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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 102-106,108-111,113-117,119-121 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Contreras et al (US2020/0185120A1), Contreras hereinafter.
As per claims 102/113, Contreras discloses a device/method for quantum computing using laser
beam comprising: array of light beams (107 para 86), a beam deflector comprising a plurality of elements, wherein a plurality of light beams of the array of light beams are aligned on separate elements of the plurality of elements of the beam deflector, (Figs. 7,19a/b and para 101, fig.21a 2110A and para 104), and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to orient one or more of the plurality of elements to direct one or more of the plurality of light beams (para 39,42,104).
As per claims 103/114, the waist of a light beam of the array of light beams is smaller than a dimension of an element of the plurality of elements (para 130).
As claims 104/105/115/116, the array of light beams is a two- dimensional array of light beams (fig 14, shows two-dimensional ordering of atoms, para 97).
As per claims 106/117, the beam deflector is a digital micromirror device (para 104).
As per claims 108/119, the apparatus further comprises a chamber comprising a plurality of spatially distinct optical trapping sites (para 81 – device in a vacuum).
As per claims 109/120, wherein the plurality of optical trapping sites is configured to trap a plurality of atoms (para 5).
As per claims 110/121, wherein the plurality of atoms comprises one or more qubits (para 78).
As per claim 111, a relay component, wherein the relay component is along an optical path after the plurality of elements (para 101, 1930).
Claim(s) 102,104,105,106,109,111-113,115-117,120 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gluckstad (US2008/0231939A1).
As per claims 102/113, Gluckstad discloses an optical trap device/method comprising: array of
light beams (para 14), a beam deflector comprising a plurality of elements, wherein a plurality of light beams of the array of light beams are aligned on separate elements of the plurality of elements of the beam deflector, (Figs. 5, para 6), and a controller, wherein the controller is configured to orient one or more of the plurality of elements to direct one or more of the plurality of light beams (para 16).
As claims 104/105/115/116, the array of light beams is a two- dimensional array of light beams (para 15).
As per claims 106/117, the beam deflector is a digital micromirror device (para 19).
As per claims 109/120, wherein the plurality of optical trapping sites is configured to trap a plurality of atoms (para 39).
As per claim 111, a relay component, wherein the relay component is along an optical path after the plurality of elements (fig 1, focusing lenses).
As per claim 112, a second optical component, wherein the second optical component is after the relay component along the optical path, wherein the second optical component is a digital micromirror device, (fig. 1, 22).
PNG
media_image1.png
710
547
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 107 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Contreras in view of Buehler et al (US2014/0133152A1, Bueler hereinafter.
Contreras does not specifically the reflecting mirror configures to rotate along three degrees of
Freedom. However, Bueler teaches a well-known three-dimensional stage wherein the DMD is mounted on a rotatable stage which can be actuated on multiple axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to mount the DMD of Contreras on a movable optical stage to improve precision, stability and performance in optical addressing of quantum systems. In this instance, Contreras teaches the use of deformable mirrors (para 101) and/or optical modulators to vary the path of the optical beams. Moreover, as seen in Buehler, the digital micromirror is incorporated in a movable state with multi-directions to adjust the path of the beams. Thus, it would have been a functionally equivalent substitution of beam directing elements at the time of the invention was made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-2293. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5PM.
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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights