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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
1) Claim 1 recites a limitation: “an energy transmitting optical fiber” is used by the claim to mean “pumping light transmitting optical fiber”. Optical fiber can only transmit light and cannot transmit other forms of energy.
2) Claim 1 recites a limitation: “a mid-infrared idle frequency light” is used by the claim to mean “idler frequency light in the mid-infrared range”. The term “idle” means “inactive, not working, or not being used”.
3) Claim 1 recites a limitation: “a bent-shape cavity of the laser” is used by the claim to mean “a folded cavity section of the laser”.
4) Claim 1 recites a limitation: “the 813nm semiconductor pumping source, the energy transmitting optical fiber, the first focusing lens, the second focusing lens, the first 45-degree beam splitter, the mid-infrared idle frequency light output mirror, the multi-period Nd:MgO:PPLN polarized crystal, the servo motor, the mid-infrared idle frequency light total reflection mirror, the microprogrammed control unit, the second 45-degree beam splitter, the electro-optical crystal, and the 1093 nm fundamental frequency light total reflection mirror are sequentially placed from right to left in a straight cavity of the laser”. However, the laser cavity can only be composed of optical elements, while the servo motor and the MCU are electronic elements and therefore cannot be part of the laser cavity. Furthermore, these elements are not positioned between the other optical elements, they are outside the laser cavity.
In order to overcome this rejection, claim 1 should be amended to recite:
“the 813nm semiconductor pumping source, … and the 1093 nm fundamental frequency light total reflection mirror are sequentially placed from right to left in a straight cavity section of the laser, wherein the servo motor and the microprogrammed control unit are connected to the multi-period Nd:MgO:PPLN polarized crystal”.
5) The term “mid-infrared frequency light reflection(output) mirror” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “mid-infrared” 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. Mid-infrared wavelength is a broad term that does not have a specific numerical boundary in the art, making the meets and bounds of the claim unascertainable. In order to overcome this rejection, specific values for the wavelength range should be added.
6) Claim 5 recites the limitation "813 nm fundamental frequency light". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The fundamental frequencies are described in claim 1 as having 1084 nm and 1093 nm wavelengths. In order to overcome this rejection, claim 5 should be amended to recite: "813 nm pumping light".
7) Claims 6-8 recites a limitation: “high-transmittance film for idle frequency light”, “idle frequency” is not a numeric range, making the meets and bounds of the claim unascertainable. In order to overcome this rejection, specific values for the idler frequency range should be added.
8) The term “λ/4 voltage” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “λ” 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 symbol λ represents wavelength, which is measured in nm, while the voltage is measured in Volts, making the meets and bounds of the claim unascertainable. In order to overcome this rejection, claim 10 should be amended to recite: “and a voltage is applied to two ends of the electro-optic crystal for Q-switching”.
9) The remainder of the claims are rejected for their dependence on claim 1 and should also be amended for consistency.
For the purpose of examination, the limitations as presented have been searched and considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant is reminded of the 37 CFR 1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability:
(a) A patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. The public interest is best served, and the most effective patent examination occurs when, at the time an application is being examined, the Office is aware of and evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability. Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section. The duty to disclose information exists with respect to each pending claim until the claim is cancelled or withdrawn from consideration, or the application becomes abandoned. Information material to the patentability of a claim that is cancelled or withdrawn from consideration need not be submitted if the information is not material to the patentability of any claim remaining under consideration in the application. There is no duty to submit information which is not material to the patentability of any existing claim. The duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability is deemed to be satisfied if all information known to be material to patentability of any claim issued in a patent was cited by the Office or submitted to the Office in the manner prescribed by §§ 1.97(b)-(d) and 1.98. However, no patent will be granted on an application in connection with which fraud on the Office was practiced or attempted or the duty of disclosure was violated through bad faith or intentional misconduct. The Office encourages applicants to carefully examine:
(1) Prior art cited in search reports of a foreign patent office in a counterpart application, and
(2) The closest information over which individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application believe any pending claim patentably defines, to make sure that any material information contained therein is disclosed to the Office.
(3) The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the references cited on form PTO-892 which lists other references with similar features as the invention. However, none of them anticipate all the features of the pending claims.
Contact Info
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. A. GOLUB-MILLER whose telephone number is (571) 272-8602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M. A. Golub-Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights