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 without traverse of Group 1, Species 1, FIG. 1, Claims 1-5, 8, and 10-14, and Group 2, Species 1, FIG. 5, Claims 15-23 in the reply filed on 06/01/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/01/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 10-16, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2006-324613A (hereafter JP’613, 09/03/25 IDS, machine translation is provided) in view of JP2018-036484A (hereafter JP’484, 09/03/25 IDS, machine translation is provided).
Regarding claim 1, JP’613 discloses an optical pulse generation device (FIG. 2), comprising:
an optical resonator of mode-locked type (a fiber ring resonator of a passively mode-locked short pulse fiber laser, FIG. 2, [0028]), the optical resonator including an optical amplification medium (a gain medium 3 using an yttrium-doped optical fiber, FIG. 2, [0033]) and being configured to generate, amplify, and output laser light;
a light source (an excitation laser diode 5, FIG. 2, [0033]) optically coupled to the optical resonator and configured to supply excitation light to the optical amplification medium; and
a waveform controller (an optical dispersion compensator 11, FIG. 2, [0038]-[0040]) arranged in the optical resonator and configured to convert the laser light into an optical pulse train (FIG. 5, [0043]) including two or more optical pulses within a period of the optical resonator,
wherein the optical resonator amplifies the optical pulse train after the predetermined period and outputs the optical pulse train having amplified as the laser light (it’s implicitly taught by the fiber ring resonator in FIG. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
JP’613 does not disclose the waveform controller configured to control a time waveform of the laser light within a predetermined period.
JP’484 discloses a waveform controller (a time waveform shaper, 11, FIG. 2, [) configured to control a time waveform of the laser light (via a data creation unit 17 generating a control signal to drive a SLM 14, FIGS. 2 and 15, [0022] and [0052]) within a predetermined period to convert the laser light (P1, FIG. 2, [0016]) into an optical pulse train (P21/P22/P23, FIG. 2, [0017]) including two or more optical pulses within a period of the optical resonator.
PNG
media_image2.png
366
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the optical dispersion compensator of JP’613 with the time waveform shaper for controlling a time waveform of the laser light into the optical pulse train as taught by JP’484 in order to control the number of pulses and the temporal intensity waveform of the optical pulse train ([0053] of JP’484).
Regarding claim 2, JP’613, as modified, discloses a number of the two or more optical pulses and a time interval between the two or more optical pulses are variable (“the number of light pulses and the temporal intensity waveform can be variously changed by combining various phase spectra and intensity spectra,” [0024] of JP’484).
Regarding claim 8, JP’613, as modified, discloses the optical resonator generates the laser light as a single pulse (P1, FIG. 2 of JP’484) before the predetermined period, and the waveform controller includes: a spectral element (12, FIG. 2, [0021] of JP’484) for spectral diffraction of the laser light; a spatial light modulator (SLM 14, FIG. 2, [0021] of JP’484) configured to modulate at least one of an intensity spectrum and a phase spectrum of the laser light after spectral diffraction in order to convert the laser light into the optical pulse train, the spatial light modulator outputting modulated light; and an optical system (16, FIG. 2, [0023] of JP’484) configured to condense the modulated light and output the optical pulse train.
Regarding claim 10, the combination has disclosed the waveform controller outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except center wavelengths of the two or more optical pulses immediately after being converted by the waveform controller are the same with each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waveform controller of the combination with center wavelengths of the two or more optical pulses immediately after being converted by the waveform controller being the same with each other in order to obtain high pulse intensity at a center wavelength.
Regarding claim 11, JP’613, as modified, discloses center wavelengths of the two or more optical pulses immediately after being converted by the waveform controller are different from each other (P21/P22/P23 have different center wavelengths, FIG. 6 of JP’484).
Regarding claims 12-13, the combination has disclosed the waveform controller outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except the time waveform of the laser light is controlled only once or multiple times in the predetermined period. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waveform controller of the combination with controlling the time waveform of the laser light only once or multiple times in the predetermined period in order to obtain desired output pulse characteristics.
Regarding claim 14, JP’613, as modified, discloses a time interval between the two or more optical pulses is 10 femtoseconds or more and 10 nanoseconds or less (2 picoseconds or 2000 femtoseconds, [0085] of JP’484).
Regarding claims 15, 16, and 19-23, same rejections as applied to claims 1, 2, and 10-14 are maintained since the method claims 15, 16, and 19-23 contain substantially the same limitations as the product claims 1, 2, and 10-14.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’613 and JP’484 as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US PG Pub 2011/0304853 A1, 09/03/25 IDS).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the combination has disclosed the waveform controller outlined in the rejection to claims 1 and 16 above and further discloses a number of the two or more optical pulses is variable (“the number of light pulses and the temporal intensity waveform can be variously changed by combining various phase spectra and intensity spectra,” [0024] of JP’484) except a light intensity of the excitation light is variable, and the light intensity of the excitation light increases as the number of the two or more optical pulses forming the optical pulse train increases. Yamada discloses “the light source control unit 1512 controls the oscillation wavelength and intensity as well as their temporal changes of the wavelength variable light source 1501” ([0228]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source of the combination with a controller for controlling the light intensity of the light source as taught by Yamada in order to obtain variable intensity amplified output. It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waveform controller with increasing the number of optical pulses forming the optical pulse train as the light intensity of the excitation light increases in order to obtain high intensity output pulse train.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jablonski et al. (US Patent 7,372,880 B2) discloses pulsed lasers which employ carbon nanotubes, particularly layers of carbon nanotubes, as saturable absorbers, mode lockers or for Q-switching elements similar to the claimed invention (FIG. 1 and see abstract).
Wefers et al. (US Patent 5,682,262) discloses a pulse-shaping device 10 for shaping an input optical pulse 14 into an output optical waveform 19 similar to the claimed invention (see FIG. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUANDA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM - 6:30 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, 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.
/YUANDA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights