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 Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 1 and 5.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant has argued the current amendments differentiate from the art of record.
The Examiner agrees with the Applicant and withdraws the previous art rejection in light of these amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 5 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 2-4, 6-8) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended to include the language of (emphasis added) “wherein in a case where the phase adjusting portion continuously changes the frequency over a frequency range in which the phase adjusting portion changes the phase larger than 2π radians for only one of the laser element of the laser unit, power consumption of the phase adjustment portion is reduced by maintaining power supply to a phase heater constant while controlling a temperature of the only one laser element by the temperature controller”.
First, claims 1 and 5 are written in a manner which makes clear the phase adjustment portion is separate and distinct from the temperature controller portion. Second, the above section of the claims states the phase adjustment section “continuously changes the frequency” followed by “power consumption of the phase adjustment portion is reduced by maintaining power supply to a phase heater constant”. The Applicant (see figure 2 #74, and [0031] of the printed publication) only describes use of a single micro-heater to control the phase adjusting portion. Therefore, the manner in which claims 1 and 5 have been amended to state that the phase adjusting portion ‘continuously changes the frequency’ while simultaneously controlling the phase adjustment portion by ‘maintaining power supply to a phase heater constant’ implies that more than 1 adjustment device is present within the phase adjustment portion as the same element (i.e. the micro-heater #74) cannot be controlled in a manner to be BOTH continuously changing the frequency WHILE ALSO being controlled with a constant current.
Therefore, it is not clear that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Note that MPEP 2143.03 II was followed in that the current amendments were considered to be limiting when evaluating the prior art.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 5 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 2-4, 6-8) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 at line 25 refers to “for only one of the laser element of the laser unit”. This limitation raises the question of how many laser elements are present as the claim has not previously outlined that detail and this limitation appears to imply more than 1 laser could be present.
It is understood the Applicant is attempting to claim the presence of only 1 laser element, therefore the limitation will be understood to read as “for only one laser element of the laser element unit”.
It is further suggested that clarity would be improved by more positively reciting the laser element unit is a single laser element.
Claim 5 at line 23 refers to “for only one of the laser element of the laser unit”. This limitation raises the question of how many laser elements are present as the claim has not previously outlined that detail and this limitation appears to imply more than 1 laser could be present.
It is understood the Applicant is attempting to claim the presence of only 1 laser element, therefore the limitation will be understood to read as “for only one laser element of the laser element unit”.
It is further suggested that clarity would be improved by more positively reciting the laser element unit is a single laser element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please refer to the include pto892 form for a list of related art.
US 7133428 is found to teach continuous frequency/wavelength change during phase and temperature adjustment.
US 2014/0369369, 2020/0373735 and 2014/0036940 being noted as teaching using individual TECs for the laser and etalon OR a single TEC controlling both the laser and etalon.
US 10522972 teaches at col.1 lines 25-37 that a given longitudinal mode has a 2pi radian profile within the resonator, similar to the teachings of RP photonics (“Free spectral range”, https://web.archive.org/web/20220301092255/https://www.rp-photonics.com/free_spectral_range.html, 03/2022).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights