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 .
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.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 10/25/2024 is noted by the Examiner.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…producing a concentrated electric field at the detection frequency in a volume…” in lines 6-7 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “volume” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different volume. Please make the proper corrections.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…to bring the cloud of atoms into a Rydberg state; and a sensor that detects changes in opacity in a portion of cloud of atoms capable of transition into a Rydberg state.” in lines 8-11 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitations in question refer to the same “Rydberg state in the volume” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if they refer to a different “Rydberg state”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " …wherein the field applicator behaves as a broadband transmission line that supports modes of operation that concentrate the electric field in the Rydberg atom cloud" in lines 1-3 of Claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior disclosure of the underlined limitation before this moment.
Claim 12 recites the limitation " … and match for voltage step-up to the electric field applicator within a Rydberg vapor cloud…" in lines 3-5 of Claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior disclosure of the underlined limitation before this moment.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “comprising applying an secondary EM signal at detection frequency within a volume …” in lines 1-2 of Claim 13. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same”. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “volume to a Rydberg state”, “volume at a Rydberg state”; each disclosed earlier in Claim 12; or if it refers to a different “volume” Please make the proper corrections.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “…applying an secondary EM signal at detection frequency within a volume …” in lines 1-3 of Claim 14. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same”. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “volume to a Rydberg state”, “volume at a Rydberg state”; each disclosed earlier in Claim 12; or if it refers to a different “volume” Please make the proper corrections.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “…applying an secondary EM signal at detection frequency within a volume is applying a EM signal…” in lines 1-3 of Claim 15. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same”. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “volume to a Rydberg state”, “volume at a Rydberg state”; each disclosed earlier in Claim 12; or if it refers to a different “volume” Please make the proper corrections.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a cloud of atoms capable of transition into a Rydberg state in the volume…” in lines 5-6 in Claim 17. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “volume between a field applicator formed of a first and second conductive members at the detection frequency” disclosed earlier in Claim 17; or if it refers to a different “volume”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the volume between the field applicator formed of the first and second conductive members at the detection frequency”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “…laser light being applied at the location to bring the cloud of atoms into a Rydberg state …” in line 7 of Claim 17. It is not clear if the underlined limitations in question refer to the same “Rydberg state in the volume” disclosed earlier in Claim 17 or if they refer to a different “Rydberg state”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “…a sensor that detects changes in opacity of the atoms capable of transition into a Rydberg state” in lines 9-10 of Claim 17. It is not clear if the underlined limitations in question refer to the same “cloud of atoms” disclosed earlier in Claim 17 or if refers to different “atoms”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “…a sensor that detects changes in opacity of the atoms capable of transition into a Rydberg state” in lines 9-10 of Claim 17. It is not clear if the underlined limitations in question refer to the same “Rydberg state in the volume” disclosed earlier in Claim 17 or if they refer to a different “Rydberg state”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " … wherein the first and second conductive members are designed to behave as a broadband transmission line operating with modes that concentrate the electric field in the Rydberg atom cloud." in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior disclosure of the underlined limitation before this moment.
Claims 2-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph as they further limit Claim 1.
Claims 13-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph as they further limit Claim 12.
Claims 18-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph as they further limit Claim 17.
Please make the proper corrections.
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(s) 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. US 2024/0413829 (Hereinafter Anderson) in view of Walker et al. US 2022/0196719 (Hereinafter Walker).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches a hybrid quantum sensor (Figs. 1, 36-38; quantum sensors) configured to sense electromagnetic radiation at a detection frequency (Figs. 1, 36-38; quantum sensors), the hybrid quantum sensor comprising:
a cell (Fig. 48; [0159, 0170-0177]; vapor cell(s)) holding a cloud of atoms (Fig. 48; [0159, 0170-0178]; atoms) capable of transition into a Rydberg state ([0004-0006, 0121, 0182, 0184, 0223]; Rydberg states) in the volume ([0170, 0222, 0231, 0232]; volume);
an electrically small antenna ([0155-0163, 0250-0254]; antennas) connected to a field applicator ([0216, 0219, 0275]; broadband) located adjacent to the cloud of atoms (Fig. 48; [0159, 0170-0178]; atoms), producing a concentrated electric field ([0153, 0154, 0161-0163, 0186-0190, 0214-0222]; electric field) at the detection frequency ([0030, 0169, 0173-0176, 0214, 0216, 0218]; RF sensing) in a volume ([0170, 0222, 0231, 0232]; volume);
a laser ([0017-0021, 0126-0129, 0175-0183]; laser) configured to apply laser light at the first location ([0017-0021, 0126-0129, 0175-0183]; laser) to bring the cloud of atoms (Fig. 48; [0159, 0170-0178]; atoms) into a Rydberg state ([0004-0006, 0121, 0182, 0184, 0223]; Rydberg states).
Anderson does not specifically teach a sensor that detects changes in opacity in a portion of cloud of atoms capable of transition into a Rydberg state.
However, Walker does teach a sensor (Fig. 1; sensor cell, 102) that detects changes in opacity ([0025-0031]) in a portion of cloud of atoms ([0025-0031]; alkali metal atoms) capable of transition into a Rydberg state (Abstract; [0016-0024]; Rydberg energy state).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anderson by implementing the teachings of Walker regarding a sensor that detects changes in opacity in a portion of cloud of atoms capable of transition into a Rydberg state; in order to “provide for a baseband signal of interest without undesired or adversarial interference and provides a detectable directional of a source of the signal, and also improves the detection of electric fields for anti-spoofing and and/or anti-jamming capability in electronic warfare environments” (See Walker; Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the hybrid quantum sensor according to claim 1, wherein Anderson further teaches wherein the electrically small antenna has a resonant frequency higher than the detection frequency ([0155-0163, 0250-0254]; antennas).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the hybrid quantum sensor according to claim 1, wherein Anderson further teaches comprising a circuit ([0260]; impedance matching) connecting the electrically small antenna to the field applicator that provides a function to reduce Q ([0218, 0219, 0260]; impedance matching), and step-up voltage of a classically detected sensed electromagnetic radiation ([0218, 0219, 0260]; impedance matching).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the hybrid quantum sensor according to claim 3, wherein Anderson further teaches wherein the circuit to reduce Q is an impedance matching circuit ([0218, 0219, 0260]; impedance matching).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the hybrid quantum sensor according to claim 1, wherein Anderson further teaches wherein the field applicator ([0216, 0219, 0275]; broadband) behaves as a broadband transmission line that supports modes of operation that concentrate the electric field ([0153, 0154, 0161-0163, 0186-0190, 0214-0222]; electric field) in the Rydberg atom cloud ([0019, 0159, 0202]; Rydberg atom vapor-cell).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the hybrid quantum sensor according to claim 1, wherein Anderson further teaches wherein the detection frequency is greater than or equal to ELF and less than penta-Hz frequencies ([0018, 0173-0176]; RF sensing).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the hybrid quantum sensor according to claim 1, wherein Anderson further teaches further comprising a processor for determining the voltage and phase of an input signal from the sensor (Figs. 1, 2; digital signal processor).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the hybrid quantum sensor according to claim 1, wherein Anderson further teaches wherein the field applicator comprises a dielectric coating ([0216, 0219, 0275]; broadband) configured to increase electrical isolation from other material inside the vapor cell ([0216, 0219, 0275]; broadband).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the hybrid quantum sensor according to claim 8, wherein Anderson further teaches wherein the field applicator is electrically isolated from the cloud of atoms capable of transition into a Rydberg state by dielectric coating ([0216, 0219, 0275]; broadband).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the hybrid quantum sensor according to claim 8, wherein Anderson further teaches wherein the field applicator comprises a pair of parallel conductive members disposed within the cell ([0216, 0219, 0275]; broadband).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson teaches a hybrid method for detecting an electromagnetic signal at a detection frequency (Figs. 1, 36-38; quantum sensors) comprising:
providing an electrically small antenna ([0155-0163, 0250-0254]; antennas) at the received frequency ([0030, 0169, 0173-0176, 0214, 0216, 0218]; RF sensing) with a circuit ([0218, 0219, 0260]; impedance matching) to lower Q ([0218, 0219, 0260]; impedance matching) and match for voltage step-up to the electric field applicator ([0216, 0219, 0275]; broadband) within a Rydberg vapor cloud ([0019, 0159, 0202]; Rydberg atom vapor-cell);
applying laser light ([0017-0021, 0126-0129, 0175-0183]; laser) through the location bringing a plurality of atoms (Fig. 48; [0159, 0170-0178]; atoms) in the volume to a Rydberg state ([0004-0006, 0121, 0182, 0184, 0223]; Rydberg states).
Anderson does not specifically teach characterizing changes opacity of the plurality of atoms in the volume at a Rydberg state, to determine changes in Rydberg state electrons at the detection frequency.
However, Walker does teach characterizing changes (Fig. 1; sensor cell, 102) opacity ([0025-0031]) of the plurality of atoms ([0025-0031]; alkali metal atoms) in the volume at a Rydberg state (Abstract; [0016-0024]; Rydberg energy state), to determine changes in Rydberg state electrons at the detection frequency (Abstract; [0016-0024]; Rydberg energy state).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anderson by implementing the teachings of Walker regarding characterizing changes opacity of the plurality of atoms in the volume at a Rydberg state, to determine changes in Rydberg state electrons at the detection frequency; in order to “provide for a baseband signal of interest without undesired or adversarial interference and provides a detectable directional of a source of the signal, and also improves the detection of electric fields for anti-spoofing and and/or anti-jamming capability in electronic warfare environments” (See Walker; Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the method for detecting an electromagnetic signal according to claim 12, wherein Anderson further teaches further comprising applying an secondary EM signal at detection frequency ([0030, 0169, 0173-0176, 0214, 0216, 0218]; RF sensing) within a volume ([0170, 0222, 0231, 0232]; volume).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the method for detecting an electromagnetic signal according to claim 13, wherein Anderson further teaches wherein applying an secondary EM signal at detection frequency ([0030, 0169, 0173-0176, 0214, 0216, 0218]; RF sensing) within a volume ([0170, 0222, 0231, 0232]; volume) is applying a non-resonant RF signal to the electrically small antenna ([0155-0163, 0250-0254]; antennas).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the method for detecting an electromagnetic signal according to claim 13, wherein Anderson further teaches comprising applying an secondary EM signal at detection frequency within a volume is applying a EM signal equal to and greater than ELF ([0018, 0173-0176]; RF sensing).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the method for detecting an electromagnetic signal according to claim 12, wherein Anderson further teaches wherein applying a low Q RF signal to an electrically small antenna is applying a low Q RF signal to an electrically small antenna at a temperature above the boiling point of nitrogen ([0218, 0219, 0260]; impedance matching).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson teaches a hybrid quantum sensor (Figs. 1, 36-38; quantum sensors) comprising:
an RF generator ([0030, 0169, 0173-0176, 0214, 0216, 0218]; RF sensing) producing a low Q signal ([0218, 0219, 0260]; impedance matching) at a detection frequency ([0030, 0169, 0173-0176, 0214, 0216, 0218]; RF sensing);
an electrically short antenna ([0155-0163, 0250-0254]; antennas) connected to the RF generator ([0030, 0169, 0173-0176, 0214, 0216, 0218]; RF sensing), producing a changing electric field ([0153, 0154, 0161-0163, 0186-0190, 0214-0222]; electric field) in a volume ([0170, 0222, 0231, 0232]; volume) between a field applicator ([0216, 0219, 0275]; broadband) formed of a first and second conductive members ([0030, 0169, 0173-0176, 0214, 0216, 0218]; RF sensing) at the detection frequency ([0030, 0169, 0173-0176, 0214, 0216, 0218]; RF sensing);
a cloud of atoms (Fig. 48; [0159, 0170-0178]; atoms) capable of transition into a Rydberg state ([0004-0006, 0121, 0182, 0184, 0223]; Rydberg states) in the volume ([0170, 0222, 0231, 0232]; volume).
laser light ([0017-0021, 0126-0129, 0175-0183]; laser) being applied at the location to bring the cloud of atoms (Fig. 48; [0159, 0170-0178]; atoms) into a Rydberg state ([0170, 0222, 0231, 0232]; volume).
Anderson does not specifically teach a sensor that detects changes in opacity of the atoms capable of transition into a Rydberg state.
However, Walker does teach a sensor (Fig. 1; sensor cell, 102) that detects changes in opacity ([0025-0031]) of the atoms ([0025-0031]; alkali metal atoms) capable of transition into a Rydberg state ([0004-0006, 0121, 0182, 0184, 0223]; Rydberg states).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Anderson by implementing the teachings of Walker regarding a sensor that detects changes in opacity of the atoms capable of transition into a Rydberg state; in order to “provide for a baseband signal of interest without undesired or adversarial interference and provides a detectable directional of a source of the signal, and also improves the detection of electric fields for anti-spoofing and and/or anti-jamming capability in electronic warfare environments” (See Walker; Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the hybrid quantum sensor according to claim 17, wherein Anderson further teaches wherein the first and second conductive members ([0030, 0169, 0173-0176, 0214, 0216, 0218]; RF sensing) are designed to behave as a broadband transmission line ([0216, 0219, 0275]; broadband) operating with modes that concentrate the electric field ([0153, 0154, 0161-0163, 0186-0190, 0214-0222]; electric field) in the Rydberg atom cloud ([0019, 0159, 0202]; R1-10ydberg atom vapor-cell).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the hybrid quantum sensor according to claim 17, wherein Anderson further teaches wherein the detection frequency has a frequency below 2 Ghz ([0030, 0169, 0173-0176, 0214, 0216, 0218]; RF sensing).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Anderson and Walker teaches the hybrid quantum sensor according to claim 17, wherein Anderson further teaches wherein the first and second conductive members have an exterior dielectric layer ([0030, 0169, 0173-0176, 0214, 0216, 0218]; RF sensing).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 10,
“…wherein the pair of parallel conductive members define a gap less than about 5 mm that converts an applied voltage into a higher E-field.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crockett et al. US 2006/0114237 - A method and system for providing a touch interface on a display are described. The method and system include providing an emitter on a first side of the display and providing a detector on a second side of the display. The emitter provides an electromagnetic signal to the display. The electromagnetic signal has a path from the emitter to the detector through the display in the absence of a user's touch such that the electromagnetic signal is detected by the detector in the absence of the user's touch.
McKinney et al. US 2021/0025931 - A system and related method for determining whether an electrical circuit has been compromised. The system includes a circuit probe positioned relative to the electrical circuit that detects electromagnetic circuit emissions therefrom and an analysis device electrically coupled to the circuit probe and receiving electromagnetic emissions detection signals therefrom, where the analysis device identifies constituent frequencies and their magnitudes in the detection signals.
Crockett et al. US 2008/0252619 - A system for providing a touch interface on a display are described. The system include providing an emitter on a first side of the display and providing a detector on a second side of the display. The emitter provides an electromagnetic signal to the display. The electromagnetic signal has a path from the emitter to the detector through the display in the absence of a user's touch such that the electromagnetic signal is detected by the detector in the absence of the user's touch.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, EST.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights