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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the device as outlined in at least claim 1 which is only using one laser diode must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 8 line 31 refers to the combinator as #3, however the combinator was previously labeled #8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 refers to “tune wavelength” and is believed to more correctly read “tune a wavelength”.
Claim 10 refers to “is having a geometry” and is believed to more correctly read “has a geometry”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 at line 1 refers to “the tuneable mechanism”. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 which does not outline the presence of a tunable mechanism. Use of the word “the” therefore creates an improper antecedent basis.
It appears claim 3 should depend from claim 2, which would provide proper antecedent basis. The claim has been examined as though claim 3 depends from claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Alnis et al. (“Sum-frequency generation with a blue diode laser for mercury spectroscopy at 254nm”, Applicant submitted prior art).
With respect to claim 1, Alnis discloses a laser source device (fig.1) comprising: a pump laser system, made of one of more laser diodes (fig.1 688nm, 404nm), each of these laser diodes is adapted to generate one or more light beams (fig.1 688nm, 404nm), whose wavelengths are in the visible spectral range having a wavelength in the range 380 nm to 740 nm (fig.1 688nm, 404nm); a combinator (fig.1 splitter + lens) adapted to allow passing of the light beams from the pump laser system, and to combine them (fig.1 beams coupled at lens to left of BBO) and couple them to a next module (fig.1 BBO and elements to right); a nonlinear frequency generation module (fig.1 BBO with output lens) adapted to allow passing of the light beams, and while passing through, adapted to employ nonlinear optical phenomenon of sum-frequency generation for a UVC light beam (pg.1234 col.2 para.3, 254nm).
With respect to claim 2, Alnis discloses a tunable mechanism adapted to at least tune wavelength of the light beams generated by the pump laser system (pg.1235 col.1 para.1, pg.1235 col.2 para.2; each laser wavelength tuned), or to tune the phase-matching condition in the nonlinear frequency generation module.
With respect to claim 4, Alnis discloses the light beams generated by each of the laser diode is of different wavelengths (fig.1 688nm vs 404nm).
With respect to claim 5, Alnis discloses a laser beam generation controller (pg.1235 col.1 para.1 “drivers”) adapted to control each of the laser diode of the pump laser system for at least varying the intensity of the laser beams or enabling or disabling the laser diodes, or combination thereof (pg.1235 col.1 para.1, “current controlled” necessarily allows either or both of controlling intensity or enabling/disabling based on the changing value of the current).
With respect to claim 7, Alnis teaches the nonlinear frequency generation module comprises a second-order nonlinear crystal (fig.1 BBO).
With respect to claim 8, Alnis discloses the second-order nonlinear crystal is a material transparent in at least part of the UVC and part of the visible spectrum (pg.1235 col.1 para.1).
With respect to claim 9, Alnis discloses the second-order nonlinear crystal is from a selection of barium borate (BBO) (fig.1 BBO), cesium lithium borate (CLBO), lithium borate (LBO), potassium dideuterium phosphate (KDP), potassium dideuterium phosphate (DKDP), ammonium dihydrogen phosphate (ADP), yttrium calcium oxoborate (YCOB) or potassium fluoroboratoberyllate (KBBF).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alnis in view of Shang et al. (US 2018/0342854).
With respect to claim 3, Alnis teaches the device outlined above, including the use of temperature control (pg.1235 col.1 para.1) and wavelength tuning (pg.1235 col.1 para.1, pg.1235 col.2 para.2), but does not teach the tunable mechanism comprises a temperature controller adapted to control temperature of at least one or both of the pump laser system, or the combinator, or combination thereof. Shang teaches wavelength tuning of visible wavelength laser diodes ([0018]) via temperature ([0022]). 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 Alnis to make use of temperature based wavelength tuning of the laser diodes as demonstrated by Shange in order to allow for an extra element of wavelength stabilization affording both coarse and fine control (via current and temperature).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alnis in view of Arvidsson et al. (WO 91/12556; Applicant submitted prior art).
With respect to claim 6, Alnis teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the combinator is a photonic integrated circuit (PIC). Arvidsson teaches a related conversion device (abstract) which includes either separate optics (fig.2) or use of a PIC based coupler (fig.3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the combinator of Alnis to make use of a PIC arrangement as demonstrated by Arvidsson in order to create a more compact device with fewer elements needing to be aligned.
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alnis in view of Smeeton et al. (US 2014/0251949).
With respect to claim 10, Alnis teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the second-order nonlinear crystal is having a geometry of a rib waveguide, defined by a thickness, a width and a depth. Smeeton teaches a related nonlinear BBO device (abstract) which has a geometry of a rib waveguide (fig.2 VII/XI), defined by a thickness, a width and a depth (inherent that a 3d object has these dimensions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the BBO device of Alnis to make use of the BBO rib waveguide device structure in either configuration fig.2 VII or fig.2 XI of Smeeton in order to make use of a BBO device with improved conversion efficiency by making use of the waveguide structure (Smeeton, [0026]).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejection of claim 10 above, noting the depth is zero in the VII configuration (e.g. the height of the rib is gone).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejection of claim 10 above, noting the depth is equal to the total waveguide thickness in the XI configuration (e.g. the formation of the ridge waveguide has a central depth equal to a total thickness when measured in the same vertical direction).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejection of claim 10 above, noting the nonlinear frequency generation module further comprises a substrate (Smeeton, fig.2 #4) having a material with lower refractive index with respect to the second-order nonlinear crystal ([0149]), and the second-order nonlinear crystal is coupled to the substrate (Smeeton, fig.2 #1 is on #4).
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejection of claim 10 above, noting the substrate is made of UV-fused silica ([0149]; it is noted that the fusing method, UV, is understood to be a product-by-process limitation not imparting a specific structural feature to the end product).
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejection of claim 10 above, noting the nonlinear frequency generation module further comprises a cladding material (Smeeton, fig.2 #3/7) having a material with lower refractive index with respect to the second-order nonlinear crystal ([0148]), which surrounds the second-order nonlinear crystal partially (fig.2 both over and under) or completely.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejection to claim 10 above, noting the cladding material is made of at least one of calcium fluoride (Smeeton, [0148]), magnesium fluoride, or combination thereof.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alnis in view of Sakuma (US 9696568).
With respect to claim 17, Alnis teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the UVC light beam is in the range of wavelength between 190 nm to 240 nm. Sakuma teaches a related sum frequency generation device (fig.3) and also the production of UV light at 190-220nm (col.9 lines 21-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the input wavelengths or nonlinear material of Alnis to achieve a 190-220nm UV range as demonstrated by Sakuma in order to enable an alternative UV output range to further enable expanding spectroscopy options.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included PTO892 form for a list of related art.
The Corner NPL document is noted as teaching a similar diode laser to UV conversion device.
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