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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: It is recommended that the abstract be placed on a separate page.
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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the QMs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (Nature Vol 452|6 March 2008|doi:10.1038/nature06670 (cited by applicants) in view of Li et al (cited by applicants: Nature Comm: Received 8 Jun 2016 | Accepted 19 Oct 2016 | Published 21 Nov 2016 ), both cited by applicants.
Re Claims: 1,7,8 and 19:
The reference to Choi et al, see figure below, shows a quantum apparatus, that is, a Quantum Memory where a photon pair(red/green L/R modes) that encode a photonic states( l b >,l a >); please note that BD1 allows for the polarization as described in figure 1 description below(claim 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
788
1080
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The quantum memory is shown and labeled, Quantum Memory, atomic state mapping, that is, where the state, ground state (l b >), for example, serves as the initialization state, for both the first and second photons(photon pair). Control fields Ώc provided by controller (not shown) is part of the QM mapping initialization and allows for the transition from first state, ground state (l b >), to the second state l a >. The induced phase shift is a function of the delay (τ). The reference figure also, showing the re-combining using the PBS splitter(claim 8). The method steps being inherent.
The reference to Choi et al does not show the Rydberg blockade, explicitly, that can be part of this quantum memory application, per se, for minimizing neighboring atom interactions, however, the reference to Li et al, see figure below, shows a conventional consideration of this.
PNG
media_image2.png
865
571
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the figure above to Li et al, this QM(quantum memory) application shows the trap for the atoms, see figure 1a, where, with the Rydberg blockade, see figure 1b, the ability to control the Rydberg level interactions is the main feature in the mapping and thus a more stable optical light field propagation can be enhanced by way of making use of Rydberg level control feature.
In light of the above it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that the apparatus as described by Choi et al may be enhanced by adjusting the Rydberg level in the mapping phase, as noted by Li et al, to enhance the stability of optical light field propagation in the quantum memory and thus improving the quantum memory operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 9-13, 15, 20-22, 24-32, 34,35 and 37 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 17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed by examiner, shows related art discussing the Rydberg blockade and QM applications. The reference to Du et al is the USPGPUB application corresponding to this application. The other references do not suggest the Rydberg blockage within the QM mapping.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNOLD M KINKEAD whose telephone number is (571)272-1763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5:30pm(Fri-Flex).
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, Menatoallah 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.
ARNOLD M. KINKEAD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2849
/ARNOLD M KINKEAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights