DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1–21 are pending and have been examined on the merits below.
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 .
Domestic Benefit
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged. This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/588,896, filed October 9, 2023. The effective filing date of claims 1–21 is October 9, 2023.
Written Description Support in Provisional Application No. 63/588,896
The chart below maps each pending claim to the provisional specification and to the provisional claims, which recite the same combination. Paragraph numbers are those of the October 9, 2023 provisional specification.
Independent claims 1 and 12 are supported by the summary at provisional [0006]–[0007], the imaging-system description at [0042]–[0044], and alignment step 806 at [0062]. The five alignment phases of method 900 at [0065]–[0073] support the dependents.
Utility claim / limitation
Provisional 63/588,896 support
Supported?
1 — vacuum enclosure and window(s)
[0006]; [0042]–[0043] (window 408 / chamber 250); prov. cl. 1
Yes
1 — ion trap, ≥1 ion
[0006]; [0024]–[0026], [0043] (trap 402 / ion 406); prov. cl. 1
Yes
1 — objective at first position focusing ion light into SM fiber at second position
[0006]; [0042]–[0043]; [0060] origin (0,0,0) as first position; prov. cl. 1
Yes
1 — first objective tilt (obj. axis vs. window normal)
[0006]; [0044]; [0060] (example 25°); prov. cl. 1
Yes
1 — first fiber tilt (fiber axis vs. obj. axis)
[0006]; [0044]; [0061] (example 10°); prov. cl. 1
Yes
1 — first camera, second camera, pick-off, imaging lens used in combination to minimize both tilts
[0006]; [0046]–[0050] (cameras 504/508, pick-off 502, lens 506); [0062]; prov. cl. 1
Yes
2 / 13 — Phase 1: camera replaces fiber; obj. to third position + second obj. tilt to cut aberrations
[0046], [0065]–[0066]; prov. cl. 2, 13
Yes
3 / 14 — third position by motion in at least one of X, Y, Z
[0046], [0049]; prov. cl. 3, 14
Yes
4 / 15 — Phase 2: pick-off in front of first camera; re-image ion on second camera
[0047]–[0048], [0067]; prov. cl. 4, 15
Yes
5 / 16 — obj. to fourth position + third obj. tilt on second-camera image
[0048]–[0049], [0068]; prov. cl. 5, 16
Yes
6 / 17 — Phase 3: fiber back in; inject; scatter off electrodes; re-image trap on second camera
[0051]–[0054], [0069]; prov. cl. 6, 17
Yes
7 / 18 — adjust focal position of objective to focus fiber light onto the trap
[0053], [0070]; prov. cl. 7, 18
Yes
8 / 19 — fiber second tilt to reduce ion-to-scatter separation “s”
[0054]–[0056], [0071]; prov. cl. 8, 19
Yes
9 / 20 — Phase 4: obj. fifth position (focal and transverse) so ion images onto the fiber
[0057], [0072]; prov. cl. 9, 20
Yes
10 / 21 — Phase 5: fiber third tilt so coupled ion light into the fiber increases
[0057], [0073]; prov. cl. 10, 21
Yes
11 — NA greater than a threshold NA
[0059]; prov. cl. 11 (“as large as optical access allows”)
Yes
12 — method of setting first positions/tilts and aligning with the four-element combination
[0007]; [0059]–[0062] (method 800 steps 802–806); prov. cl. 12
Yes
Conclusion as to priority. Claims 1–21 are entitled to the benefit of Provisional Application No. 63/588,896 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e). No written-description rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is made for lack of correspondence to the provisional.
Foreign Priority
This application does not claim the benefit of a foreign application under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)–(d). No certified copy is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement is currently of record.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following minor typographical informalities:
Paragraph [0056] misspells “fluorescence” as “florescence.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The specification is consulted for the meaning of claim terms, not as a source of unrecited limitations. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); MPEP 2111.
“Imaging objective” is an optic that collects and focuses ion fluorescence. It is not limited to a multi-element microscope objective or to a stated numerical aperture except in claim 11.
“First objective tilt angle” is the angle between the optical axis of the imaging objective and a normal to a vacuum window (FIG. 4). “First fiber tilt angle” is the angle between the optical axis of the single-mode fiber and the optical axis of the imaging objective. Both quantities are geometric properties of an assembled optical train. The claim phrase “used in combination to align … in order to minimize” is treated, in the system claims, as a statement of intended capability of the recited cameras, pick-off mirror, and imaging lens.
“Replace the SM fiber at the second position” means that the first camera and the SM fiber are configured for interchangeable occupancy of the same image-plane location. They need not occupy that location at the same time.
Embodiment details such as the example coordinates (0, 3, 0), the 20° example, the labels 410 / 412 / 502 / 504 / 506 / 508, and the five numbered alignment phases of FIGS. 8–9 are not imported into claim 1.
Claim Rejections — 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Unclear / mixed statutory class — claims 2, 5, 6, and 8–10. These claims are directed to a system but recite method steps of using that system. Claim 2 requires that the imaging objective “is repositioned to a third position and is tilted to a second objective tilt angle in response to determining that optical aberrations are reduced.” Claims 5, 6, and 8–10 use the same “in response to determining” / “is increased” formulation. A single claim that claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under MPEP 2173.05(p)(II) and IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A third party cannot determine whether an assembled QIP system infringes when it is idle, or only when an operator performs the recited determination and then moves the objective. The corresponding method claims 13–21 already recites the protocol and do not present this problem.
Applicant may overcome the rejection by reciting structure or capability only (for example, “wherein the imaging objective is configured to be repositioned …”) and deleting the “in response to determining” clause from the system claims, or by canceling the mixed system claims and relying on claims 13–21.
Unclear — claim 11. Claim 11 requires a numerical aperture “greater than a threshold numerical aperture.” Neither the claim nor the specification assigns a numerical value to that threshold. Paragraph [0060] states only that the numerical aperture should be “as large as possible” and is “practically limited by optical access.” A person of ordinary skill cannot determine the metes and bounds of “a threshold.” See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claims 3, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because they depend from a rejected base claim and inherit the mixed-class problem of claim 2.
Claim Rejections — 35 USC 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
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.
A. Prior Art Rejections Based on Primary Reference Wong-Campos
The printed publications applied below are listed on the attached PTO-892.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong-Campos in view of Stephenson and Hucul.
Regarding independent claim 1, Wong-Campos teaches a quantum information processing (QIP) system (trapped-ion imaging apparatus used in ion-trap quantum information experiments; abstract; Fig. 1) comprising:
a vacuum enclosure with one or more vacuum windows (linear Paul trap in vacuum; fluorescence “transmitted through a vacuum viewport”; Fig. 1b; p. 606–607);
an ion trap inside the vacuum enclosure configured to trap at least one ion (174Yb+ in a linear Paul trap; Fig. 1a; p. 606);
an imaging objective at a first position and configured to focus light from the at least one trapped ion passing through the one or more vacuum windows (objective lens of numerical aperture NA = 0.6 with ×10 magnification collecting isotropic fluorescence transmitted through the viewport; Fig. 1b; p. 607);
a first camera (EMCCD at the final image; Fig. 1c; p. 607) and an imaging lens (second-stage lens that forms the image at the EMCCD; p. 607), used to align the imaging objective (the objective is mounted on a precision five-axis alignment stage to compensate for comatic aberrations; cylindrical optics after the magnifier compensate astigmatism; wavefront distortions are recovered from the PSF and used to correct aberrations and misalignments; p. 607–608).
Wong-Campos therefore teaches an objective tilt relative to the collection axis through the window. Wong-Campos does not place a single-mode fiber at a second position in the image plane of the objective, does not recite a first fiber tilt angle between a fiber axis and the objective axis, and does not recite a pick-off mirror plus a second camera used together with the first camera and the imaging lens to minimize both tilt angles.
Wong-Campos stops at an EMCCD image. The collected fluorescence is not delivered into a single-mode fiber. That leaves a known gap for modular ion-trap quantum information: photons that stay on a camera cannot be sent to a remote module.
Stephenson addresses that gap. Stephenson couples spontaneously emitted 422 nm photons from trapped 88Sr+ ions through an NA 0.6 lens into an antireflection-coated single-mode fiber so that the photons can be used for high-rate, high-fidelity entanglement across a quantum network (abstract; p. 1; Supplemental Material § S1). The collection objective sits on a five-axis stage. The fiber tip sits on a three-axis piezo stage. Coupling is held by tracking fluorescence count rate. Hucul likewise couples ion fluorescence into a single-mode fiber specifically to make a photonic interconnect between ion-trap modules (Fig. 2a; p. 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wong-Campos by placing a single-mode fiber at the image plane of the collection objective, as taught by Stephenson and Hucul, and by using Stephenson’s multi-axis fiber stage together with Wong-Campos’s camera path (including the existing two-stage imaging path, implemented as a pick-off and a second camera) to reduce both the objective tilt and the fiber tilt. The reason is the reason Stephenson and Hucul give: an EMCCD image is not a photonic interconnect. Putting the collected light into an SM fiber, and then walking objective tilt and fiber tilt until coupled counts rise, is how Stephenson and Hucul get usable photons out of a high-NA ion-collection train. The combination stays inside one optical train: same ion, same class of high-NA objective, same five-axis objective stage, same need to look at the image plane. Wong-Campos already supplies the camera that inspects that plane; Stephenson already supplies the fiber that occupies it. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and (C).
Regarding independent claim 12, Wong-Campos teaches trapping an ion, passing fluorescence through a vacuum window, focusing that light with an imaging objective, and using a camera and an imaging lens to align the objective (Fig. 1; p. 606–608). Wong-Campos does not couple that light into an SM fiber. Stephenson and Hucul teach that coupling, and they teach it in order to send ion photons into a network or interconnect. It would have been obvious to perform the method of claim 12 for the same reason given for claim 1.
Claims 2–5 and 13–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong-Campos in view of Stephenson and Hucul.
Claim 2 depends from independent claim 1. Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 2. Claim 5 depends from claim 4. Claim 13 depends from independent claim 12. Claims 14 and 15 depend from claim 13. Claim 16 depends from claim 15. Each of these dependents is rejected over the same combination applied to its independent and intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, Wong-Campos in view of Stephenson teaches the system of claim 1. Wong-Campos teaches that the first camera is configured to [occupy] the [image] position of the collected beam (EMCCD at the image; Fig. 1c) and that the imaging objective is repositioned and tilted on a five-axis stage in response to observed aberrations on the ion image (p. 607). Stephenson later needs the same image plane for the fiber. Viewing the ion on a camera first, as Wong-Campos already does, and then seating the fiber at that plane, as Stephenson does, is how the two systems are used together. Claim 2 is obvious for the same reason given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Wong-Campos teaches that the objective is moved with a five-axis alignment stage (p. 607), which includes translation along three orthogonal axes.
Regarding claim 4, Wong-Campos teaches a second camera path in substance: an intermediate image is spatially filtered and a second-stage lens forms a further image at the EMCCD (Fig. 1b–c; p. 607). A pick-off mirror that sends part of the beam to a second camera while the first camera remains available is the standard implementation of that two-stage inspection. Wong-Campos already inspects the ion on a camera before any fiber is introduced. The combination renders claim 4 obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Wong-Campos teaches walking the objective on the five-axis stage until coma and other aberrations on the ion image are reduced (p. 607–608), i.e., a second objective tilt angle smaller than the starting tilt. Stephenson’s five-axis objective stage is used for the same rotational alignment of a high-NA collection lens that feeds an SM fiber (Supplemental Material § S1).
Regarding claims 13–16, these are the method forms of claims 2–5. Wong-Campos already views the ion on a camera and walks the objective. Stephenson already seats an SM fiber at the collection image plane. The method claims are obvious for the same reason given for claims 2–5.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong-Campos in view of Stephenson and Hucul.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from independent claim 1, Wong-Campos teaches NA = 0.6 (p. 607). Stephenson teaches an NA 0.6 collection objective feeding an SM fiber (abstract; Supplemental Material § S1). Both are high-NA collection objectives. To the extent “greater than a threshold numerical aperture” is understood despite the 112(b) rejection, a high NA is taught. The claimed NA is also a [i] result-effective variable1 that may be [ii] optimized2 given the general conditions of the claim (Wong-Campos and Stephenson both increase NA specifically to collect more ion fluorescence into the imaging / fiber path). See MPEP 2144.05(II).
B. Prior Art Rejections Based on Wong-Campos in view of Stephenson, Hucul, and Fernandez-Gonzalvo
Claims 6–8 and 17–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong-Campos in view of Stephenson, Hucul, and Fernandez-Gonzalvo.
Wong-Campos in view of Stephenson and Hucul, applied to claims 1–5 and 12–16, already teaches the vacuum enclosure and window, the ion trap, the high-NA objective on a five-axis stage, the SM fiber on a multi-axis stage at the image plane, the first camera and imaging lens used to reduce objective tilt, and a second imaging path that inspects the ion. What that combination does not teach is putting the fiber back at that image plane, launching light out of the fiber toward the trap, making the fiber mode visible as scatter off the electrodes, and using the second camera to compare that scatter with the ion.
Regarding claim 6, Wong-Campos in view of Stephenson and Hucul teaches the system of claim 4, including an SM fiber at the image plane (Stephenson Supplemental Material § S1). Claim 6 further requires that the SM fiber is replaced at the second position, that light is injected from the fiber toward the trap so that the fiber mode is visible as scatter off electrodes, and that the pick-off mirror and second camera re-image that scatter. Stephenson does not teach launching light from the fiber so the mode can be seen on the trap electrodes.
Stephenson holds coupling by maximizing fluorescence counts (Supplemental Material § S1). Count rate is a scalar. It does not show whether the fiber mode is on the ion or on a neighboring electrode. That is the problem claim 6 is aimed at, and it is a problem the parent combination leaves open.
Fernandez-Gonzalvo faces the same class of problem when a beam has to sit on the geometric center of an ion trap. Fernandez-Gonzalvo places a scattering screen between the inner electrodes and watches beam position with a pair of microscopes so the beam can be walked to that center (p. 4; Fig. 2). The stated purpose is to see the beam at the trap, not to guess from a power meter.
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 Wong-Campos / Stephenson / Hucul system by launching light from the collection fiber toward the trap and imaging the resulting electrode scatter on the existing second-camera path, as taught by Fernandez-Gonzalvo. The reason is Fernandez-Gonzalvo’s reason: a visible spot at the electrodes tells the operator where the mode is, which count rate does not. The combination uses optics already in the parent system (fiber, trap electrodes, pick-off, second camera). No new principle is required. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and (C).
Regarding claim 7, claim 6 as combined already puts fiber light on the trap. Fernandez-Gonzalvo watches that light on the scatter target. Adjusting a focal position of the imaging objective so the injected light is focused onto the trap is the focus adjustment already available on Wong-Campos’s five-axis stage (p. 607).
Regarding claim 8, Wong-Campos images the ion. Fernandez-Gonzalvo images scatter at the trap. Walking the fiber on Stephenson’s multi-axis stage until the scatter-to-ion separation shrinks is a second fiber tilt angle selected so those two spots move together.
Regarding claims 17–19, these are the method forms of claims 6–8. The same combination teaches replacing the fiber at the image plane, injecting light, imaging electrode scatter, focusing that light onto the trap, and reducing the scatter-to-ion separation by fiber tilt.
Claims 9, 10, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong-Campos in view of Stephenson, Hucul, and Fernandez-Gonzalvo.
Regarding claim 9, after the scatter alignment of claim 6, Stephenson tracks fluorescence count rate on a three-axis fiber stage (Supplemental Material § S1). Repositioning the imaging objective to a fifth position along the optical axis and in a plane perpendicular to that axis so that the ion is imaged onto the fiber is that focusing and centering step. The same reasoning to combine references as explained supra.
Regarding claim 10, Stephenson walks fiber angle until coupled fluorescence is increased (Supplemental Material § S1). That is a third fiber tilt angle.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, these are the method forms of claims 9 and 10. The same combination teaches the fifth objective position and the third fiber tilt.
Claims 6–10 and 17–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong-Campos in view of Stephenson, Hucul, and VanDevender.
Wong-Campos in view of Stephenson and Hucul already teaches the parent system and method of claims 1–5 and 12–16, including an SM fiber at the collection image plane and cameras used to align the objective. Those references do not teach injecting light from that fiber toward the trap so the fiber mode can be seen as scatter on the electrodes.
VanDevender couples trapped-ion fluorescence into a fiber through a hole in the trap and, separately, sends a 532 nm beam into that collection path and checks emission at the other end of the fiber to verify that the fiber is aligned (p. 2). VanDevender therefore teaches using the collection fiber itself as the alignment source, which is the missing step of claims 6 and 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to inject light into the Stephenson collection fiber of the Wong-Campos system and to look for that light at the trap, as taught by VanDevender, and then to walk fiber tilt and objective position as already taught by Stephenson until the ion and the injected spot overlap and coupled fluorescence increases. VanDevender’s stated reason is to verify fiber alignment. That is the same reason claims 6–10 and 17–21 add the inject-and-scatter steps. Claims 7–10 and 18–21 follow from that injection for the same mapping already given for Fernandez-Gonzalvo. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and (C).
Double Patenting
No double-patenting rejection is made in this action. Copending U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0139484 A1 (Debnath, Liu, Zhao; filed October 22, 2024) recites an ion trap, a first imaging lens, a pick-off mirror, a second imaging lens, and two sensors. That application is directed to multiplexing imaging by shuttling ions between trap sites, not to mode-matching collected fluorescence into a single-mode fiber. The claims as filed are patentably distinct. Nonstatutory double patenting is reserved if the claims of either application are amended into the same combination.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
Claims 1–21 are rejected.
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 11,681,322 B2 (Monroe et al.) teaches high-resolution camera imaging of trapped-ion fluorescence for ion identification and state readout. It does not place a single-mode fiber at the image plane of the collection objective or use a pick-off and a second camera to minimize an objective tilt and a fiber tilt.
US 11,150,609 B1 teaches a trapped-ion platform with integrated waveguides, fiber V-groove arrays, and on-chip photodetectors. It does not teach free-space high-NA collection through a vacuum window into a single-mode fiber with the claimed interchangeable imaging alignment.
Applicant is advised that the strongest disclosed distinction from the applied combination appears in the third alignment phase: returning the SM fiber to the image plane, injecting light from the fiber, imaging electrode scatter and the ion on the second camera, and reducing the scatter-to-ion separation by fiber tip-tilt. Any amendment along those lines should recite the structure that performs that comparison, not only the intended result.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P DULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, ELISEO RAMOS-FELICIANO can be reached at (571)272-7925. 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.
23 September 2026
/John P. Dulka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
1 In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation).
2 In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
