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 amendment to the claims filed December 16, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (page 8 of Remarks) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: pulse forming unit and operation unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa ("Sequentially timed all-optical mapping photography (STAMP). Nature Photon 8, 695–700 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2014.163) in view of Baik (US20160131527A1), Inoue (US20180347964A1) and Fu ("Quantitative dispersion microscopy," Biomed. Opt. Express 1, 347-353 (2010)).
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa teaches a dispersion measurement (eq. 6 and 7) apparatus comprising:
a pulse forming unit configured to form ('pulse shaper' - Fig. 1), from a first light pulse output from a light source ('ultrashort pulse source' - Fig. 1), a light pulse train ('daughter pulses' - page 696, top of column 1) including a plurality of second light pulses having center wavelengths different from each other (Fig. 2b depicts the daughter pulses having different wavelengths);
an imaging unit ('image sensor' - Fig. 1) including an image sensor capable of performing imaging at an imaging interval shorter than a minimum peak interval of the light pulse train (page 696, column 1 discloses optimizing the timescale of the image sensor to capture the event of interest. The examiner is interpreting this to mean the image sensor is capable of performing imaging at an interval shorter than the minimum pulse peak; Fig. 2a depicts the pulse peaks using different imaging intervals; page 697, column 2 discloses different time intervals the image sensor recorded and how they correlate to the pulse) , and configured to image the light pulse train output from the pulse forming unit and then passed through a measurement object to generate imaging data (Fig. 1 depicts the light pulse train exiting the pulse shaper and traveling through an object before reaching the imaging unit).
Nakagawa fails to teach a plurality of second light pulses having peaks temporally separated from each other in a temporal waveform of the light pulse train; an imaging unit configured to image a two-dimensional image; and an operation unit configured to receive the imaging data, detect a temporal waveform of the light pulse train for each pixel of the image sensor, and estimate a wavelength dispersion amount of the measurement object for each pixel of the image sensor based on a feature value of the temporal waveform to estimate a two-dimensional distribution of the wavelength dispersion amount of the measurement object.
However, in the same field of endeavor of pulse generation, Baik also teaches a light source which sends a first pulse (10, Fig. 1) to a pulse forming unit (30, Fig. 1) where the center wavelengths are different and the peaks are temporally separated (paragraph [0041]).
Baik discloses the temporal separation of pulse peaks enables the resulting signal to be processed only one time, reducing data acquisition time (paragraph [0073]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Nakagawa with the temporally separated peaks taught in Baik in order to reduce data acquisition time.
Nakagawa in view of Baik fails to teach an imaging unit configured to image a two-dimensional image; and an operation unit configured to receive the imaging data, detect a temporal waveform of the light pulse train for each pixel of the image sensor, and estimate a wavelength dispersion amount of the measurement object for each pixel of the image sensor based on a feature value of the temporal waveform to estimate a two-dimensional distribution of the wavelength dispersion amount of the measurement object.
However, in the same field of endeavor of dispersion measurement, Inoue teaches an imaging unit which generates a two-dimensional image (paragraph [0007]) discloses an imaging portion (16, Fig. 1)) and an operation unit (processing device, paragraph [0007])) which detects a waveform (paragraph [0204]) and estimates dispersion (paragraphs [0171] and [0230] discloses a wavelength dispersion formula) for each pixel of the image sensor (paragraph [0232] discloses the dispersion formula is calculated for each pixel) based on a feature value of the waveform (any of the constants in the dispersion equation featured in paragraphs [0171] or [0230]).
Inoue discloses an advantage of the disclosed invention is the accuracy (paragraph [0328]). Per pixel detection enables the spatial resolution of the image sensor to be fully utilized, therefore improving accuracy. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Nakagawa as modified by Baik with the per pixel detection taught in Inoue in order to improve accuracy.
Nakagawa in view of Baik and Inoue fail to teach estimating a two-dimensional distribution of the wavelength dispersion amount of the measurement object.
However, in the same field of endeavor of dispersion measurement of objects, Fu estimates a 2D distribution of dispersion of a measured object (depicted in Fig. 2C).
Fu discloses that estimate the two-dimension distribution of dispersion (as opposed to 1D as Nakagawa and Inoue teach) allows for spatial inhomogeneities in the object to be observed (page 6, first paragraph). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Nakagawa as modified by Baik and Inoue with the 2D dispersion distribution taught in Fu as it allows for a more full observation of the measurement object.
Regarding claim 2, Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu teach the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the operation unit is configured to calculate at least one value of a refractive index (Inoue: S102, Fig. 20 calculates refractive index based on the wavelength dispersion), a reflectance (Inoue: S132 calculates a transmittance based on the dispersion, but paragraph [0246] discloses a reflectance may be calculated instead of transmittance, an absorptance, and a thickness of the measurement object (Inoue: S140, Fig. 20 determines film thickness) for each pixel of the image sensor (Inoue: paragraph [0009]) based on the estimated wavelength dispersion amount (Inoue: all calculation in Fig. 20 depend on S102, which is the refractive index based on the wavelength dispersion).
Inoue discloses the technique of measuring film thickness (which depends on the refractive index and wavelength dispersion) enables in plane thickness to be measured (paragraph [0006]) in a manner that is both faster and more accurate (paragraphs [0006] and [0328]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu with the operation unit calculations taught in Inoue in order to facilitate a device capable of fast and accurate general thickness measurements for a variety of objects.
Regarding claim 5, Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu teach the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the pulse forming unit (Nakagawa: 'pulse shaper' - Fig. 1) includes:
a dispersive element configured to spatially separate a plurality of wavelength components included in the first light pulse for each wavelength (Nakagawa: 'diffraction grating' - Fig. 1), a spatial light modulator configured to shift phases of the plurality of wavelength components output from the dispersive element from each other (Nakagawa: 'spatial light modulator' - Fig. 1), and
a focusing optical system configured to focus the plurality of wavelength components output from the spatial light modulator (Nakagawa: 'lens' - Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Nakagawa teaches a dispersion measurement method comprising:
performing a pulse forming of forming ('pulse shaper' - Fig. 1), from a first light pulse output from a light source, ('ultrashort pulse source' - Fig. 1) a light pulse train ('daughter pulses' - page 696, top of column 1) including a plurality of second light pulses having center wavelengths different from each other (Fig. 2b depicts the daughter pulses having different wavelengths); and
performing an imaging of using an image sensor ('image sensor' - Fig. 1) capable of performing imaging at an imaging interval shorter than a minimum peak interval of the light pulse train (page 696, column 1 discloses optimizing the timescale of the image sensor to capture the event of interest. The examiner is interpreting this to mean the image sensor is capable of performing imaging at an interval shorter than the minimum pulse peak; Fig. 2a depicts the pulse peaks using different imaging intervals; page 697, column 2 discloses different time intervals the image sensor recorded and how they correlate to the pulse), and imaging the light pulse train passed through a measurement object to generate imaging data (Fig. 1 depicts the light pulse train exiting the pulse shaper and traveling through an object before reaching the imaging unit).
Nakagawa fails to teach a plurality of second light pulses having peaks temporally separated from each other in a temporal waveform of the light pulse train; generating imaging data including a two-dimensional image; and performing an operation of receiving the imaging data, detecting a temporal waveform of the light pulse train for each pixel of the image sensor, and estimating a wavelength dispersion amount of the measurement object for each pixel of the image sensor based on a feature value of the temporal waveform to estimate a two-dimensional distribution of the wavelength dispersion amount of the measurement object.
However, Baik also teaches a light source which sends a first pulse (10, Fig. 1) to a pulse forming unit (30, Fig. 1) where the center wavelengths are different and the peaks are temporally separated (paragraph [0041]).
Baik discloses the temporal separation of pulse peaks enables the resulting signal to be processed only one time, reducing data acquisition time (paragraph [0073]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Nakagawa with the temporally separated peaks taught in Baik in order to reduce data acquisition time.
Nakagawa as modified by Baik fails to teach generating imaging data including a two-dimensional image; and performing an operation of receiving the imaging data, detecting a temporal waveform of the light pulse train for each pixel of the image sensor, and estimating a wavelength dispersion amount of the measurement object for each pixel of the image sensor based on a feature value of the temporal waveform to estimate a two-dimensional distribution of the wavelength dispersion amount of the measurement object.
However, Inoue teaches an imaging unit which generates a two-dimensional image (paragraph [0007] discloses an imaging portion (16, Fig. 1)) and an operation unit (processing device, paragraph [0007])) which detects a waveform (paragraph [0204]) and estimates dispersion (paragraphs [0171] and [0230] discloses a wavelength dispersion formula) for each pixel of the image sensor (paragraph [0232] discloses the dispersion formula is calculated for each pixel) based on a feature value of the waveform (any of the constants in the dispersion equation featured in paragraphs [0171] or [0230]).
Inoue discloses an advantage of the claimed invention is the accuracy (paragraph [0328]). Per pixel detection enables the spatial resolution of the image sensor to be fully utilized, therefore improving accuracy. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Nakagawa as modified by Baik with the per pixel detection taught in Inoue in order to improve accuracy.
Nakagawa as modified by Baik and Inoue fails to teach estimating a two-dimensional distribution of the wavelength dispersion amount of the measurement object.
However, Fu estimates a 2D distribution of dispersion of a measured object (depicted in Fig. 2C).
Fu discloses that estimate the two-dimension distribution of dispersion (as opposed to 1D as Nakagawa and Inoue teach) allows for spatial inhomogeneities in the object to be observed (page 6, first paragraph). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of Nakagawa as modified by Baik and Inoue with the 2D dispersion distribution taught in Fu as it allows for a more full observation of the measurement object.
Regarding claim 8, Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu teach the invention as explained above in claim 7, and further teaches in the operation, at least one value of a refractive index (Inoue: S102, Fig. 20 calculates refractive index based on the wavelength dispersion), a reflectance (Inoue: S132 calculates a transmittance based on the dispersion, but paragraph [0246] discloses a reflectance may be calculated instead of transmittance, an absorptance, and a thickness of the measurement object (Inoue: S140, Fig. 20 determines film thickness) is calculated for each pixel of the image sensor(paragraph [0009]) based on the estimated wavelength dispersion amount (all calculation in Fig. 20 depend on S102, which is the refractive index based on the wavelength dispersion).
As discussed above in claim 2, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu with the operation unit calculations taught in Inoue in order to facilitate a device capable of general thickness measurements for a variety of objects.
Regarding claim 11, Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu teach the invention as explained above in claim 7, and further teaches in the pulse forming, a plurality of wavelength components included in the first light pulse are spatially separated for each wavelength (Nakagawa: performed by diffraction grating shown in Fig. 1), phases of the plurality of wavelength components are shifted from each other using a spatial light modulator (Nakagawa: performed by the spatial light modulator shown in Fig. 1), and the plurality of wavelength components are focused (performed by the lens shown in Fig. 1).
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa ("Sequentially timed all-optical mapping photography (STAMP). Nature Photon 8, 695–700 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2014.163) in view of Baik (US20160131527A1), Inoue (US20180347964A1) and Fu ("Quantitative dispersion microscopy," Biomed. Opt. Express 1, 347-353 (2010)) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Takara (JPH05248996A).
Regarding claim 3, Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu teach the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the feature value of the temporal waveform includes a time interval of a plurality of light pulses included in the light pulse train.
However, in the same field of endeavor of dispersion measurement, Takara teaches a method of determining dispersion using the time delay between pulses (paragraphs [0003] discloses this is a known method; paragraph [0009] further discloses this method is how the disclosed invention calculates dispersion).
Takara discloses that using the technique of time intervals of the pulses rather than other known techniques allows the dispersion to be calculated without influences of external factors, therefore improving the accuracy (paragraph [0029]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu with the dispersion calculation taught in Takara in order to improve measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 9, Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu teach the invention as explained above in claim 7, but fails to teach the feature value of the temporal waveform includes a time interval of a plurality of light pulses included in the light pulse train.
However, Takara teaches a method of determining dispersion using the time delay between pulses (paragraphs [0003] discloses this is a known method; paragraph [0009] further discloses this method is how the disclosed invention calculates dispersion).
As discussed above in claim 3, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method of Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu with the dispersion calculation taught in Takara in order to improve measurement accuracy.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa ("Sequentially timed all-optical mapping photography (STAMP). Nature Photon 8, 695–700 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2014.163) in view of Baik (US20160131527A1), Inoue (US20180347964A1) and Fu ("Quantitative dispersion microscopy," Biomed. Opt. Express 1, 347-353 (2010)) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Otani (JP2000193557A).
Regarding claim 4, Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu teach the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach a correlation optical system disposed on an optical path between the measurement object and the image sensor, and configured to generate correlation light including a cross-correlation or an autocorrelation of the light pulse train, from the light pulse train.
However, in the same field of endeavor as dispersion measuring devices, Otani teaches a correlation system (signal processing means, paragraph [0040]) which generates an autocorrelation of the optical pulse (paragraph [0040]) or the cross-correlation (paragraph [0041]) at different positions in the light path (paragraph [0055]).
Otani discloses the autocorrelation of light reveals the times the light pulses pass, which allows the accuracy of the dispersion measurement to be improved (paragraph [0129]). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device taught by Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu with the autocorrelation generation unit taught in Otani to improve accuracy of the dispersion measurement.
Regarding claim 10, Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu teach the invention as explained above in claim 7, but fails to teach performing a correlation light generation of generating correlation light including a cross-correlation or an autocorrelation of the light pulse train, from the light pulse train generated in the pulse forming and then passed through the measurement object.
However, Otani teaches a correlation system (signal processing means, paragraph [0040]) which generates an autocorrelation of the optical pulse (paragraph [0040]) or the cross-correlation (paragraph [0041]) at different positions in the light path (paragraph [0055]).
As discussed above in claim 4, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method taught by Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu with the autocorrelation generation unit taught in Otani to improve accuracy of the dispersion measurement.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nakagawa ("Sequentially timed all-optical mapping photography (STAMP). Nature Photon 8, 695–700 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2014.163) in view of Baik (US20160131527A1), Inoue (US20180347964A1) and Fu ("Quantitative dispersion microscopy," Biomed. Opt. Express 1, 347-353 (2010)) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Hirano (US20100209101A1).
Regarding claim 6, Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu teach to the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the operation unit is configured to estimate the wavelength dispersion amount of the measurement object by comparing the feature value of the temporal waveform calculated in advance on the assumption that the wavelength dispersion of the measurement object is zero and the feature value of the detected temporal waveform.
However, in the same field of endeavor of dispersion measurement, Hirano teaches an operation unit (processor) which estimates a wavelength dispersion (continuous function of Fig. 4; paragraph [0055]) by comparing a value ('wavelength', x-axis of Fig. 4) to an estimated zero wavelength dispersion value (dashed line, Fig. 4) and a measured value (dashed line and open and closed circles of Fig. 4; paragraph [0055] discloses how the measured dispersion values and assuming zero dispersion at a certain wavelength are used to create a continuous function of dispersion values).
Hirano discloses that the dispersion method disclosed further allows the calculation of parameters (such as dispersion) can be calculated regardless of physical measurement limitations (paragraph [0006]).Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device taught by Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu with the dispersion calculation technique taught in Hirano in order to bypass any physical limitations to the measurement.
Regarding claim 12, Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu teach the invention as explained above in claim 7, but fails to teach in the operation, the wavelength dispersion amount of the measurement object is estimated by comparing the feature value of the temporal waveform calculated in advance on the assumption that the wavelength dispersion of the measurement object is zero and the feature value of the detected temporal waveform.
However, Hirano teaches an operation unit (processor) which estimates a wavelength dispersion (continuous function of Fig. 4; paragraph [0055]) by comparing a value ('wavelength', x-axis of Fig. 4) to an estimated zero wavelength dispersion value (dashed line, Fig. 4) and a measured value (dashed line and open and closed circles of Fig. 4; paragraph [0055] discloses how the measured dispersion values and assuming zero dispersion at a certain wavelength are used to create a continuous function of dispersion values).
As discussed above in claim 6, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method taught by Nakagawa as modified by Baik, Inoue and Fu with the dispersion calculation technique taught in Hirano in order to bypass any physical limitations to the measurement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Weiner, A. M. "Ultrafast optical pulse shaping: a tutorial review". Opt. Commun. 284, 3669–3692 (2011). – teaches a light source which sends a pulse to a pulse forming unit through a sample to a detector.
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 Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877