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 .
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukutsu et al. (US20210271099 A1) in view of Bowers et al. (US20120018653 A1).
Regarding Claim 1; Kukutsu et al. discloses a device for converting frequency of electromagnetic waves (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0037-0038) comprising a partial reflective surface (4a) disposed to be a predetermined distance from a second reflective surface, wherein an electromagnetic wave having a frequency corresponding to a resonator mode is emitted. Kukutsu et al. further discloses Fabry-Perot interference of electromagnetic waves between two reflective surfaces, wherein the electromagnetic waves are trapped and undergo multiple internal reflections. Kukutsu et al. does not expressly disclose a time-varying reflective surface whose reflectivity changes as time elapses. Bowers et al. explicitly discloses a device comprising time-varying reflective surfaces (Claim 79; (110,310)) whose reflectivity is controllably adjustable across a range of values both above and below that of a partially-reflecting surface (paragraph 0049; Claim 78). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to replace one of the surfaces in the Fabry-Perot cavity of the device of Kukutsu et al., with a time-varying reflective surface as taught by Bowers et al., in order to actively control the frequency output of Kukutsu et al.’s resonant Fabry-Perot cavity to enable on-demand selection and conversion of the output resonator mode frequency. The trapping of electromagnetic energy in a resonant cavity by transitioning the input surface from low-reflectivity to high-reflectivity is a direct and predictable application of well-known Fabry-Perot cavity physics; once confined between two reflective surfaces, it is fundamental and well understood in the art that only frequencies matching the resonator modes of the cavity are sustained.
Regarding Claim 2, Kukutsu discloses a generator (2) configured to generate electromagnetic waves (paragraph 0040). Bowers et al. also explicitly discloses an electromagnetic wave generator (160) and a controller (130) configured to control reflectivity and system operation. (see paragraphs 0060-0062; Claims 65, 78).
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 10, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukutsu et al. (US20210271099 A1) in view of Bowers et al. (US20120018653 A1) and Moeller et al. (US20080075134 A1)
Regarding Claim 3, Kukutsu et al. discloses a device for converting frequency of electromagnetic waves (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0037-0038) comprising a partial reflective surface (4a) disposed to be a predetermined distance from a second reflective surface, forming a resonant cavity (Fig. 12-14; paragraphs 0085-0086). Bowers et al. discloses a device for converting frequency of electromagnetic waves comprising a time-varying reflective surface (Claim 79; (110,310)). Neither Kukutsu et al. or Bowers et al. expressly teach that the time-varying or reflective surfaces are a surface of a semiconductor wafer, or that the partial reflective film is a reflective film through which an ultrafast laser pulse is incident onto the semiconductor wafer. Moeller et al. explicitly teaches an ultrafast laser pulse directed onto a semiconductor wafer, producing an electromagnetic output in the THz frequency range. Moeller et al. further discloses the semiconductor wafer has reflectivity that changes over time upon receipt of an ultrafast laser pulse (paragraphs 0020-0023; Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to implement the time-varying reflective surface combination of Kukutsu et al. and Bowers et al. as a semiconductor wafer whose reflectivity is switched by an ultrafast laser pulse, through the partial reflective film as taught by Moeller et al. as laser-induced free-carrier generation in a semiconductor as a mechanism for switching surface reflectivity is well known in the art, and would have been a predictable modification.
Regarding Claim 4, Kukutsu et al, Bowers et al., and Moeller et al. teach all the limitations of Claim 3. Kukutsu further discloses the first reflective surface (4a) of the cavity is disposed closer to the signal path of the incoming electromagnetic wave (Fig.12). Bowers et al. also discloses a patterned reflective film comprising a film layer and a reflective pattern disposed thereon forms the partially reflective surface, and in which the time-varying surface is disposed closer to the reflective film. (p. 6-7; 0055-0057; Figs. 2-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to implement the wafer surface closer to the reflective film as the time-varying reflective surface for an optimal wave path, and Bowers et al.’s patterned reflective film is a direct teaching of how to implement the partial reflective element in a layered structure.
Regarding Claim 7, Kukutsu et al. discloses a device for converting frequency of electromagnetic waves comprising two opposing reflective surfaces (4a,4b) formed in a semiconductor wafer (paragraphs 0043-0044, 0047-0048), spaced a predetermined distance apart, where electromagnetic waves are trapped and emitted at resonator mode frequencies (paragraphs 0085-0094, 0097; Figs. 12-14). Kukutsu et al. discloses that the first surface has fixed partial reflectivity. Kukutsu et al. does not expressly teach that one surface of the semiconductor wafer is a time-varying reflective surface whose reflectivity changes as time elapses upon receipt of an ultrafast laser pulse, or that the opposing surface carries a reflective pattern with fixed reflectivity. However, Bowers et al. teaches a time-varying reflective surface whose reflectivity is dynamically switchable by an external signal (paragraphs 0048-0052, 0060; Claims 78-79). Moeller et al. explicitly discloses one reflective surface of the semiconductor wafer receives an ultrafast laser pulse, while the opposing surface receives and partially reflects the electromagnetic wave (paragraphs 0020-0023; 0030). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to configure the second reflective surface of Kukutsu et al.’s semiconductor wafer as a time-varying reflective surface whose reflectivity is controlled by an ultrafast laser pulse as taught by Bowers et al. and Moeller et al. in combination, and to configure the first reflective surface as the fixed partial reflective as the combination represents a compact and structurally efficient integration of two well-known elements.
Regarding Claim 8, Kukutsu et al., Bowers et al., and Moeller et al. teach all the limitations of Claim 7. Moeller discloses that the semiconductor wafer uses GaAs-based semiconductor materials (paragraphs 0020-0023). Bowers et al. further discloses that reflective patterns on the film may be formed of metallic or conductive oxide materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to select such materials for the optical elements of the device of Kukutsu et al. and Bowers et al., as modified by Moeller et al., as the use of silicon, GaAs, and conductive materials was already well established in the art.
Regarding Claim 10, Kukutsu et al., Bowers et al., and Moeller et al. teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Bowers et al. discloses an electromagnetic wave generator (160) and a controller (130) configured to control reflectivity and system operation. (paragraphs 0060-0062; Claims 65, 78). Bowers et al. further discloses that reflectivity is controlled by an external signal (paragraph 0049), however Bowers et al. doesn’t explicitly disclose the external signal is a laser pulse generator configured to generate an ultrafast laser pulse. Moeller et al. explicitly teaches a laser pulse generator (101) configured to generate an ultrafast laser pulse wherein a controller can govern the timing of the laser pulses (paragraphs 0021-0022, 0040; Claims 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to include in the device of the parent claim, a laser pulse generator as taught by Moeller et al. and to allow the controller of Bowers et al. to control both the electromagnetic wave generator and the laser pulse generator. Coordinated electronic control of multiple signal sources in an optical device represents routine system-integration practice.
Regarding Claim 12, Kukutsu et al., Bowers et al., and Moeller et al. teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Bowers et al. discloses an electromagnetic wave generator (160) and a controller (130) configured to control reflectivity and system operation. (see paragraphs 0060-0062; Claims 65, 78). Bowers et al. further discloses that reflectivity is controlled by an external signal (see paragraph 49), however Bowers et al. doesn’t explicitly disclose the external signal is a laser pulse generator configured to generate an ultrafast laser pulse. Moeller et al. explicitly teaches a laser pulse generator (101) configured to generate an ultrafast laser pulse wherein a controller can govern the timing of the laser pulses (paragraphs 0021-0022, 0040; Claims 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to include in the device of the parent claim, a laser pulse generator as taught by Moeller et al. and to allow the controller of Bowers et al. to control both the electromagnetic wave generator and the laser pulse generator. Coordinated electronic control of multiple signal sources in an optical device represents routine system-integration practice.
Claims 5-6, 9, & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukutsu et al. (US20210271099 A1) in view of Bowers et al. (US20120018653 A1) and Moeller et al. (US20080075134 A1), and in further view of Nagashima et al. (EP1271115A2).
Regarding Claim 5, Kukutsu et al., Bowers et al., and Moeller et al. teach all the limitations the parent claim. Neither reference explicitly teaches that the reflective pattern has a wire grid shape with wires parallel to the electric field direction and a period less than the wavelength of the electromagnetic waves. Nagashima et al. explicitly teaches a wire-grid (30) formed with many metallic wires, evenly spaced apart, with a period significantly less than that of the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave (paragraph 0040). Nagashima et al. further teaches that the wires are parallel to the electric field (paragraphs 0040-0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the reflective pattern of Claim 4 as a wire grid with wires parallel to the electromagnetic field as taught by Nagashima et al. as the use of such a wire grid as the reflective pattern is would have been a predictable and routine design choice for a person implementing a frequency partial reflector in the Kukutsu/Bowers/Moeller device.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kukutsu et al., Bowers et al., Moeller et al., and Nagashima et al. teach all the limitations of the parent claim. Moeller et al. discloses that the semiconductor wafer uses GaAs-based semiconductor materials (paragraphs 0020-0023). Bowers et al. further discloses that reflective patterns on the film may be formed of metallic or conductive oxide materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to select such materials for the optical elements of the device of Kukutsu et al. and Bowers et al., as modified by Moeller et al., as the use of silicon, GaAs, and conductive materials was already well established in the art.
Regarding Claim 9, Kukutsu et al., Bowers et al., and Moeller et al. teach all the limitations of Claim 7. Neither reference explicitly teaches that the reflective pattern has a wire grid shape with wires parallel to the electric field direction and a period less than the wavelength of the electromagnetic waves. Nagashima et al. explicitly teaches a wire-grid (30) formed with many metallic wires, evenly spaced apart, with a period significantly less than that of the wavelength of the electromagnetic wave (paragraph 0040). Nagashima et al. further teaches that the wires are parallel to the electric field (paragraphs 0040-0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the reflective pattern of Claim 7 as a wire grid with wires parallel to the electromagnetic field as taught by Nagashima et al. as the use of such a wire grid as the reflective pattern is would have been a predictable and routine design choice for a person implementing a frequency partial reflector in the Kukutsu/Bowers/Moeller device.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Kukutsu et al., Bowers et al., Moeller et al., and Nagashima et al. teach all the limitations the parent claim. Moeller et al. discloses that the semiconductor wafer uses GaAs-based semiconductor materials (paragraphs 0020-0023). Bowers et al. further discloses that reflective patterns on the film may be formed of metallic or conductive oxide materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to select such materials for the optical elements of the device of Kukutsu et al. and Bowers et al., as modified by Moeller et al. and Nagashima et al., as the use of silicon, GaAs, and conductive materials was already well established in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASIM KAIRI COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-9685. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 5712701739. 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.
/NASIM KAIRI COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights