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 11, 13 and 16.
Specification
The disclosure is accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 11, the Applicant has argued (see Remarks pg.11-13) that Shieh teaches each of the lasers to be locked to an FSR resonance mode of the optical resonator and therefore cannot read on “at the stabilization length, at least one of the predetermined frequencies fis does not satisfy a resonance condition of the optical resonator”.
The Examiner does not fully agree. The Examiner first agrees that Shieh teaches locking each of the laser element frequences fis to an FSR mode of the optical resonator. The Examiner does not agree that Shieh cannot read on “at the stabilization length, at least one of the predetermined frequencies does not satisfy a resonance condition of the optical resonator” as “a resonance condition” has not been particularly defined in the claims. Since “a resonance condition” is not defined in the claims the condition can be defined in any number of ways. Here are 3 examples:
Shieh makes clear (see abstract) that each laser with associated frequency fis is locked to a different FSR frequency of the resonator. Therefore, at the predetermined length, at least one of the predetermined frequencies (e.g. f2s) does not satisfy a resonance condition, when the condition is defined as being the frequency of f1s, as Shieh makes clear f2s ≠ f1s.
Since Shieh makes clear each laser frequency fis is locked to an FSR frequency of the resonator, when “a resonance condition” is defined as “a frequency unsupported by the resonator”, Shieh then is found to not satisfy this condition as each of the fis frequencies are supported by the resonator.
Since Shieh makes clear each laser frequency fis is locked to an FSR frequency of the resonator, when “a resonance condition” is defined as “a frequency unequal to an FSR frequency (see fig.3)”, Shieh then is found to not satisfy this condition as each of the fis frequencies are made equal to the FSR frequencies.
Therefore, Shieh continues to read on claim 11 as the claim is not describing in detail the “resonance condition” found in the amendment and argued by the Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to the current amendments.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 has been amended to state the anti-reflection surface reflectivity is “less than 1%”. The originally filed specification states this value is “greater than 1%” (see published application at [0192]). Therefore, it is not clear the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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 11 (and 12-16, 18-20 via dependency) 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 11 recites the limitation "the predetermined frequencies fks" in the 2nd to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim has only defined predetermined frequencies fis.
For purposes of examination, fks is interpreted as fis as is best understood from the originally filed application.
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) 11, 12, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shieh (US 6240109) in view of Niu et al. (CN 106602396; English translation provided in this Office action).
With respect to claim 11, Shieh teaches a system for outputting stabilized light (fig.1) comprising: an apparatus for simultaneously stabilizing light from N lasers (fig.1 LD1-LDn) at N respective mutually different predetermined frequencies fis i = 1,… N, (fig.1 lambda1-lambdaN) the apparatus comprising: a spacer (fig.2 piezo and/or substrate and/or air, col.6 lines 13-18) and two mirrors (fig.2 #201 on left and #201 on right), wherein the two mirrors are arranged to form an optical resonator for the plurality of predetermined frequencies (col.4 lines 7-17), a distance between the two mirrors depends on a length of the spacer (col.6 lines 13-18), and the length of the spacer is reversibly adjustable (necessarily so based on use of piezo with +/- voltage and temperature control with +/- temperatures); and a control circuitry configured to adjust the distance between the two mirrors to a stabilization length (fig.1 elements within #150 other than #106), wherein, at the stabilization length, there is, for each predetermined frequency fs, a resonant frequency fr of the optical resonator for which a difference between the predetermined frequency fi and the resonant frequency fr is smaller than a predetermined target value (Shieh teaches the goal of the device is to lock each laser’s wavelength to its associated FSR frequency mode of the resonator,col.5 lines 48-52. Each FSR frequency mode has a width of 30MHz, fig.4. The process involves finding a difference between the lasers’ wavelengths and the associated centers of the FSR frequency modes by calculating a difference, col.5 lines 13-16. Each predetermined frequency is compared to a center of a FSR frequency mode by finding a difference between the two values, wherein adjustment is made until the laser frequency is locked to the FSR frequency mode (i.e. the calculated difference is within 15Mhz; which is ½ the width of the FSR frequency mode as the difference is calculated from the center of the mode), which means the “predetermined target value” is a numerical value which exceeds 15MHz in the calculated difference, as within 15MHz the laser would be locked to the FSR frequency mode), and wherein, at the stabilization length, at least one of the predetermined frequencies fis does not satisfy a resonance condition of the optical resonator (note “a resonance condition” and can be interpreted any number of ways. Shieh at least meets this limitation as each laser frequency fis is locked to a different FSR frequency of the optical resonator, abstract, and when the resonance condition is defined as the frequency of f1s, one of the predetermined frequencies, e.g. f2s, does not satisfy the condition since f2s ≠ f1s). Shieh does not teach the length of the spacer is reversibly adjustable within a range of at least 40 µm. Niu teaches a related laser device (fig.1) which makes use of an etalon (fig.1 E1/E2) which has an adjustable gap with an adjustment range more than 100um (“as shown in FIG. 5. wherein the length d of the Fabry Perot etalon is the distance between mirror E1 and mirror E2, changing range of length d is 0.1 mm to 1 mm”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system of Shieh such that the spacer length (i.e. etalon gap) is adjustable within a range of at least 40um as Niu has demonstrated such an etalon adjustment range is useful for controlling spectral characteristics of the device (Niu, fig.5) and would allow for a wide etalon tuning range to enable use of alternate wavelength input laser sources.
With respect to claim 12, Shieh, as modified, teaches the length of the spacer is adjustable by at least 40 µm by increasing or decreasing a temperature of the spacer (col.6 lines 13-17); and/or adjusting a length of a piezo element of the spacer (col.6 lines 13-17).
With respect to claim 18, Shieh, as modified, teaches the control circuitry is configured to adjust the distance between the two mirrors to the stabilization length in accordance with a frequency of a reference laser (fig.2 via LDx/LDy, col.5 line 55 – col.6 line 20).
With respect to claim 19, Shieh, as modified, teaches the apparatus comprises an optical input for feeding input light (fig.1 #101.1-101.n, 103, 104, 105) and thereby to generate N error signals (fig.5); and wherein the control circuitry is configured to generate, based on the N error signals, electronic feedback for the N lasers (fig.1 via #109, fig.5).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shieh and Niu in view of Sargent et al. (US 2004/0070833).
With respect to claim 13, Shieh, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the spacer is made of material(s) with a coefficient of thermal expansion that is larger than 16 ppm/°C, a stiffness larger than 10 GPa, and/or a damping tangent larger than 0.001. Sargent teaches an etalon (fig.2a/b) which includes a spacer (fig.2b #24) and that the spacer can be of metal, such as aluminum, in order to allow for temperature tuning the etalon gap ([0055]). 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 spacer of metal, such as aluminum, as demonstrated by Sargent for a/the spacer material of Shieh in order to provide a material demonstrated to enable effective temperature tuning (Sargent, [0055]) as desired by Shieh (col.6 lines 13-18).
Note that aluminum has a coefficient of thermal expansion larger than 16ppm/C (~23).
With respect to claim 14, Shieh, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the spacer is made of at least 99.8% magnesium. Sargent teaches an etalon (fig.2a/b) which includes a spacer (fig.2b #24) and that the spacer can be of metal in order to allow for temperature tuning the etalon gap ([0055]). Sargent does not specify 99.8% Mg. 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 spacer of metal, such as 99.8% Mg, as Sargent has demonstrated metals provide characteristics demonstrated to enable effective temperature tuning (Sargent, [0055]) as desired by Shieh (col.6 lines 13-18) and the choice of 99.8% Mg would amount to substituting equivalent materials know for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06 II) and/or would be obvious since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shieh and Niu in view of Shang et al. (CN 103887700; Applicant submitted prior art).
With respect to claim 15, Shieh, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including use of a piezo element (fig.2) which is used to adjust the distance between the two mirrors (col.4 lines 35-37), but does not teach the piezo element is between one of the two mirrors and the spacer. Shang teaches a related system used to lock plural lasers to particular frequencies by making use of an etalon (fig.1), wherein the etalon is formed of two mirrors (fig.2 #112/115) with a spacer (fig.2 #113) and a piezo (fig.2 #114) between one of the two mirrors and the spacer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system of Shieh such that the piezo is between a mirror and the spacer (rather than on an outer mirror surface) as demonstrated by Shang in order to provide an alternate arrangement of the parts while providing the same system function (see MPEP 2144.05 IV C) and allowing for access to the mirror for further coatings, etc..
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shieh and Niu in view of Milani et al. (“Multiple wavelength stabilization on a single optical cavity using the offset sideband locking technique”; Applicant submitted prior art).
With respect to claim 20, Shieh, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including one or more taps (fig.1 #101.101.n) for splitting light emitted by the N lasers into a first beam (fig.1 output to WDM #160) and a second beam (fig.1 input to #103), wherein the second beam is the input light to be fed to the apparatus in order to the generate N error signals; and wherein either:
-the control circuitry is configured to stabilize simultaneously the N lasers to emit light at the respective resonant frequencies fr, and the system further comprises one or more frequency shifters for shifting frequencies of the first beam to the respective predetermined frequencies fs; or
-the control circuitry is configured to stabilize simultaneously the N lasers to emit light at the respective predetermined frequencies fs, and the system further comprises one or more frequency shifters for shifting frequencies of the second beam to the respective resonant frequencies fr (dithering each laser constitutes frequency shifting, fig.4, col.2 lines 9-23). Shieh does not teach the use of beam splitters for splitting off the light. Milani teaches a related system for laser frequency control (fig.1) which includes both frequency shifters (fig.1 SHG 399, SHG 556) and the use of beam splitters for optical coupling (fig.1 as seen in ‘optical bench’). It would have been obvious to make use of beam splitters in place of the taps of Shieh in order to provide an alternate means of redirecting the light thereby accomplishing the same purpose of the taps of Shieh (see MPEP 2144.06 II) allowing for a design choice to make use of free space optics.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the previously included PTO892 form for a list of related art.
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