DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on June 7, 2023. Claims 1-18 are pending, with claims 1 and 16 in independent claim form.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on March 8, 2023, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (three (3) pages) were received on June 7, 2023. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding claim 1, the opening term “Optical system” should read “An optical system”; while claim 16 opening term “Method for generating” should read “A method for generating.” Regarding dependent claims 2-15 and 17-18, the opening term should read “The optical system” or “The method” in the preamble. Further regarding independent claim 1, the term “the beam path” should read “a beam path” for the first instance of such claiming; the phrase “through the medium” should read “through the non-linear medium” for consistency. Regarding independent claim 16, the term “the beam path” should read “a beam path” for the first instance of such claiming. Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding dependent claims 4, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 18, the following objections are respectfully noted. Regarding claims 4, 13, 14, and 18, the use of “i.e.” should be removed, as the “preferably smaller” language (two instances in each claim 4, 13, 14, and 18) should be deleted. Note also the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below for this “preferably” type language. Regarding claim 11, the term “the mirror” should read “the segmented mirror” for clarity. Regarding claim 15, the term “substantially constant” should be reviewed as the true meaning of such term may not be directly clear (note also the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below for this frame-of-reference). Correction is required. Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested to carefully and thoroughly review all claims 1-18 for any typo or minor informality not identified by the previous two paragraphs.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 13-15, and 18 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.
Regarding claims 4, 13, 14, and 18, the term “preferably smaller/at least…” (two instances in each claim) is rejected herein as being vague and indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 4, 14, and 18 recite the broad recitation of having a compression factor being “smaller than four”, and the claim also recites “preferably smaller than….. three/two” which is/are narrower statements of the range/limitation. Regarding claim 13, this claim recites the broad recitation of having a multipass cell passing through number being “at least three”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least five/ten times…” which is/are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 15, the term “substantially constant” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” to be “constant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The true meaning and metes-and-bounds of what is “substantially” constant, in comparison to what is NOT “substantially” being constant is not clear with a line of demarcation of such terms in a claim. For these reasons, claim 15 is rejected as being vague/indefinite under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hodgson et al. US 2015/0131143 A1.
Hodgson et al. US 2015/0131143 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-10; corresponding text, in particular see paragraphs [0022] – [0042]; Claims) an optical system 10 (Figs. 1-3 showing the device / structure), and inherent method of using same (for independent claim 16) having a laser source 12 that generates pulsed laser radiation consisting of a temporal sequence of laser pulses (Fig. 1; para [0023]), and at least one pulse compression device 16 which is located in a (the) beam path and comprises a non-linear medium 34 (see Figs. 2-3 which show the compression device expanded and a spectral-broadening element 34), wherein the laser pulses undergo non-linear spectral broadening during propagation through the non-linear medium, and a chirp is applied to the laser pulses (Figs. 2-3 in view of Fig. 4, see paragraphs [0022] – [0026] and [0028] – [0030]), wherein a group delay dispersion (GDD) that varies along the beam path and that compensates at least partially for the chirp is applied to the laser pulses by the pulse compression device (Figs. 3-8; paragraphs [0028] – [0040], the features of 46 / 48 imply such a variance along the path and multipass until out-coupling occurs, which is capable of all functional language of the GDD), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural (and method steps for claim 16) limitation for independent claim 1.
Further, the Examiner fully incorporates, and agrees with, the logic and rationale from the PCT Search Report and Written Opinion from attached EP 2021 / 071936 (found in the current file). See Section 2.1 of the Written Opinion.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 15, 17, and 18, Hodgson ‘143 teaches each structural and inherent method limitations found in those dependent claims. Note in particular the Written Opinion Section 3.
Claims 1-9 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fritsch et al. NPL “All-solid-state multipass…”.
Fritsch et al. NPL “All-solid-state multipass…”. teaches (Intro; Figs. 1-4; Table 1; entire document pgs. 4643 – 4645) an optical system (Fig. 2 showing the device / structure), and inherent method of using same (for independent claim 16) having a laser source that generates pulsed laser radiation consisting of a temporal sequence of laser pulses; and at least one pulse compression device which is located in a (the) beam path and comprises a non-linear medium, wherein the laser pulses undergo non-linear spectral broadening during propagation through the non-linear medium, and a chirp is applied to the laser pulses, wherein a group delay dispersion (GDD) that varies along the beam path and that compensates at least partially for the chirp is applied to the laser pulses by the pulse compression device (pgs. 4643-4646, delay varying and chirp application), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural (and method steps for claim 16) limitation for independent claim 1.
Further, the Examiner fully incorporates, and agrees with, the logic and rationale from the PCT Search Report and Written Opinion from attached EP 2021 / 071936 (found in the current file). See Section 2.2 of the Written Opinion.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 13-15, 17, and 18, Fritsch et al. NPL teaches each structural and inherent method limitations found in those dependent claims. Note in particular the Written Opinion Section 3.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13, 15, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barbiero et al. NPL “Broadband terahertz solid-state emitter…”.
Barbiero et al. NPL “All-solid-state multipass…”. teaches (Intro; Fig. 1; Entire Document; 4 pages; 125601 – 1 through 4) an optical system (Fig. 1 showing the device / structure), and inherent method of using same (for independent claim 16) having a laser source that generates pulsed laser radiation consisting of a temporal sequence of laser pulses; and at least one pulse compression device which is located in a (the) beam path and comprises a non-linear medium, wherein the laser pulses undergo non-linear spectral broadening during propagation through the non-linear medium, and a chirp is applied to the laser pulses, wherein a group delay dispersion (GDD) that varies along the beam path and that compensates at least partially for the chirp is applied to the laser pulses by the pulse compression device (pgs. 125601 – 1 through 125601 - 4, delay varying and chirp application), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural (and method steps for claim 16) limitation for independent claim 1.
Further, the Examiner fully incorporates, and agrees with, the logic and rationale from the PCT Search Report and Written Opinion from attached EP 2021 / 071936 (found in the current file). See Section 2.3 of the Written Opinion.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 3, 5-9, 13, 15, and 17, Barbiero et al. NPL teaches each structural and inherent method limitations found in those dependent claims. Note in particular the Written Opinion Section 3.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fritsch et al. NPL “All-solid-state multipass…”, standing alone.
Regarding independent claim 1, Fritsch et al. NPL “All-solid-state multipass…”. teaches (Intro; Figs. 1-4; Table 1; entire document pgs. 4643 – 4645) an optical system (Fig. 2 showing the device / structure) having a laser source that generates pulsed laser radiation consisting of a temporal sequence of laser pulses; and at least one pulse compression device which is located in a (the) beam path and comprises a non-linear medium, wherein the laser pulses undergo non-linear spectral broadening during propagation through the non-linear medium, and a chirp is applied to the laser pulses, wherein a group delay dispersion (GDD) that varies along the beam path and that compensates at least partially for the chirp is applied to the laser pulses by the pulse compression device (pgs. 4643-4646, delay varying and chirp application). Regarding intervening dependent claims 5, 6, and 9, Fritsch also teaches those structural limitations as found above. Of note is that the Examiner fully incorporates, and agrees with, the logic and rationale from the PCT Search Report and Written Opinion from attached EP 2021 / 071936 (found in the current file), for claims 1, 5, 6, and 9. See Section 2.2 of the Written Opinion, and Section 3.
Regarding further dependent claims 10-12, Fritsch NPL does not expressly and exactly teach the features that the mirrors differ from each other (claim 10) with regard to the applied GDD, with segmented features for different reflections (claim 11) or the different segments claimed (claim 12). However, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as the differing mirror formations to allow for the applied group delay dispersion, as an obvious way to impart such GDD and chirp features into the optical system of Fritsch, because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Fritsch NPL to perform equally well with such features as the differing mirrors, because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve optical signals propagation by making the delay optimizable and controllable for the type of temporal sequence of pulses. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with a laser source optical system such as in Fritsch. Further, the base structure of the independent claim is anticipated by Fritsch and a number of other prior art references. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify Fritsch to obtain the invention as specified in claims 10-12. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Further, the Examiner fully incorporates, and agrees with, the logic and rationale from the PCT Search Report and Written Opinion from attached EP 2021 / 071936 (found in the current file) regarding claims 10-12, and to why these claims are obvious over Fritch. See Section 4 of the Written Opinion.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbiero et al. NPL “Broadband terahertz solid-state emitter…”, standing alone.
Regarding independent claim 1, Barbiero et al. NPL “All-solid-state multipass…”. teaches (Intro; Fig. 1; Entire Document; 4 pages; 125601 – 1 through 4) an optical system (Fig. 1 showing the device / structure), and inherent method of using same (for independent claim 16) having a laser source that generates pulsed laser radiation consisting of a temporal sequence of laser pulses; and at least one pulse compression device which is located in a (the) beam path and comprises a non-linear medium, wherein the laser pulses undergo non-linear spectral broadening during propagation through the non-linear medium, and a chirp is applied to the laser pulses, wherein a group delay dispersion (GDD) that varies along the beam path and that compensates at least partially for the chirp is applied to the laser pulses by the pulse compression device (pgs. 125601 – 1 through 125601 - 4, delay varying and chirp application). Regarding intervening dependent claims 5, 6, and 9, Barbiero also teaches those structural limitations as found above. Further, the Examiner fully incorporates, and agrees with, the logic and rationale from the PCT Search Report and Written Opinion from attached EP 2021 / 071936 (found in the current file). See Section 2.3 and 3 of the Written Opinion.
Regarding further dependent claims 10-12, Barbiero NPL does not expressly and exactly teach the features that the mirrors differ from each other (claim 10) with regard to the applied GDD, with segmented features for different reflections (claim 11) or the different segments claimed (claim 12). However, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as the differing mirror formations to allow for the applied group delay dispersion, as an obvious way to impart such GDD and chirp features into the optical system of Barbiero, because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Barbiero NPL to perform equally well with such features as the differing mirrors, because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve optical signals propagation by making the delay optimizable and controllable for the type of temporal sequence of pulses. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with a laser source optical system such as in Barbiero. Further, the base structure of the independent claim is anticipated by Barbiero and a number of other prior art references. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify Barbiero to obtain the invention as specified in claims 10-12. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Further, the Examiner fully incorporates, and agrees with, the logic and rationale from the PCT Search Report and Written Opinion from attached EP 2021 / 071936 (found in the current file) regarding claims 10-12, and to why these claims are obvious over Barbiero. See Section 4 of the Written Opinion.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references A and B, which pertain to the state of the art of ultrashort pulse laser systems with a tunable central wavelength (Brinkmann) and generating wavelength tunable ultra-short pulses having high power spectral density (Cormier).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 April 10, 2025