and is installed outside the vacuum chamber and configured to supply energy wirelessly.
Bough teaches a wireless transfer means installed outside the vacuum chamber and configured to supply energy wirelessly (paras. [0116]: “The heat generator may be an inductive heating body (180′) configured for heating using wireless inductive heating. An induction coil may be provided above or below the rotatable disc (110) that emits energy in the form of a rapidly alternating magnetic field.” Since the inductive heating body using wireless inductive heating, it can be configured to outside the chamber enclosed the sample).
Cashen teaches an atomic beam oven having heater assembly which may employ an inductive heating source and a heater for heating the atom source. Bough teaches a wireless implementation of inductive heating in a material-feed apparatus, where an inducive coil generates a rapidly alternating magnetic field and wirelessly induced eddy currents in a separate inductive heating body to heat material supplied to the apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to employ Bough’s wireless inductive-heating arrangement for Cashen’s expressly contemplated inductive heating, thereby providing the known advantages of transferring heating energy to the heater without a direct electrical connection between the induction coil and the heated element.
Regarding Claim 6:
Cashen in view of Bough teaches the atomic beam generator of claim 1. Cashen further teaches a thermal insulation member that blocks thermal transfer path from the sample reservoir (para. [0037]: “The thermally insulating standoff 66 is configured to thermally insulate the tube 32 from the mounting flange 64 and the vacuum chamber 62”).
Regarding Claim 7:
Cashen in view of Bough teaches the atomic beam generator of claim 6. Cashen further teaches wherein
the thermal insulation member has a cylindrical shape, and is provided on the sample reservoir on a side toward the nozzle (as shown in Fig. 4, the thermally insulating standoff 66 has a cylindrical shape and is provided on the tube 32 on the side toward the nozzle 80), and
the atomic beam ejected from the nozzle travels by passing through the thermal insulation member (paras. [0012, 0041]: the rejected atomic beam passes the thermally insulating standoff 66 and the tube 32 eventually ejected from nozzle 80).
Regarding Claim 8:
Cashen in view of Bough teaches the atomic beam generator of claim 7. Cashen further teaches wherein the sample reservoir, and the thermal insulation member are formed into one unit and inserted into the vacuum chamber to be installed therein (Figs. 2 and 4, paras. [0038]: the thermally insulating standoff 66 is fastenably engaged to attach the tube 32 so that to form into one unit, as shown in Fig. 2, the thermally insulating standoff 66 and tube 32 is inserted into the vacuum chamber 62 to be installed therein).
Regarding Claim 9:
Cashen in view of Bough teaches the atomic beam generator of claim 6. Cashen further teaches the thermal insulation member is installed to surround the sample reservoir (Fig. 4: a sleeve-like insulation standoff 66 surrounds the sample tube 32).
Although Cashen does not expressly teach the singular annular cylindrical standoff can be configure to a plurality of rod-shaped insulation member, it would have been obvious to replace the continuous annular insulating member with a plurality of spaced rod-shaped insulating supports around the same tube to maintain support and while reducing conductive heat transfer areas.
Regarding Claim 10:
Cashen in view of Bough teaches the atomic beam generator of claim 1. Bough further teaches, wherein the wireless transfer means is an induction coil (para. [0116]: expressly teaches the inductive heating body includes induction coil).
Regarding Claim 11:
Cashen in view of Bough teaches the atomic beam generator of claim 1. Cashen teaches heater 54 configured to heat aperture 40 specifically “to help contribute to preventing clogging of the aperture 40.” Cashen further teaches that nozzle 80 includes aperture 40 (Figs. 2 and 4, paras. [0032, 0041]). Thus, although Cashen does not expressly disclose the heated element surrounding the nozzle, it would have been obvious to arrange the heated element around the nozzle so as to provide direct and substantially uniform heating of the nozzle/aperture, thereby reducing condensation of atomic vapor and preventing clogging of the nozzle aperture.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cashen in view of Bough, further in view of US5087804A [hereinafter McGaffigan].
Regarding Claim 2:
Cashen in view of Bough teaches the atomic beam generator of claim 1. However, the combined references do not expressly teach the heated element is a ferromagnetic material, and the wireless transfer means wirelessly transfers electromagnetic power to the heated element.
