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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 18 is 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.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 6 & 15 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 6 & 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines substantially in these instances? Is 0.1% “substantially” equal or critically coupled. Is 1% “substantially” equal or critically coupled. Is 5% “substantially” equal or critically coupled. Is 10% “substantially” equal or critically coupled. Clarification is required.
Claims 8-11 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.
What is meant by an “auxiliary coupler” in claims 8, 9, & 11 with dependent claim 10 being dependent from 8 & 9. Examiner cannot determine what is intended as the “auxiliary coupler” in the current application. What makes the “auxiliary coupler” distinct? From the specification, this appears to be an arbitrary name for the coupler that already exists from claim 1. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 12, & 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Albanese et al (Albanese, Bartolo, et al. "Radiative cooling of a spin ensemble." Nature Physics 16.7 (2020): 751-755.).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Albanese teaches:
An apparatus (See Fig. 3a.) comprising:
an electromagnetic resonator (See Fig. 3a Elements L & C which form an LC circuit. See also Fig. 1b Element the resonator.) configured to support an oscillating electromagnetic field (see D1, page 3, right column first
paragraph “Microwave control pulses are sent into the cavity via a 20 dB directional coupler.”);
a cold load (Fig. 3a, Element blue resistive element) having a noise temperature lower than the noise temperature of the electromagnetic resonator (The resistive element has a temperature of 20mK, whereas the
resonator is at 850mK);
a coupler (Fig. 3a, the electrical connection from the resonator
through the combination of the circulator and the switch. See page 7 second paragraph of the present application says that the coupler may be
conductive) controllable to provide:
a first coupling between the electromagnetic resonator and the cold load to reduce the noise temperature of the electromagnetic resonator (Fig. 3a, Element the switch when connected to the cold load);
a second coupling (Fig. 3a, Element circulator), different from the first coupling, to the electromagnetic resonator for sensing the oscillating electromagnetic field (See page 3, right column first paragraph, “The field leaking from or reflected onto the cavity is routed via a circulator (also anchored at the still temperature) towards the detection chain where it is first amplified by a Josephson Travelling-Wave Parametric Amplifier [15]”).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
354
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese teaches the coupler is configured to disable the first coupling prior to the sensing (See page 4 column 2, fourth paragraph, “For that we replace the electromechanical switch with a superconducting device mounted at 20 mK, able to switch in a few nanoseconds without heating [19]. At 9.5 mT the area Ae of a Hahn echo is measured at delay At after the switch configuration is changed, either from cold to hot or vice-versa.”).
Regarding claim 3, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese teaches the coupler is arranged so that a coupling factor of the first coupling is greater than a coupling factor of the second coupling, for example wherein the first coupling is overcoupled (See Fig. 3 Element switch wherein the switch would have the lower insertion loss.).
Regarding claim 5, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese teaches a switching element between the coupler and the cold load, the switching element being operable to disable the first coupling (Fig. 2 Element -20dB coupler.).
PNG
media_image3.png
408
336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
312
332
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7,
Cancelled.
Regarding claim 8, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 5, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese teaches the coupler (Fig. 3a, the electrical connection from the resonator through the combination of the circulator and the switch. See page 7 second paragraph of the present application says that the coupler may be conductive) comprises: an auxiliary coupler connectable to the cold load wherein the auxiliary coupler provides the first coupling, a sensing coupler for connection to a receiver for performing the sensing, wherein the sensing coupler provides the second coupling (Fig. 3a, the electrical connection from the resonator through the combination of the circulator and the switch. See page 7 second paragraph of the present application says that the coupler may be conductive); and wherein the coupling factor of the auxiliary coupler to the electromagnetic resonator is greater than the coupling factor of the sensing coupler to the electromagnetic resonator (Fig. 3a, the electrical connection from the resonator through the combination of the circulator and the switch. See page 7 second paragraph of the present application says that the coupler may be conductive).
Regarding claim 9, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 8, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese teaches the switching element switchably connects the cold load to the auxiliary coupler (Fig. 3a, Element the switch when connected to the cold load).
Regarding claim 12, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese teaches the switching element is provided by a microwave switch (See page 4 right column, 3rd paragraph wherein it discloses that “we replace the electromechanical switch with a superconducting device mounted at 20 mK, able to switch in a few nanoseconds without heating.”).
Regarding claim 15, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese teaches the second coupling is substantially critically coupled (Fig. 3a, Element circulator wherein if the item was coupled above, it will be coupled here.).
Regarding claim 16, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese teaches an electron paramagnetic resonance, EPR, system (See Abstract,) comprising the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic resonator (See Fig. 3a Elements L & C which form an LC circuit. See also Fig. 1b Element the resonator.) is provided by a resonant cavity disposed in a magnetic field, B0 (Fig 1 associated text wherein “a static magnetic field B0 is applied parallel to the central inductor wire of the resonator.), the cavity configured so that a sample can be disposed in the cavity and the sensing comprises an EPR measurement of the sample (Fig 1 associated text wherein “a static magnetic field B0 is applied parallel to the central inductor wire of the resonator. This can be placed in any device needing such a circuit.).
Regarding claim 17, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese teaches a nuclear magnetic resonance, NMR, system comprising the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic resonator (See Fig. 3a Elements L & C which form an LC circuit. See also Fig. 1b Element the resonator.) is provided by a transmit/receive coil of the NMR system disposed in a magnetic field, B0 (Fig 1 associated text wherein “a static magnetic field B0 is applied parallel to the central inductor wire of the resonator.), and the sensing comprises an NMR measurement of a sample disposed in the transmit/receive coil (Fig 1 associated text wherein “a static magnetic field B0 is applied parallel to the central inductor wire of the resonator. This can be placed in any device needing such a circuit.).
Regarding claim 18, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese teaches the cold load comprises at least one of: a cryogenic load, and an active cold noise source such as an input of a low noise termination or a low noise amplifier (LNA) (See highlighted section of page 3 below.).
PNG
media_image5.png
90
346
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
174
344
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Independent claim 19, Albanese teaches:
A method of reducing the noise temperature of an electromagnetic resonator configured to support an oscillating magnetic field in a sample, the method comprising:
providing a first coupling (Fig. 3a, the electrical connection from the resonator through the combination of the circulator and the switch. See page 7 second paragraph of the present application says that the coupler may be conductive) between the electromagnetic resonator (See Fig. 3a Elements L & C which form an LC circuit. See also Fig. 1b Element the resonator.) and a cold load (Fig. 3a, Element blue resistive element. Fig. 3a, Element the switch when connected to the cold load) having a noise temperature lower than a noise temperature of the electromagnetic resonator (The resistive element has a temperature of 20mK, whereas the resonator is at 850mK); and,
when the noise temperature of the electromagnetic resonator has been reduced, providing a second coupling (Fig. 3a, Element circulator) to the electromagnetic resonator for sensing an electromagnetic field associated with the sample (See page 3, right column first paragraph, “The field leaking from or reflected onto the cavity is routed via a circulator (also anchored at the still temperature) towards the detection chain where it is first amplified by a Josephson Travelling-Wave Parametric Amplifier [15]”), the first coupling being different from the second coupling (Fig. 3a, Element circulator).
Regarding claim 20, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 19, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese teaches disabling the first coupling prior to performing the sensing (See page 4 column 2, fourth paragraph, “For that we replace the electromechanical switch with a superconducting device mounted at 20 mK, able to switch in a few nanoseconds without heating [19]. At 9.5 mT the area Ae of a Hahn echo is measured at delay At after the switch configuration is changed, either from cold to hot or vice-versa.”).
Regarding claim 21, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 20, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese teaches providing the second coupling comprises disconnecting the cold load from a coupler arranged for coupling with the electromagnetic fields associated with the sample, wherein the sensing is performed after the disconnecting (See page 4 column 2, fourth paragraph, “For that we replace the electromechanical switch with a superconducting device mounted at 20 mK, able to switch in a few nanoseconds without heating [19]. At 9.5 mT the area Ae of a Hahn echo is measured at delay At after the switch configuration is changed, either from cold to hot or vice-versa.”).
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.
Claims 6, 13, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albanese et al (Albanese, Bartolo, et al. "Radiative cooling of a spin ensemble." Nature Physics 16.7 (2020): 751-755.).
Regarding claim 6, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 5, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese does not explicitly teach the switching element has a sufficiently low insertion loss that the noise temperature at its connection to the coupler is substantially equal to the noise temperature of the cold load.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the switching element have a sufficiently low insertion loss that the noise temperature at its connection to the coupler is substantially equal to the noise temperature of the cold load because person skilled in the art would employ the best switch possible (the highest source of loss) to provide for the most advantageous setup. See page 3, right column, third paragraph which suggests that the signal is highest when the resonator is connected to the cold load.
Regarding claim 13, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 5, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese does not explicitly teach the switching element has a switching time, tswitch, which is small compared with a thermalisation time of the electromagnetic resonator, wherein tswitch <<
Q
o
/
(
2
π
f
)
Where:
Q
o
is the Q-factor of the electromagnetic resonator and f is the resonant frequency of the electromagnetic resonator.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the switching element have the switching element have a switching time, tswitch, which is small compared with a thermalisation time of the electromagnetic resonator, wherein tswitch <<
Q
o
/
(
2
π
f
)
because, as the speed of switching is "a few nanoseconds" (see point 4.8) and the resonator frequency is 7.8 GHz (see D1, label to Figure 1), the condition outlined in claim 13 and 14 are fulfilled even with a moderate value of Q0.
Regarding claim 14, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 13, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese does not explicitly teach the switching time is less than 20% of the thermalisation time.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the switching time be less than 20% of the thermalisation time because this would be optimization done through routine experimentation. See MPEP Section 2144.05 II A.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art listed does not anticipate alone or combine in an obvious manner to teach the invention claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 4, Albanese teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Albanese does not explicitly teach the cold load is provided by an input of a low noise amplifier.
Regarding claim 10,
The apparatus of claim 8 wherein the cold load is provided by a low noise amplifier input of a receiver for performing the sensing.
Regarding claim 11,
The apparatus of claim 10 wherein the switching element is switchable from (a) a cooling mode in which it connects both the auxiliary coupler and sensing coupler to the low noise amplifier input of a receiver; to (b) a sensing mode in which it connects only the sensing coupler to a low noise amplifier input of the receiver.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights