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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 recite “wherein the two diffracted beams have minimal path length differences so that the two diffracted beams are useable for interferometry.” It is unclear what path length differences would be considered “minimal” or “useable for interferometry”.
Claims 4 & 14 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.
Claims 4 & 14 recite “wherein the two diffracted beam comprise a first Raman beam and a second Raman beam.” It is unclear if this an intended use or if it places any limitations on the system, and if so what limitations are implied. For purposes of examination, examiner will treat this as intended use (using the beams to stimulate Raman scattering downstream).
Claims 6-10 & 16-20 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.
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 recite “wherein the atomic interferometer outputs a detection fluorescence signal.” It is unclear what function is being claimed, since only an intended result (the detection fluorescence signal) is claimed. A functional claim must clearly set out what the element does to bring about the desired result.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 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.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 recite “wherein the photodiode outputs a signal.” It is unclear what function is being claimed, since only an intended result (the signal) is claimed. A functional claim must clearly set out what the element does to bring about the desired result.
Claims 10 and 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.
Claims 10 and 20 recite “wherein the computer provides a readout that contains information about local gravitational field strength and direction.” It is unclear what function is being claimed, since only an intended result (a readout that contains information about local gravitational field strength and direction) is claimed. A functional claim must clearly set out what the element does to bring about the desired result.
Claims 10 and 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.
Claims 10 & 20 recite the limitation "the computer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Suggested correction: change to “the controller” or alternatively change claims 9 & 19 to recite “a computer”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0194337 (Farries et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Farris et al. discloses a system for interferometry, comprising:
one laser configured to generate an output beam (fig. 4, element 12);
a modulator disposed to generate two diffracted beams that are spatially offset with identical polarizations (fig. 4, element 10); and
a birefringent crystal disposed to receive the two diffracted beams, wherein one of the two diffracted beams is passed through a half wave plate so that the two diffracted beams have orthogonal polarizations (fig. 4-5, elements 15 & 14), wherein the birefringent crystal further disposed and selected in size to enable the two diffracted beams to re-overlap upon exiting the birefringent crystal by having one of the two diffracted beams walk toward the other of the two diffracted beams in the birefringent crystal (“Thus, the crystal must be of dimensions that will support two beams, combine them,” P 61).
It is unclear whether the two diffracted beams have minimal path length differences so that the two diffracted beams are useable for interferometry. However, Farris discloses that the path length differences may be chosen to create a desired time delay (“the birefringent crystal being of suitable length for providing a path length difference between each of the at least two input ports and the output port to provide a required time delay at the output port between the two data streams.” P 29). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to choose a minimal path length if minimal time delay was the desired, for example for the purposes of interferometry.
Farris et al. does not disclose the modulator being an acousto-optic deflector. Acousto-optical deflectors are well-known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute an acousto-optical deflector for the waveguide based modulator of Farris et al. because acousto-optical deflectors allow for frequency tuning and can be used for routing multiple wavelengths.
Regarding claim 11, Farris et al. discloses a method for interferometry, comprising:
generating an output beam using a laser; (fig. 4, element 12)
generating two diffracted beams that are spatially offset with identical polarizations (fig. 4, element 10); and
receiving the two diffracted beams at a birefringent crystal (fig. 4-5, element 14), wherein one of the two diffracted beams is passed through a half wave plate (fig. 4-5, element 16) so that the two diffracted beams have orthogonal polarizations, wherein the birefringent crystal further disposed and selected in size to enable the two diffracted beams to re-overlap upon exiting the birefringent crystal by having one of the two diffracted beams walk toward the other of the two diffracted beams in the birefringent crystal (“Thus, the crystal must be of dimensions that will support two beams, combine them,” P 61).
Farris et al. does not disclose using an acousto-optic deflector to generate the two diffracted beam. Using acousto-optical deflectos to generate two diffracted beams is well-known in the art. it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute using an acousto-optical deflector for the wveguide-based modulation of Farris et al. because acousto-optical deflectors allow for frequency tuning and can be used for routing multiple wavelengths.
It is unclear whether the two diffracted beams have minimal path length differences so that the two diffracted beams are useable for interferometry. However, Farris discloses that the path length differences may be chosen to create a desired time delay (“the birefringent crystal being of suitable length for providing a path length difference between each of the at least two input ports and the output port to provide a required time delay at the output port between the two data streams.” P 29). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to choose a minimal path length if minimal time delay was the desired, for example for the purposes of interferometry.
Regarding claims 2 & 12, Farris et al. discloses the invention except it is silent as to whether the birefringent crystal comprises one of the following” a TiO2 crystal, a YVO4 crystal, a CaCO3 crystal, a PbMoO4 crystal, a TeO2 crystal, a LiNbO3 crystal, a MgF2 crystal, or a SiO2 crystal. Each of those materials are known to exhibit birefringence and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use any of them because they are functional equivalents.
Regarding claims 3 & 13, Farris et al. discloses the invention except it is silent as to whether the two diffracted beams are spatially offset by two beam diameters when they enter the crystal. The spatial offset when they enter the crystal can be freely determined by selecting the distance between the acousto-optical deflector and the crystal, or the distance between the acousto-optical deflector and a collimator if the beams are collimated. Applicant has not disclosed that the particular value of two beam diameters is critical or solves any particular problem, so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to set the spatial offset to two beam diameters as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claims 4 & 14, Farris et al. discloses the claimed system or method wherein the two diffracted beams comprise a first Raman beam and a second Raman beam (intended use, the system of Farris could be used to from Raman beam, and equivalently the beams formed by the method of Farris could be used stimulate Raman scattering).
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0170792 (Kasevich et al.) in view of US 2003/0194337 (Farries et al.)
Regarding claim 1, Kasevich discloses a system for interferometry, comprising: a laser and additional elements to produce two overlapping beams with orthogonal polarizations, wherein the two beams have minimal path length differences so that the two diffracted beam are useable for interferometry (fig. 2, element 102, where fig. 6A shows two overlapping beams with orthogonal polarizations as laser A and B).
Kasevich et al. does not disclose the elements of the laser system, and therefore does not disclose an acousto-optic deflector disposed to generate two diffracted beams that are spatially offset with identical polarizations; and a birefringent crystal disposed to receive the two diffracted beams, wherein one of the two diffracted beams is passed through a half wave plate so that the two diffracted beams have orthogonal polarizations, wherein the birefringent crystal further disposed and selected in size to enable the two diffracted beams to re-overlap upon exiting the birefringent crystal by having one of the two diffracted beams walk toward the other of the two diffracted beams in the birefringent crystal.
Farries discloses a laser system including one laser configured to generate an output beam (fig. 4, element 12); a modulator disposed to generate two diffracted beams that are spatially offset with identical polarizations (fig. 4, element 10); and a birefringent crystal disposed to receive the two diffracted beams, wherein one of the two diffracted beams is passed through a half wave plate so that the two diffracted beams have orthogonal polarizations (fig. 4-5, elements 15 & 14), wherein the birefringent crystal further disposed and selected in size to enable the two diffracted beams to re-overlap upon exiting the birefringent crystal by having one of the two diffracted beams walk toward the other of the two diffracted beams in the birefringent crystal (“Thus, the crystal must be of dimensions that will support two beams, combine them,” P 61).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the laser system of Farries in the interferometer system of Kasevich et al. because it produces the needed overlapped beams with orthogonal polarizations and minimal path length differences.
Farris et al. does not disclose the modulator being an acousto-optic deflector. Acousto-optical deflectors are well-known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute an acousto-optical deflector for the waveguide based modulator of Farris et al. because acousto-optical deflectors allow for frequency tuning and can be used for routing multiple wavelengths which would be useful in switching between Raman and cooling beams.
Regarding claim 11, Kasevich et al. discloses a method for interferometry, comprising: generating an output beam using a laser; and optically manipulating the output beam to produce two beams have orthogonal polarizations and overlap them, wherein the two beams have minimal path length differences so that the two beams are useable for interferometry (“In the example shown, laser beam A with p-polarization and laser beam B with s-polarization are input to polarizing beamsplitter cube 600.” P 46, note that would need to be overlapped to produce the split beams as done in figure 6A).
Kasevich et al. does not disclose how the beams are produced, and therefore does not disclose generating two diffracted beams that are spatially offset with identical polarizations using an acousto-optic deflector; and receiving the two diffracted beams at a birefringent crystal, wherein one of the two diffracted beams is passed through a half wave plate so that the two diffracted beams have orthogonal polarizations, wherein the birefringent crystal further disposed and selected in size to enable the two diffracted beams to re-overlap upon exiting the birefringent crystal by having one of the two diffracted beams walk toward the other of the two diffracted beams in the birefringent crystal.
Farries et al. discloses a method of forming such laser beam comprising:
generating an output beam using a laser; (fig. 4, element 12);
generating two diffracted beams that are spatially offset with identical polarizations (fig. 4, element 10); and
receiving the two diffracted beams at a birefringent crystal (fig. 4-5, element 14), wherein one of the two diffracted beams is passed through a half wave plate (fig. 4-5, element 16) so that the two diffracted beams have orthogonal polarizations, wherein the birefringent crystal further disposed and selected in size to enable the two diffracted beams to re-overlap upon exiting the birefringent crystal by having one of the two diffracted beams walk toward the other of the two diffracted beams in the birefringent crystal (“Thus, the crystal must be of dimensions that will support two beams, combine them,” P 61).
It would have been obvious to use the step of Farries to form the beams of Kasevich because the method allows for creation of the necessary overlapped beams with opposing polarizations.
Farris et al. does not disclose the modulator being an acousto-optic deflector. Acousto-optical deflectors are well-known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute an acousto-optical deflector for the waveguide based modulator of Farris et al. because acousto-optical deflectors allow for frequency tuning and can be used for routing multiple wavelengths which would be useful in switching between Raman and cooling beams.
Regarding claims 2 & 12, Kasevich et al. in view of Farris et al. discloses the invention except it is silent as to whether the birefringent crystal comprises one of the following” a TiO2 crystal, a YVO4 crystal, a CaCO3 crystal, a PbMoO4 crystal, a TeO2 crystal, a LiNbO3 crystal, a MgF2 crystal, or a SiO2 crystal. Each of those materials are known to exhibit birefringence and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use any of them because they are functional equivalents.
Regarding claims 3 & 13, Kasevich et al. in view of Farris et al. discloses the invention except it is silent as to whether the two diffracted beams are spatially offset by two beam diameters when they enter the crystal. The spatial offset when they enter the crystal can be freely determined by selecting the distance between the acousto-optical deflector and the crystal, or the distance between the acousto-optical deflector and a collimator if the beams are collimated. Applicant has not disclosed that the particular value of two beam diameters is critical or solves any particular problem, so it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to set the spatial offset to two beam diameters as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claims 4 & 14, Kasevich et al. in view of Farris et al. discloses the claimed invention wherein the two diffracted beams comprise a first Raman beam and a second Raman beam (“In some embodiments, two-photon Raman transitions are used to produce the atom interference.” P 46).
Regarding claims 5 & 15, Kasevich et al. in view of Farris et al. discloses the claimed invention, wherein the two diffracted beam that are re-overlapped exit the birefringent crystal and enter an atomic interferometer (Kasevich teaches them entering the atomic interferometer, Farries discloses them exiting the crystal).
Regarding claims 6 & 16, Kasevich et al. in view of Farris et al. discloses the claimed invention, wherein the atomic interferometer outputs a detection fluorescence signal (“the fluorescence of one or both states are detected after the interferometer ” P 46).
Regarding claims 7 & 17, Kasevich et al. in view of Farris et al. discloses the claimed invention, wherein the detection fluorescence signal is received by a photodiode (“detection is done with one or more photodiodes, multi-segment photodiodes, cameras, or any other appropriate detector.” P 46).
Regarding claims 8 & 18, Kasevich et al. in view of Farris et al. discloses the claimed invention, wherein the photodiode outputs a signal (inherent in detecting with a photodiode).
Regarding claims 9 & 19, Kasevich et al. in view of Farris et al. discloses the claimed invention, wherein the signal is input to a controller (fig. 1, element 104, and “an indication to detect a signal from the atoms (e.g., atoms within sensor 100),” P 41).
Regarding claims 10 & 20, Kasevich et al. in view of Farris et al. discloses the claimed invention, wherein the computer provides a readout that contains information about local gravitational field strength and direction (“Sensor 100 is a sensor for measuring gravity by sensing atoms falling and measuring the atoms using a laser beam.” P 41).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
