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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species A in the reply filed on 10/13/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all the species comprise substantially overlapping subject matter. This is not found persuasive because this is not the standard for determining whether a serious search or examination burden exists, nor does it demonstrate in any way that the species at issue are not independent or not distinct. In this case, the different embodiments are clearly described as being used in place of the other, i.e. they are mutually exclusive. Further, a serious search and examination burden exists because the different embodiments require entirely distinct components which would each require their own distinct searches and fields of search. If applicant maintains the opinion that the species are substantially overlapping and should be examined together, then the applicant is encouraged to admit that the various species are obvious variants of each other so that the species can be rejoined.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7 and 8 are withdrawn.
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:
an optical source in claim 1. Interpreted to correspond to a laser.
a peak-field booster (PFB) unit in claim 1. Interpreted to correspond to a fiber and a pair of chirped mirrors.
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.
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 1-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui, Wei, et al. "Broadband and high-sensitivity time-resolved THz system with grating assisted noncollinear phase-matching." 2020 45th International Conference on Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves (IRMMW-THz). IEEE, 2020 [hereinafter Cui] in view of Wilk, R., et al. "Terahertz generation with 1064 nm DFB laser diode." Electronics letters 43.2 (2007): 108-110 [Wilk]
Regarding Claim 1:
Cui teaches a THz system (abstract) comprising,
a generator having an optical source (NIR optical source delivering pulses at 1035 nm) followed by a peak-field booster (PFB) unit (Experiment section – “These pulses are launched into an argon-filled hollow-core photonic crystal fiber, where self-phase modulation broadens the NIR spectrum to 8.7 THz. A pair of chirped mirrors is then used to compensate for the dispersion to compress the pulse to a ~60 fs duration”) and a first periodically patterned nonlinear crystal (Fig. 1-Generation); and
a detector having a second periodically patterned nonlinear crystal (Fig. 1-Detection).
However, Cui fails to teach that the optical source is a laser.
Wilk teaches using a 1064 nm laser to generate Thz radiation. Laser source Section. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the laser of Wilk as the optical source of Cui, since Wilk demonstrates that such a wavelength of laser is effective in Thz radiation generating scheme, and since its wavelength is very close to that of Cui.
Regarding Claim 2:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the optical source is an ultrafast NIR laser. Cui – “These pulses are launched into an argon-filled hollow-core photonic crystal fiber, where self-phase modulation broadens the NIR spectrum to 8.7 THz. A pair of chirped mirrors is then used to compensate for the dispersion to compress the pulse to a ~60 fs duration”).
Regarding Claim 3:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the first periodically patterned nonlinear crystal is a GaP crystal. Cui – “THz is generated in a GaP crystal by optical rectification and detected inside an identical crystal by electro-optic sampling,” Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 4:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 3 wherein the second periodically patterned nonlinear crystal is a GaP crystal. Cui – “THz is generated in a GaP crystal by optical rectification and detected inside an identical crystal by electro-optic sampling,” Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 5:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the optical source is centered at a wavelength of 1064 nm. Wilk teaches using a 1064 nm laser to generate Thz radiation. Laser source Section.
Regarding Claim 6:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the PFB is a fiber and a pair of chirped mirrors. Cui Experiment section – “These pulses are launched into an argon-filled hollow-core photonic crystal fiber, where self-phase modulation broadens the NIR spectrum to 8.7 THz. A pair of chirped mirrors is then used to compensate for the dispersion to compress the pulse to a ~60 fs duration.”
Regarding Claim 11:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the detector comprises a delay stage, a quarter-wave plate (QWP), a Wollaston prism (WP), and balanced photodetectors (BPD). Cui Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 12:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the second periodically patterned nonlinear crystal is a GaP crystal. Cui – Fig. 1.
Claim 1 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halpin, Alexei, et al. "Enhanced THz detection efficiency via grating-assisted noncollinear electro-optic sampling." 2019 44th International Conference on Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves (IRMMW-THz). IEEE, 2019 [hereinafter Halpin] in view of Cui, Wei, et al. "Broadband and high-sensitivity time-resolved THz system with grating assisted noncollinear phase-matching." 2020 45th International Conference on Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves (IRMMW-THz). IEEE, 2020 [hereinafter Cui]
Regarding Claim 1:
Halpin teaches a THz system (abstract) comprising,
a generator having an optical source (Fig. 1 -NIR Laser delivering 180 fs pulses at 1035 nm) followed by a peak-field booster (PFB) unit (Fig. 1 – HC PCF is a fiber, chirped mirror compressor is a pair of chirped mirrors, thus the teaching corresponds to the 112(f) limitation) and
a first periodically patterned nonlinear crystal (Fig. 1-GaP, as described at 031003-2 “phase grating at the surface of a nonlinear semiconductor to achieve enhanced THz detection by EOS. The surface grating can be used to arbitrarily tilt the wave vector of the NIR gating pulse inside the crystal, thereby customizing the phase-matching conditions. Our grating-assisted noncollinear geometry relies on a standard EOS configuration, with both NIR and THz pulses normally incident on the EOS crystal.”); and
a detector (Fig. 1-BPD).
However, Halpin fails to teach that the detector has a second periodically patterned nonlinear crystal
Cui teaches using THz generation and Detection crystal with periodically modulated surfaces to optimize phase matching conditions. Fig. 1 and description thereof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to replace the GaP detection crystal of Halpin with the periodically patterned GaP detection crystal of Cui, since Cui teaches that such a modification results in high signal amplitudes over a large spectral bandwidth. Cui – Summary section.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halpin, Alexei, et al. "Enhanced THz detection efficiency via grating-assisted noncollinear electro-optic sampling." 2019 44th International Conference on Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves (IRMMW-THz). IEEE, 2019 [hereinafter Halpin] in view of Cui, Wei, et al. "Broadband and high-sensitivity time-resolved THz system with grating assisted noncollinear phase-matching." 2020 45th International Conference on Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves (IRMMW-THz). IEEE, 2020 [hereinafter Cui] as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kilcullen, Patrick, et al. "Terahertz time domain gas-phase spectroscopy of carbon monoxide." Journal of Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves 36.4 (2015): 380-389 [hereinafter Kilcullen].
Regarding Claim 9:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach that it further comprises a purge box enclosing the first periodically patterned nonlinear crystal; and the second periodically patterned nonlinear crystal.
Kilcullen teaches placing an entire THz-TDS system in a box which is purged with dry nitrogen gas in order to mitigate THz absorption by atmospheric water vapor. Experimental Setup first paragraph. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to place the entire modified invention of Halpin in view of Cui, to include it patterned crystal, in a purge box as described by Kilculler. One would have been motivated to do so in order to mitigate THz absorption by atmospheric water vapor.
Regarding Claim 10:
The above modified invention teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the purge box further comprises a Germanium (Ge) wafer following the first periodically patterned nonlinear crystal. Note Ge wafer downstream of patterned GaP crystal in Halpin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
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, ROBERT KIM can be reached at 571 272 2293. 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881