McGaffigan teaches the “Ferromagnetic particles will produce heating dominated by hysteresis losses if the particle size is small enough” (4:14-16) and “The lossy heating particles produce heat when subjected to an alternating magnetic field produced by the induction coil” (Abstract)
As such, adding McGaffigan to the combined reference would make that heated element of Cashen from a known ferromagnetic heating material so that the alternating magnetic field produced by the induction coil is directly converted into heat at the heated element.
Cashen teaches that the atomic oven must be heated to an elevated temperature selected to produce the desired beam flux, and specifically identifies reducing heat loss and reducing heater power required to form the atomic beam as an objective. McGaffigan teaches that ferromagnetic material converts an alternating magnetic field into heat through hysteresis loss, and further teaches that appropriately distributed magnetic particles provide more uniform and more efficient heating. It would have been obvious to configure the heated element of Cashen as modified by Bough to comprise a ferromagnetic material, as taught by McGaffigan, such that electromagnetic power from the induction coil is converted into heat by magnetic loss, thereby facilitating maintenance of the elevated temperature needed to produce the desired atomic beam flux while reducing required heater power, consistent with Cashen’s express objective of reducing heater power.
Regarding Claim 3:
Cashen in view of Bough and McGaffigan teaches the atomic beam generator of claim 2. McGaffigan further teaches the heated element is a ferromagnetic material having a Curie temperature specified based on a target sublimation temperature of the atom source (Abstract and 4:63-65: “The lossy heating particles have a Curie temperature approximately equal to a substantially constant auto-regulation temperature at which the body is heated” and “selection of lossy heating particles to provide de sired Curie temperatures will be apparent to one skilled in the art”).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cashen in view of Bough, further in view of US 2017/0245679A1 [hereinafter Watts].
Regarding Claim 4:
Cashen in view of Bough teaches the atomic beam generator of claim 1. However, the combined references do not expressly teach the heated element is a high-frequency resistor, and the wireless transfer means wirelessly transfers electromagnetic power to the heated element.
Watts teaches the heated element is a high-frequency resistor, and the wireless transfer means wirelessly transfers electromagnetic power to the heated element (para. [0096]; “The alternating magnetic field, resonating at 6.78 Mhz, causes the wireless heating device, which has also been tuned to resonate at 6.78 Mhz, to induct energy from the magnetic field generating a proportional current in the wireless heating device. The wireless heating device guides the inducted current into the wireless heating devices resistive heating element. The heating element heats via resistive joule heating”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the heated element of Cashen as modified by Bough as a high-frequency resistor, as taught by Watts, because Watts teaches that an alternating magnetic field can induce current in a resistive heating element, which converts the induced current into heat by Joule heating. Such a modification would have provided a known and predictable way to efficiently convert the wirelessly transferred electromagnetic energy into localized heat for heating the atom source, thereby facilitating generation of the desired atomic beam while reducing heater-power requirements.
Regarding Claim 5:
Cashen in view of Bough teaches the atomic beam generator of claim 1. However, the combined references do not expressly teach the heated element is a resistor included in an LC resonator, and the wireless transfer means wirelessly-transfers electromagnetic power to the heated element.
Watts teaches the heated element is a resistor included in an LC resonator, and the wireless transfer means wirelessly-transfers electromagnetic power to the heated element (para. [0049]: “... wireless heating devices can incorporate RLC (resistor, inductor, and capacitor) resonant circuits to further increase conversion efficiency”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the heated element as a resistor included in an LC resonator, as taught by Watts, because Watts teaches that resonant RLC circuits increase conversion efficiency and that tuning the transmitting and receiving circuits to the same resonant frequency allows a greater amount of electromagnetic energy to be captured by the receiver. Such a modification would have improved the efficiency of wireless power transfer to the resistive heater, thereby enabling the atomic source to reach the temperature required for the desired beam flux with reduced transmitted power.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cashen in view of Bough, further in view of Gao, S., et al., (2020). An optically-heated atomic source for compact ion trap vacuum systems. arXiv.Org. [hereinafter Gao].
Regarding Claim 12:
Cashen in view of Bough teaches the atomic beam generator of claim 1. However, the combined references do not expressly teach wherein the heated element is a member that converts light into heat, and the wireless transfer means irradiates light toward the heated element.
Gao teaches the heated element is a member that converts light into heat, and the wireless transfer means irradiates light toward the heated element. (Page 2: “Heating of the atomic oven is achieved via a multimode continuous-wave diode laser near 780nm…The heating laser is focused and directed onto the oven tube with ex-vacuo bulk optics, targeting a small region of the tube which is intentionally darkened to increase absorption.” As such, the external laser (“wireless transfer means”) acts as a light source to irradiate the intentionally darkened region of the oven tube (“heated element”) so that the light is converted to heat),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Cashen’s heated element as an optically absorbing member to convert light received from an external laser/light source to heat, as taught by Gao, to provide a known and alternative means for heating an atomic source without direct electrical heater connection.
Regarding Claim 13:
The combined references teach the atomic beam generator according to claim 12. Cashen further teaches wherein the heated element is installed at an end face of the sample reservoir opposite to an end face at which the nozzle is installed (In Figs. 2 and 4, heater 52 is installed at an end face of the tube 32, opposite to an end face of aperture 40, which is included in the nozzle 80), and
Further, it would have been obvious to select the diameter of the sample reservoir to be greater than a diameter of light radiated onto the heated element, so that substantially all of the incident laser energy is received by the light-absorbing heated element rather than passing outside the heated surface, thereby improving heating efficiency and avoiding unnecessary irradiation of surrounding structures.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cashen in view of Bough, further in view of US 2019/0227496A1 [hereinafter Katori].
Regarding Claim 14:
Cashen in view of Bough teaches a physics package, comprising: the atomic beam generator according to any one of claims 1 to 13. However, the combined references do not expressly teach a vacuum chamber that encloses a clock transition space where atoms are placed.
Katori teaches a vacuum chamber that encloses a clock transition space where atoms are placed (para. [0043]: “The atoms 2 are transported ... being trapped in the optical lattice formed by the optical lattice laser 6, clock transition is ... operation of the optical lattice clock 100 is executed in a vacuum chamber 20 having an appropriate volume”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate the atomic beam generator of Cashen/Bough into the vacuum physical package of Katori containing a clock-transition space, to supply atoms from the atomic generator to the lock-transition region for interrogation of the atomic clock transition.
Regarding Claim 15:
Cashen in view of Bough and Katori teaches a physics package of claim 14 and the physics package is for an optical lattice clock (optical lattice clock 100 in Katori).
Regarding Claim 16:
Cashen in view of Bough and Katori teaches a physics package of claim 14 and the physics package is for an atomic clock (an optical lattice clock is a type of atomic clock), comprising:
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cashen in view of Bough and Katori, further in view of US 2020/0318968 A1 [hereinafter Kozuma].
Regarding Claim 17:
Cashen in view of Bough and Katori teaches a physics package of claim 14. However, the combined references do not expressly teach such a physics package is for atomic interferometer.
Kozuma teaches (paras. [0022-0023]) a Mach-Zehnder atomic interferometric gyroscope having “an atomic beam source 101, an interference device 201, a moving standing light wave generator and the monitor 400” which are “housed in a vacuum chamber,” and the source “continuously generates an atomic beam 101.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to employ the physics package Cashen/Bough/Katori in an atomic interferometer, as taught by Kozuma, to use the atomic beam generated by the physics package as the atomic source for performing atomic interferometry.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cashen in view of Bough and Katori, further in view of US 2021/0257177 A1 [hereinafter Hudek].
Regarding Claim 18:
The combined references teach the physics package according to claim 14. However, the combined references do not expressly teach the physics package is for a quantum information processing device based on atoms or ionized atoms.
Hudek teaches a quantum information processing device based on atoms or ionized atoms (para. [0020]: “a quantum information processing (QIP) system including a trap ... ions and an atomic oven that provides a stream of ablated or evaporated particles with the ions for trapping by the trap”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to employ the physics package Cashen/Bough/Katori in a quantum information processing device as taught by Hudek since trapped ion quantum computers were known to employ a vacuum package containing an atomic source and ion-trapping region for supplying and manipulating atomic ions as quantum information carriers.
Regarding Claim 19:
The combined references teach a physics package system, comprising: the physics package according to claim 14; and
a control apparatus configured to control operation of the physics package (Hudek -para. [0036]: “The QIP system 300 can include a source 360 ...a power controller 340 may supply the electrical energy used by the source 360 (e.g., the atomic oven 100) to generate an atomic flux”).
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
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights