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, 3, 4, 8 and 16.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objection is withdrawn due to the current amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant has argued (Remarks, pg.5 para.5) that neither Fernandez-Bravo nor Snee use the wavelength range outlined in amended claim 1.
The Examiner does not entirely agree. The Examiner agrees that Fernandez-Bravo does not disclose operation in the range of claim 1. The Examiner notes, however, that Snee discloses the WGM operation modes to match the emission wavelength of the chromophore (i.e. gain material) (col.1 lines 50-51) and that the gain material is able to emit over the entire UV, visible or infrared regions (col.8 lines 56-60), wherein the now claimed 1100-2500nm is found within the infrared region.
With respect to claims 1 and 5, the Applicant has argued (Remarks, pg.7) that it would not be obvious to modify Fernandez-Bravo or Snee to make use of SWCNTs, and to achieve an operation wavelength within the now claimed 1100-2500nm range, by modifying in view of Gaufres as Gaufres “allegedly envisions the eventual development of lasers based on SWNTs” and it does not necessarily mean it would be obvious use SWCNTs in a lasing device as claimed or that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a laser that uses SWCNTs to preform as the claimed device does.
First, the Examiner notes the Applicant’s reference to “a lasing device as claimed”, however neither claim 1 not claim 5 are directed to a lasing device, but are instead direct to “an optical gain device”.
Second, the Examiner notes that Gaufres, or Fernandez-Bravo or Snee for that matter, need not disclose the entirety of the claimed invention for a 103 rejection, however their teachings must at least make the claimed invention obvious (see MPEP 2142: "To support the conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to obvious subject matter, either the references must expressly or impliedly suggest the claimed invention or the examiner must present a convincing line of reasoning as to why the artisan would have found the claimed invention to have been obvious in light of the teachings of the references." Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).; also see MPEP 2141 III: Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations. However, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). ). Here, the optical gain devices of both Fernandez-Bravo and Snee provide for the base laser structure and operating points while Gaufres’s teachings, while perhaps being speculative regarding the SWCNTs in lasers, makes the use of the SWCNTs as gain material obvious as it is directly taught and put to practice (see the real-life example on page 1 of Gaufres). As Gaufres demonstrates both the existence of optical gain, the key ingredient for producing a laser, and additionally the direct suggestion of making use of such materials in lasers (see Gaufres abstract), the teachings of Gaufres are found to make the use of the SWCNTs taught therein to be applied as the gain material in both Fernandez-Bravo and Snee obvious.
The Applicant has further argued the devices of Fernandez-Bravo and Snee produce shorter wavelength ranges and it would not be obvious to use SWCNTs of Gaufres.
The Examiner does not agree. The devices of Fernandez-Bravo and Snee would both benefit from the use of the alternate gain material in order to achieve the ~1300nm output range demonstrated by Gaufres.
Further, as noted above, Snee teaches use of the complete infrared range, such that the device is not limited to shorter wavelengths as suggested by the Applicant.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Snee et al. (US 8891575)).
With respect to claim 1, Snee discloses an optical gain device (fig.1a) comprising: an optical microcavity (fig.1a #130) having a refractive index (inherent of any material) and a curvilinear outer surface with an angle of curvature such that the optical microcavity supports the propagation of an electromagnetic whispering gallery mode (col.1 lines 47-48); and a plurality of optical gain structures disposed along the curvilinear outer surface of the optical microcavity (fig.1a #150s), the each of the optical gain structures having an optically active wavelength range over which each of the corresponding optical gain structures provides optical gain to radiation through stimulated emission (fig.3, necessary for creation of lasing), wherein the optically active wavelength range comprises wavelengths between 1100nm and 2500nm (col.1 lines 50-51, col.8 lines 56-60; “complete…infrared”).
With respect to claim 2, Snee discloses the optical microcavity comprises a microsphere (col.11 line 42).
With respect to claim 3, Snee discloses the electromagnetic whispering gallery mode has a wavelength between 1100 nm and 2500 nm (col.1 lines 50-51, col.8 lines 56-60).
With respect to claim 4, Snee discloses the plurality of optical gain structures comprises a nanotube, a nanorod, a quantum dot, a nanocluster, a nanopowder, a nanocrystal (col.8 lines 56-60), or any combination thereof.
With respect to claim 6, Snee discloses the plurality of optical gain structures comprises a semiconductor material (col.8 lines 48-50).
With respect to claim 8, Snee discloses the optically active wavelength range comprises wavelengths of between 1600 nm and 2500 nm (col.1 lines 50-51, col.8 lines 56-60; “complete…infrared”).
With respect to claim 9, Snee discloses a lasing device comprising: a plurality of optical gain devices according to claim 1 (col.12 lines 15-16), the plurality of optical gain devices disposed on a substrate (col.13 lines 22-26); and a pump radiation source configured to provide pump radiation to the plurality of optical gain devices (fig.8 pump applied), the pump radiation having an energy capable of inducing stimulated emission from the gain material (col.18 line 49).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snee in view of Gaufres et al. (“Optical gain in carbon nanotubes”, Applied Physics letters, 96, 231105, 2010).
With respect to claim 5, Snee teaches the device outlined above and additionally teaches the use of a variety of material, including semiconducting, for the gain (col.11 lines 40-51), but does not teach the plurality of optical gain structures comprises a single-walled carbon nanotube. Gaufres teaches single wall carbon nanotube (SWCNT) structures are semiconducting (abstract) and provide optical gain for light emission (abstract) and envisions the use for lasers (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Snee to utilize SWCNT for the gain material in the microsphere laser as Gaufres has taught the material provides optical gain for use in lasers and would allow for outputting an alternate wavelength range (Gaufres, fig.1) and with a material demonstrated to provide gain at the 1300nm wavelength (2144.07).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snee in view of Fernandez-Bravo et al. (“Continuous-wave upconverting nanoparticle microlasers”, Nature Technology Letters, Vol.13, July 2018, 572-777; including supplemental materials).
With respect to claim 11, Snee teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a method comprising: fabricating a plurality of optical gain devices according to claim 1 by: providing a plurality of optical microcavities to a solution; providing a plurality of optical gain structures to the solution; causing swelling of the plurality of optical microcavities to increase at least one spatial dimension of the optical microcavities while in the presence of the optical gain structures; and causing de-swelling of the optical microcavities to reduce the at least one spatial dimension of the optical microcavities to adsorb at least a portion of optical gain structures to the outer surface of the optical microcavities. Fernandez-Bravo teaches a method comprising: fabricating a plurality of optical gain devices according to claim 1 by: providing a plurality of optical microcavities to a solution (see Supplementary information, pg.2-3 “preparation of lanthanide based nanoparticles microlasers”; use of “beads”); providing a plurality of optical gain structures to the solution (see Supplementary information, pg.2-3 “preparation of lanthanide based nanoparticles microlasers”; “adding nanocrystals”); causing swelling of the plurality of optical microcavities to increase at least one spatial dimension of the optical microcavities while in the presence of the optical gain structures (see Supplementary information, pg.2-3 “preparation of lanthanide based nanoparticles microlasers”; using chloroform solution in butanol); and causing de-swelling of the optical microcavities to reduce the at least one spatial dimension of the optical microcavities to adsorb at least a portion of optical gain structures to the outer surface of the optical microcavities (see Supplementary information, pg.2-3 “preparation of lanthanide based nanoparticles microlasers”; washing with ethanol). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the teachings of Snee to make use of the method of Fernandez-Bravo to adhere the gain material to the microspheres as Fernandez-Bravo has taught such method is efficient in joining the spheres with the gain material and allows for tuning of the amount of material joined (Fernandez-Bravo, pg.2 col.1 para.2 – pg.2 col.2 para.1).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snee and Fernandez-Bravo in view of Gaufres.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, Snee, as modified by Fernandez-Bravo, teaches the method outlined above, but does not teach providing the plurality of optical gain structures to the solution comprises providing a semiconductor material to the solution OR providing the plurality of optical gain structures to the solution comprises providing a single walled carbon nanotube to the solution. Gaufres teaches single wall carbon nanotube (SWCNT) structures are semiconducting (abstract) and provide optical gain for light emission (abstract) and envisions the use for lasers (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device/method of Snee and Fernandez-Bravo to utilize SWCNT for the gain material in the microsphere laser provided in the solution as Gaufres has taught the material provides optical gain for use in lasers and would allow for outputting an alternate wavelength range (Gaufres, fig.1) and with a material demonstrated to provide gain at the 1300nm wavelength (2144.07).
Claim(s) 1-7, and 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez-Bravo et al. (“Continuous-wave upconverting nanoparticle microlasers”, Nature Technology Letters, Vol.13, July 2018, 572-777; including supplemental materials) in view of Gaufres et al. (“Optical gain in carbon nanotubes”, Applied Physics letters, 96, 231105, 2010).
With respect to claim 1, Fernandez-Bravo discloses an optical gain device (fig.1b) comprising: an optical microcavity (fig.1b) having a refractive index (inherent of any material) and a curvilinear outer surface with an angle of curvature such that the optical microcavity supports the propagation of an electromagnetic whispering gallery mode (fig.1b WGM); and a plurality of optical gain structures disposed along the curvilinear outer surface of the optical microcavity (fig.1b ELNPs), the each of the optical gain structures having an optically active wavelength range-over which each of the corresponding optical gain structures provides optical gain to radiation through stimulated emission (fig.2e, necessary for creation of lasing). Fernandez-Bravo does not teach the optically active wavelength range comprises wavelengths between 1100nm and 2500nm. Gaufres teaches single wall carbon nanotube (SWCNT) structures are semiconducting (abstract) and provide optical gain for light emission (abstract) and envisions the use for lasers (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Fernandez-Bravo to utilize SWCNT for the gain material in the microsphere laser as Gaufres has taught the material provides optical gain for use in lasers and would allow for outputting an alternate wavelength range (Gaufres, fig.1).
Note the modified device would produce light at the ~1300nm output range noted for SWCNTs within Gaufres.
With respect to claim 2, Fernandez-Bravo discloses the optical microcavity comprises a microsphere (fig.1b).
With respect to claim 3, Fernandez-Bravo discloses the electromagnetic whispering gallery mode has a wavelength between 700 nm and 2500 nm (fig.2e modes in cavity). Fernandez-Bravo does not teach 1100nm-2500nm. Fernandez-Bravo does teach matching the supported WGM modes with the lasing modes (fig.2) and the adaptation of the WGM diameter to support given modes (pg.1 col.2 para.2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to further adapt the WGM device of Fernandez-Bravo to teach a WGM wavelength of 1300nm in order to support the production of lasing light at the wavelength of the newly added SWCNT gain material as desired by Fernandez-Bravo (abstract, fig.1 inset, fig.2).
With respect to claim 4, Fernandez-Bravo discloses the plurality of optical gain structures comprises a nanotube (SWCNT), a nanorod, a quantum dot, a nanocluster, a nanopowder, a nanocrystal, or any combination thereof.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Fernandez-Bravo teaches the device outlined above, including the plurality of optical gain structures comprises a single-walled carbon nanotube AND the plurality of optical gain structures comprises a semiconductor material as Gaufres teaches single wall carbon nanotube (SWCNT) structures are semiconducting (abstract).
With respect to claim 7, Fernandez-Bravo discloses the plurality of optical gain structures are adsorbed to the curvilinear outer surface of the optical microcavity (pg.2 col.1 para.2 – pg.2 col.2 para.1, based on the swelling/deswelling process).
With respect to claim 10, Fernandez-Bravo discloses a lasing device comprising: a plurality of optical gain devices according to claim 1, with the plurality of optical gain devices suspended in a solution (pg.4 col.2 para.2, fig.5a spheres in solution); and a pump radiation source configured to provide pump radiation to the plurality of optical gain devices (pg.4 col.2 para.2), the pump radiation having an energy capable of inducing stimulated emission from the gain material (necessary to produce lasing disclosed).
With respect to claim 11, Fernandez-Bravo, as modified, discloses a method comprising: fabricating a plurality of optical gain devices according to claim 1 by: providing a plurality of optical microcavities to a solution (see Supplementary information, pg.2-3 “preparation of lanthanide based nanoparticles microlasers”; use of “beads”); providing a plurality of optical gain structures to the solution (see Supplementary information, pg.2-3 “preparation of lanthanide based nanoparticles microlasers”; “adding nanocrystals”); causing swelling of the plurality of optical microcavities to increase at least one spatial dimension of the optical microcavities while in the presence of the optical gain structures (see Supplementary information, pg.2-3 “preparation of lanthanide based nanoparticles microlasers”; using chloroform solution in butanol); and causing de-swelling of the optical microcavities to reduce the at least one spatial dimension of the optical microcavities to adsorb at least a portion of optical gain structures to the outer surface of the optical microcavities (see Supplementary information, pg.2-3 “preparation of lanthanide based nanoparticles microlasers”; washing with ethanol).
With respect to claim 12, Fernandez-Bravo discloses causing swelling of the optical microcavities comprises providing a chemical agent to the solution to induce swelling of the optical microcavities (see Supplementary information, pg.2-3 “preparation of lanthanide based nanoparticles microlasers”; using chloroform solution in butanol).
With respect to claim 13, Fernandez-Bravo discloses causing de-swelling of the optical microcavities comprises providing a chemical agent to the solution to induce de-swelling of the optical microcavities (see Supplementary information, pg.2-3 “preparation of lanthanide based nanoparticles microlasers”; washing with ethanol).
With respect to claim 14, Fernandez-Bravo discloses mixing the solution while causing the swelling and the de-swelling of the plurality of optical microcavities to distribute the optical microcavities and the optical gain structures throughout the solution (see Supplementary information, pg.2-3 “preparation of lanthanide based nanoparticles microlasers”; “vortexed” during swelling, “centrifuged” during de-swelling).
With respect to claim 15, Fernandez-Bravo discloses providing the plurality of optical microcavities to the solution comprises providing a plurality of microspheres to the solution (see Supplementary information, pg.2-3 “preparation of lanthanide based nanoparticles microlasers”; beads).
With respect to claim 16, Fernandez-Bravo discloses the plurality of optical gain structures to the solution comprises providing a nanotube (SWCNT), a nanorod, a quantum dot, a nanocluster, a nanopowder, a nanocrystal, or any combination thereof, to the solution.
With respect to claims 17 and 18, Fernandez-Bravo teaches the method outlined above, but does not teach providing the plurality of optical gain structures to the solution comprises providing a semiconductor material to the solution OR providing the plurality of optical gain structures to the solution comprises providing a single walled carbon nanotube to the solution. Gaufres teaches single wall carbon nanotube (SWCNT) structures are semiconducting (abstract) and provide optical gain for light emission (abstract) and envisions the use for lasers (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device/method of Fernandez-Bravo to utilize SWCNT for the gain material in the microsphere laser provided in the solution as Gaufres has taught the material provides optical gain for use in lasers and would allow for outputting an alternate wavelength range (Gaufres, fig.1).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez-Bravo and Gaufres in view of Snee.
With respect to claim 9, Fernandez-Bravo, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including a plurality of optical gain devices according to claim 1, the plurality of optical gain devices (fig.5d 2d array); and a pump radiation source configured to provide pump radiation to the plurality of optical gain devices (fig.3d), the pump radiation having an energy capable of inducing stimulated emission from the gain material (necessary to create lasing). Fernandez-Bravo additionally teaches integrated the devices (pg.4 col.2 para.2) but does not teach the lasers to be disposed on a substrate. Snee teaches a related microsphere laser with gain medium disposed around the external perimeter (fig.1) which includes the device located on a substrate (fig.1 #110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of a substrate on which to dispose the lasers of Fernandez-Bravo as demonstrated by Snee in order to physically support and organize the plural devices.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez-Bravo in view of Snee.
With respect to claims 1 and 8, Fernandez-Bravo discloses an optical gain device (fig.1b) comprising: an optical microcavity (fig.1b) having a refractive index (inherent of any material) and a curvilinear outer surface with an angle of curvature such that the optical microcavity supports the propagation of an electromagnetic whispering gallery mode (fig.1b WGM); and a plurality of optical gain structures disposed along the curvilinear outer surface of the optical microcavity (fig.1b ELNPs), the each of the optical gain structures having an optically active wavelength range-over which each of the corresponding optical gain structures provides optical gain to radiation through stimulated emission (fig.2e, necessary for creation of lasing). Fernandez-Bravo does not teach the optically active wavelength range comprises wavelengths between 1100nm and 2500nm or 1600nm-2500nm. Snee teaches a related WGM lasing device (fig.1) which includes use of gain material arranged to achieve operation emission in the 1100nm-2500nm and 1600nm-2500nm range (col.1 lines 50-51, col.8 lines 56-60; “complete…infrared”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Fernandez-Bravo to make use of the gain material and WGM structure taught by Snee to support lasing in the 1100nm-2500nm and 1600nm-2500nm ranges as Snee has taught output in these ranges and it would allow for an alternate wavelength output from the device of Fernandez-Bravo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included pto892 for a list of related references including:
Describes WGM based laser devices and SWCNT lasing devices:
Chen et al. (“Room temperature lasing from semiconducting single walled carbon nanotubes”, ACS Nano, 16, 16776-16783, 2022)
Artemyev et al. (“Light trapped in a photonic dot: microspheres act as a cavity for quantum dot emission”, Nano Letters, vol.1, no.6, 309-314, 2001)
Rakovich et al. (“Whispering gallery mode emission from a composite system of CdTe nanocrystals and a spherical microcavity”, Semiconductor Science and Technology, 18, 914-918, 2003)
US 2002/0080842, 9893486
Describes swelling/de-swelling for coating microspheres:
Kim et al. (“Swelling based method for preparing stable, functionalized polymer colloids”, Journal of American Chemical Society, 127, 1592-1593, 2005)
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