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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the highly reflective mirror 24 is a dichroic mirror that reflects the pulse laser light and transmits the red laser light…thus the reflective mirror 24 is not a reflection unit configured for reflecting the red laser light at the light outlet of the solution supply system 46”. Applicant argues that “the sensor 48c is not arranged on the reflecting path of the beam splitter 16y…the optical sensor 48c is only used for measuring the melting state of the doping region, which is completely different from the optical power probe of the present application”. Applicant argues that “one skilled in the art would not conceive of re-arranging the sensor on a reflecting path…since the function and purpose of the sensor in Ikenoue has nothing to do with that of the present application”. Applicant argues that “adjusting the angle of the reflected light…can directly affect the intensity…and thus claim 1 involves an inventive step…Kim, Ikenoue and Bocior each do not disclose the above technical effects”. Applicant argues that “the reflective mirror 24 only reflects pulse laser light…and transmits the red laser light…thus the reflective mirror 24 is not a reflection unit arranged corresponding to the light outlet”. Applicant argues that “the Examiner asserts that….the merit function does not care what kind of components…the Applicant does not agree”.
Regarding applicants’ argument that “the highly reflective mirror 24 is a dichroic mirror that reflects the pulse laser light and transmits the red laser light…thus the reflective mirror 24 is not a reflection unit configured for reflecting the red laser light at the light outlet of the solution supply system 46”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 only requires “a reflection unit for reflecting a laser” and does not specify the wavelengths of the reflected laser or require that the mirror reflect all beams. Ikenoue describes mirror 24 as a reflective mirror that reflects a laser beam. Under BRI, a dichroic mirror is still a reflection unit because it performs the recited function for at least one laser beam. Applicants reasoning improperly imports additional limitations, such as restricting the mirror to reflect a specific wavelength or to be part of a particular calibration purpose, which are not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The rejection remains appropriate .
Regarding applicants’ argument that “the sensor 48c is not arranged on the reflecting path of the beam splitter 16y…the optical sensor 48c is only used for measuring the melting state of the doping region, which is completely different from the optical power probe of the present application”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ikenoue discloses sensor 48c detecting the intensity of light, which corresponds to an “optical power probe” under BRI. Claim 1 requires only that the probe be arranged on “a reflecting path”, which is broadly considered as any optical path that includes light that been reflected, not necessarily light that remains exclusively in a reflection only branch. Applicants focus on the purpose of the sensor does not distinguish it over the structural requirement of a sensor that detects light intensity. Intended use is not limiting. Applicant again adds functional constraints not supported by the claim language. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The rejection remains appropriate.
Regarding applicants’ argument that “one skilled in the art would not conceive of re-arranging the sensor on a reflecting path…since the function and purpose of the sensor in Ikenoue has nothing to do with that of the present application”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This statement is conclusory and does not rebut the articulated reason to combine. Bocior teaches that optical systems are routinely optimized by adjusting the placement and ordering of optical components to improve system performance. The office action explained that repositioning a sensor to monitor reflected light intensity would have been a predictable modification within routine optimization. Applicant provides no supporting evidence showing that such repositioning would be beyond a person of ordinary skill in the art, or that the sensor in Ikenoue is structurally incapable of performing the claimed function. Differences in intended function do not preclude obviousness when the structural elements are similar and the modification is predictable. "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). The rejection remains appropriate.
Regarding applicants’ argument that adjusting the angle of the reflected light…can directly affect the intensity…and thus claim 1 involves an inventive step…Kim, Ikenoue and Bocior each do not disclose the above technical effects”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged technical effects, angle adjustment improving coincidence and calibration efficiency, are not recited in claim 1. Patentability must be based on the limitations actually appearing in the claims. The claims do not require calibration, angle tuning, or improvements in coincidence detection. Even if the applicants described advantage exists, unclaimed benefits do not distinguish over the prior art. Applicants argument is therefore not commensurate in scope with the claims. "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). The rejection remains appropriate.
Regarding applicants’ argument that “the reflective mirror 24 only reflects pulse laser light…and transmits the red laser light…thus the reflective mirror 24 is not a reflection unit arranged corresponding to the light outlet”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not require the reflection unit to reflect the red laser light specifically, nor does it limit the reflection unit to mirrors that reflect all wavelengths. Mirror 24 reflects a laser beam, the pulse laser, and directs this reflected beam along an optical path toward an outlet, which satisfies the BRI of “a reflected laser path…arranged corresponding to the light outlet”. Applicants attempt to limit the claim to a specific type of laser is not supported by the claim language. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The rejection remains appropriate.
Regarding applicants’ argument that “the Examiner asserts that….the merit function does not care what kind of components…the Applicant does not agree”. Applicants’ disagreement is unsupported and does not address the cited disclosure. Bocior explains that optical designers routinely optimize systems by adjusting multiple parameters, including the order and placement of components, to improve performance. The office action relied on this teaching to provide a reason to combine. Applicant does not present any evidence or technical reasoning showing that such routine optimization would not apply here, nor do they address Bocior directly. Mere disagreement does not overcome a proper motivation to combine. The motivation to improve optical quality is well recognized in the field of optics and is sufficient basis for an obvious rejection (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)), a motivation to modify can be based on the known and predictable benefits of making a change, such as improving the optical quality of an optical component. Furthermore the rationale to modify or combine references does not need to be explicitly stated in the prior art; it can be reasoned from common knowledge in the art or scientific principles, as supported by (In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The rejection remains appropriate.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2023/0282385) in view of Ikenoue et al. (2018/0342397) in further view of Bociort (“Optical System Optimization”, 2003).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a one-dimensional optical lattice production device with calibration function, comprising: a laser incident unit ([0067] discloses: 951, laser beam; Examiner notes that 951, laser is considered to be coming from a laser incident unit), a scientific chamber ([0060] discloses: 940, dimensional space) for forming an optical lattice ([0013] discloses: a first optical system operable to produce an optical lattice), and a light path coincidence calibration unit detachably arranged (see annotated Figure A below, which in an annotated Figure 9C of Kim; Figures 9B-9C depict: at least part of the light path coincidence calibration unit detachable arranged), wherein two ends of the scientific chamber (940, dimensional space) are provided with a light inlet (see annotated Figure A below) and a light outlet respectively (see annotated Figure A below), a laser path of the laser incident unit is arranged corresponding to the light inlet (see annotated Figure A below); the light path coincidence calibration unit comprises a fourth polarizing beam splitter ([0065] discloses: 970, beam splitter), a fifth half-wave plate ([0067] discloses: 955, third SLM; [0060] discloses: SLMs can be phase SLM’s) that adjusts a reflected laser such that the reflected laser is reflected on the fourth polarizing beam splitter ([0065] discloses: 970, beam splitter), a fourth half-wave plate ([0067] discloses: 952, phase modulator) that adjusts incident laser such that the incident laser normally passes through the fourth polarizing beam splitter ([0065] discloses: 970, beam splitter; Figure 9C depicts: 952, phase modulator, adjusting incident laser light from 951, laser beam, to pass normally through 970, beam splitter) and the fifth half-wave plate ([0067] discloses: 955, third SLM; Figure 9C depicts: 952, phase modulator, adjusting incident light from 951, laser to pass normally through 955, third SLM); the fourth half-wave plate ([0067] discloses: 952, phase modulator), the fourth polarizing beam splitter ([0067] discloses: 965, beam splitter), and the fifth half-wave plate ([0067] discloses: 955, third SLM) are arranged on the laser path of the laser incident unit (Figure 9C depicts: 952, phase modulator, 965, beam splitter and 955, third SLM, arranged on the laser path of 951, laser beam).
Kim fails to disclose a lattice production device with a reflection unit for reflecting laser, and a reflected laser path of the reflection unit is arranged corresponding to the light outlet; and an optical power probe, the optical power probe is arranged on a reflecting path of the fourth polarizing beam splitter. Kim and Ikenoue are related because both disclose optical systems.
Ikenoue teaches a laser deflection device (Fig. 3) with a reflection unit for reflecting laser ([0107] discloses: 24, reflective mirror), and a reflected laser path of the reflection unit is arranged corresponding to the light outlet (Fig. 3 depicts: 24, reflective mirror, corresponding with 46d, window, that is considered analogous to the light output); and an optical power probe ([0127] discloses: 48c, sensor, to detect intensity of light; therefore considered a power probe), the optical power probe is arranged on a reflecting path of the fourth polarizing beam splitter ([0076] discloses: 16y, beam splitter; Fig. 3 depicts: 48c, sensor, arranged on reflecting path of 16y, beam splitter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Ikenoue and provide an optical system with a reflection unit for reflecting laser, and a reflected laser path of the reflection unit is arranged corresponding to the light outlet; and an optical power probe, the optical power probe is arranged on a reflecting path of the fourth polarizing beam splitter. Doing so would allow for real time monitoring of laser intensity along the reflected path, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
The modified Kim fails to disclose the fourth half-wave plate, the fourth polarizing beam splitter, and the fifth half-wave plate are sequentially arranged on the laser path of the laser incident unit. However, choosing a specific sequence of optical components is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been an obvious design choice to reorder the components of Kim in the optical system to match the claimed sequence, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. As described in Boicort, Optical Systems Optimization, optical designers routinely optimize systems by adjusting multiple parameters to improve system performance and since applicant has not disclosed that designing the optical system in a particular order described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Examiner notes that the merit function doesn’t care what kind of components are involved making optimization of various components analogous in this frame of reference. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any optimized order of optical components, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of the fourth half-wave plate, the fourth polarizing beam splitter, and the fifth half-wave plate are sequentially arranged on the laser path of the laser incident unit represents a routine optimization parameter within the skill of the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
806
1310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2023/0282385) in view of Ikenoue et al. (2018/0342397) in view of Bociort (“Optical System Optimization”, 2003), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sumiyoshi et al. (US 6,463,083).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kim discloses the one-dimensional optical lattice production device with calibration function according to claim 1.
Kim fails to disclose wherein the laser incident unit comprises a laser transmitter for emitting laser , and an optical fiber coupler , an optical fiber and a collimator connected in sequence; a receiving end of the optical fiber coupler is arranged corresponds to a laser light path of the laser transmitter, and a transmitting end of the collimator is arranged corresponding to the light inlet. Kim and Sumiyoshi are related because both disclose optical systems.
Sumiyoshi teaches wherein the laser incident unit (Fig. 4) comprises a laser transmitter for emitting laser (Col. 5, lines 30-35 teach: 1, pumping light emission section; therefore considered to emit a laser), and an optical fiber coupler (Col. 8, lines 40-50 teach: an optical fiber coupler), an optical fiber (Figure 4 depicts: 4, optical fiber) and a collimator (Figure 4 depicts: collimating lens, enclosed in 7, beam shaping section, see claim 1; therefore considered a collimator) connected; a receiving end of the optical fiber coupler is arranged corresponds to a laser light path of the laser transmitter (Examiner notes that the receiving end of the optical coupler is attached immediately following the collimator lens, coupling the incident light to the optical fiber), and a transmitting end of the collimator is arranged corresponding to the light inlet
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Sumiyoshi and provide wherein the laser incident unit comprises a laser transmitter for emitting laser , and an optical fiber coupler , an optical fiber and a collimator connected in sequence; a receiving end of the optical fiber coupler is arranged corresponds to a laser light path of the laser transmitter. Doing so would allow for real time monitoring of laser intensity along the reflected path, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
The modified Kim fails to disclose a laser transmitter for emitting laser, and an optical fiber coupler, an optical fiber and a collimator connected in sequence, and a transmitting end of the collimator is arranged corresponding to the light inlet. However, choosing a specific sequence of optical components is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been an obvious design choice to reorder the components of Kim in the optical system to match the claimed sequence, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. As described in Boicort, “Optical Systems Optimization”, optical designers routinely optimize systems by adjusting multiple parameters to improve system performance. Examiner notes that the merit function doesn’t care what kind of components are involved making optimization of various components analogous in this frame of reference. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any optimized order of optical components, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed a laser transmitter for emitting laser, and an optical fiber coupler, an optical fiber and a collimator a laser transmitter for emitting laser, and an optical fiber coupler, an optical fiber and a collimator connected in sequence and a transmitting end of the collimator is arranged corresponding to the light inlet represents a routine optimization parameter within the skill of the art.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2023/0282385) in view of Ikenoue et al. (2018/0342397) in view of Bociort (“Optical System Optimization”, 2003) in view of Sumiyoshi et al. (US 6,463,083), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Staver et al. (2013/0182332).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kim discloses the one-dimensional optical lattice production device with calibration function according to claim 2.
Kim fails to disclose wherein a first half-wave plate and a first polarizing beam splitter are arranged on a laser light path between the laser transmitter and the optical fiber coupler; the first half-wave plate is arranged close to the laser transmitter, a second half-wave plate and a second polarizing beam splitter are arranged on a laser light path between the collimator and the light inlet, and the second half-wave plate is arranged close to the collimator. However, choosing a specific sequence of optical components is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Staver discloses, Figures 2A and 2B, an optical beam splitting system comprising multiple beam splitters and half-wave plates arranged along a laser beam path and Boicort, discusses in “Optical Systems Optimization”, that optical designers routinely optimize systems by adjusting multiple parameters to improve system performance. Examiner notes that the merit function doesn’t care what kind of components are involved making optimization of various components analogous in this frame of reference. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to disclose wherein a first half-wave plate and a first polarizing beam splitter are arranged on a laser light path between the laser transmitter and the optical fiber coupler; the first half-wave plate is arranged close to the laser transmitter, a second half-wave plate and a second polarizing beam splitter are arranged on a laser light path between the collimator and the light inlet, and the second half-wave plate is arranged close to the collimator since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing the order of optical components described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any optimized order of components, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of a first half-wave plate and a first polarizing beam splitter are arranged on a laser light path between the laser transmitter and the optical fiber coupler; the first half-wave plate is arranged close to the laser transmitter, a second half-wave plate and a second polarizing beam splitter are arranged on a laser light path between the collimator and the light inlet, and the second half-wave plate is arranged close to the collimator represents a routine optimization within the skill of the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2023/0282385) in view of Ikenoue et al. (2018/0342397) in view of Bociort (“Optical System Optimization”, 2003) in view of Sumiyoshi et al. (US 6,463,083) in view of Staver et al. (2013/0182332), as applied to claim 3 above, in view of Huisman et al. (“Characterization of a Quantum Light Source Based on Spontaneous Parametric Down-Conversion”, 2013) in view of Zinoviev et al. (2023/0228622).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Kim discloses the one-dimensional optical lattice production device with calibration function according to claim 3.
Kim fails to disclose wherein a first garbage pool for receiving transmitted light is provided on a transmitted light path of the first polarizing beam splitter, and a second garbage pool for receiving reflected light is arranged on a reflected light path of the second polarizing beam splitter. Kim and Huisman are related because both disclose optical systems.
Huisman teaches an optical system wherein a first garbage pool for receiving transmitted light (Fig. 1.3, pg. 10 depicts: BD, beam dump; therefore considered the first garbage pool, with beam splitters and wave-plates) is provided on a transmitted light path of the first polarizing beam splitter (Examiner notes that the rationale to optimize the order of optical components follows the same reasoning as discussed supra, as component sequence is a routine design choice subject to optimization taught by Bociort).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Huisman and provide an optimizable placed garbage pool. Doing so would allow for absorption of unused or stray light, thereby preventing back-reflections, reducing noise and improving the overall system quality.
The modified Kim fails to teach a second garbage pool for receiving reflected light is arranged on a reflected light path of the second polarizing beam splitter. Kim and Zinoviev are related because both disclose optical systems.
Zinoviev teaches a second garbage pool ([0037] teaches: may include multiple beam dump bodies) for receiving reflected light is arranged on a reflected light path of the second polarizing beam splitter (Examiner notes that the rationale to optimize the order of optical components follows the same reasoning as discussed supra, as component sequence is a routine design choice subject to optimization taught by Bociort). Doing so would allow for increased optimization of absorption of unused or stray light, thereby preventing back-reflections, reducing noise and improving the overall system quality.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2023/0282385) in view of Ikenoue et al. (2018/0342397) in view of Bociort (“Optical System Optimization”, 2003) in view of Sumiyoshi et al. (US 6,463,083) in view of Staver et al. (2013/0182332), as applied to claim 3 above, in view of Dragomir et al. (2023/0274849).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Kim discloses the one-dimensional optical lattice production device with calibration function according to claim 3.
Kim fails to disclose an optical system wherein a first lens group, a first reflector, an acousto-optic modulator, a second lens group, a second reflector, and a third reflector are arranged between the first polarizing beam splitter and the optical fiber coupler in sequence, the first lens group is arranged on a reflected light path of the first polarizing beam splitter, and the first reflector reflects transmitted light from the first lens group to the acousto-optic modulator, the second lens group is arranged on a +1 order light path of the acousto-optic modulator, and transmitted light from the second lens group enters the optical fiber coupler after being reflected by the second reflector and the third reflector, and the fourth half-wave plate, the fourth polarizing beam splitter and the fifth half-wave plate are sequentially arranged on a laser path between the second lens group and the second reflector. Kim and Dragomir are related because both disclose optical devices.
Dragomir teaches an optical system (Figure 3) wherein a first lens group ([0082] teaches: 132, lens; therefore considered a first lens group), a first reflector ([0082] teaches: 140, mirror; therefore considered a first reflector), an acousto-optic modulator ([0082] teaches: 142, OAM), a second lens group (Figure 2 depicts: 144, lens; therefore considered the second lens group), a second reflector ([0082] teaches and Figure 2 depicts: 138, mirror; therefore considered a second reflector), and a third reflector ([0082] teaches and Figure 2 depicts:126, mirror; therefore considered a third reflector) an optical fiber coupler ([0082] teaches and Figure 2 depicts: 116, optical fibre coupler), the second lens group is arranged on a +1 order light path of the acousto-optic modulator ([0082] teaches: 142, AOM, diffracts the input beam to output zeroth and two first order diffraction beams; therefore the lens groups and other elements are considered arranged on the +1 order light path of the AOM).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Dragomir and provide an optical system wherein a first lens group, a first reflector, an acousto-optic modulator, a second lens group, a second reflector, and a third reflector an optical fiber coupler, the second lens group is arranged on a +1 order light path of the acousto-optic modulator. Doing so would allow for better diffraction efficiency and accuracy, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
The modified Kim fails to disclose an optical system wherein a first lens group, a first reflector, an acousto-optic modulator, a second lens group, a second reflector, and a third reflector are arranged between the first polarizing beam splitter and the optical fiber coupler in sequence, the first lens group is arranged on a reflected light path of the first polarizing beam splitter, and the first reflector reflects transmitted light from the first lens group to the acousto-optic modulator, and transmitted light from the second lens group enters the optical fiber coupler after being reflected by the second reflector and the third reflector, and the fourth half-wave plate, the fourth polarizing beam splitter and the fifth half-wave plate are sequentially arranged on a laser path between the second lens group and the second reflector. However, choosing a specific sequence of optical components is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Staver discloses, Figures 2A and 2B, an optical beam splitting system comprising multiple beam splitters and half-wave plates arranged along a laser beam path and Boicort, discusses in “Optical Systems Optimization”, that optical designers routinely optimize systems by adjusting multiple parameters to improve system performance. Examiner notes that the merit function doesn’t care what kind of components are involved making optimization of various components analogous in this frame of reference. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to disclose wherein a first half-wave plate and a first polarizing beam splitter are arranged on a laser light path between the laser transmitter and the optical fiber coupler; the first half-wave plate is arranged close to the laser transmitter, a second half-wave plate and a second polarizing beam splitter are arranged on a laser light path between the collimator and the light inlet, and the second half-wave plate is arranged close to the collimator since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing the order of optical components described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any optimized order of components, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use an optical system wherein a first lens group, a first reflector, an acousto-optic modulator, a second lens group, a second reflector, and a third reflector are arranged between the first polarizing beam splitter and the optical fiber coupler in sequence, the first lens group is arranged on a reflected light path of the first polarizing beam splitter, and the first reflector reflects transmitted light from the first lens group to the acousto-optic modulator, and transmitted light from the second lens group enters the optical fiber coupler after being reflected by the second reflector and the third reflector, and the fourth half-wave plate, the fourth polarizing beam splitter and the fifth half-wave plate are sequentially arranged on a laser path between the second lens group and the second reflector represents a routine optimization within the skill of the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2023/0282385) in view of Ikenoue et al. (2018/0342397) in view of Bociort (“Optical System Optimization”, 2003) in view of Sumiyoshi et al. (US 6,463,083) in view of Staver et al. (2013/0182332) in view of Dragomir et al. (2023/0274849), as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Zhuang et al. (2017/0038574).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kim discloses the one-dimensional optical lattice production device with calibration function according to claim 5.
Kim fails to disclose an optical system wherein a D-shaped reflector is arranged on a zero-order light path of the acousto-optic modulator, and a third garbage pool for receiving reflected light is arranged on a reflected light path of the D-shaped reflector. Kim and Zhuang are related because both disclose optical systems.
Zhuang teaches an optical system wherein a D-shaped reflector is arranged on a light path ([0142] teaches; D-shaped mirrors; Figure 9A depicts: D-shaped mirrors arranged on a light path).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Zhuang and provide an optical system wherein a D-shaped reflector is arranged on a light path. Doing so would allow for efficient redirection of light along a controlled optical path while minimizing stray reflections, thereby improving alignment and system performance.
The modified Kim fails to teach an optical system wherein a D-shaped reflector is arranged on a zero-order light path of the acousto-optic modulator, and a third garbage pool for receiving reflected light is arranged on a reflected light path of the D-shaped reflector. However, choosing a specific sequence of optical components is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Staver discloses, Figures 2A and 2B, an optical beam splitting system comprising multiple beam splitters and half-wave plates arranged along a laser beam path and Boicort, discusses in “Optical Systems Optimization”, that optical designers routinely optimize systems by adjusting multiple parameters to improve system performance. Examiner notes that the merit function doesn’t care what kind of components are involved making optimization of various components analogous in this frame of reference. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to disclose an optical system wherein a D-shaped reflector is arranged on a zero-order light path of the acousto-optic modulator, and a third garbage pool for receiving reflected light is arranged on a reflected light path of the D-shaped reflector since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing the order of optical components described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any optimized order of components, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use an optical system an optical system wherein a D-shaped reflector is arranged on a zero-order light path of the acousto-optic modulator, and a third garbage pool for receiving reflected light is arranged on a reflected light path of the D-shaped reflector represents a routine optimization within the skill of the art.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2023/0282385) in view of Ikenoue et al. (2018/0342397) in view of Bociort (“Optical System Optimization”, 2003) in view of Sumiyoshi et al. (US 6,463,083) in view of Staver et al. (2013/0182332), as applied to claim 3 above, in view of Dragomir et al. (2023/0274849).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kim discloses the one-dimensional optical lattice production device with calibration function according to claim 3.
Kim fails to disclose wherein an optical isolator is arranged between the laser transmitter and the first half-wave plate. Kim and Dragomir are related because both disclose optical devices.
Dragomir teaches an optical system (Figure 2) with an optical isolator (Figure 2 depicts: 104, optical isolator, see also [0082]) is arranged between the laser transmitter (Figure 2 depicts: 102, laser) and the first half-wave plate (Figure 2 depicts: 106, half-wave plate; 104, optical isolator arranged between 102, laser and 106, half wave plate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Dragomir and provide an optical system wherein an optical isolator is arranged between the laser transmitter and the first half-wave plate. Doing so would allow for prevention of destabilized optical feedback into the laser source, thereby improving stability and performance of the optical system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2023/0282385) in view of Ikenoue et al. (2018/0342397) in view of Bociort (“Optical System Optimization”, 2003), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Staver et al. (2013/0182332).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Kim discloses the one-dimensional optical lattice production device with calibration function according to claim 1.
Kim fails to disclose wherein the reflection unit comprises a third polarizing beam splitter, a third half-wave plate and a fourth reflector, a receiving end of the third polarizing beam splitter is arranged corresponding to the light outlet, and the third half-wave plate is arranged on a reflected light path of the third polarizing beam splitter. However, choosing a specific sequence of optical components is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Staver discloses, Figures 2A and 2B, an optical beam splitting system comprising multiple beam splitters and half-wave plates arranged along a laser beam path and Boicort, discusses in “Optical Systems Optimization”, that optical designers routinely optimize systems by adjusting multiple parameters to improve system performance. Examiner notes that the merit function doesn’t care what kind of components are involved making optimization of various components analogous in this frame of reference. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to disclose wherein a first half-wave plate and a first polarizing beam splitter are arranged on a laser light path between the laser transmitter and the optical fiber coupler; the first half-wave plate is arranged close to the laser transmitter, a second half-wave plate and a second polarizing beam splitter are arranged on a laser light path between the collimator and the light inlet, and the second half-wave plate is arranged close to the collimator since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing the order of optical components described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any optimized order of components, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of a first half-wave plate and a first polarizing beam splitter are arranged on a laser light path between the laser transmitter and the optical fiber coupler; the first half-wave plate is arranged close to the laser transmitter, a second half-wave plate and a second polarizing beam splitter are arranged on a laser light path between the collimator and the light inlet, and the second half-wave plate is arranged close to the collimator represents a routine optimization within the skill of the art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2023/0282385) in view of Ikenoue et al. (2018/0342397) in view of Bociort (“Optical System Optimization”, 2003) in view of Staver et al. (2013/0182332), as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Thomas et al. (2007/0000885).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Kim discloses the one-dimensional optical lattice production device with calibration function according to claim 8.
Kim fails to disclose an optical system wherein a fourth garbage pool for receiving transmitted light is arranged on a transmitted light path of the third polarizing beam splitter. Kim and Thomas are related because both disclose optical systems.
Thomas teaches an optical system (Figure 2) wherein a fourth garbage pool (Figure 2 depicts: 112, waste collector, [0046] teaches: 112, waste collector, collects the waste byproduct resulting from a laser impinging the 50, coated surface) for receiving transmitted light is arranged on a transmitted light path of the third polarizing beam splitter (Figure 2 depicts: 14, beam splitter; Figure 2 depicts 50, coated surface receiving transmitted light from 14, beam splitter; therefore 112, waste collector is considered arranged on a transmitting light path of the third polarizing beam splitter; Examiner notes that the collector is considered to collect stray light from 16, scanning optics, which is adjacent with 112, waste collector, and the stray light being stored in the waste collector).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kim to incorporate the teachings of Thomas and provide an optical system wherein a fourth garbage pool for receiving transmitted light is arranged on a transmitted light path of the third polarizing beam splitter. Doing so would allow for prevention of destabilized optical feedback into the laser source, thereby improving stability and performance of the optical system.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 - 11:00 and 1:00 - 6:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872