DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 45 originally filed 13 October 2023. By amendment received 13 October 2023; claims 9 through 13 and 31 through 35 are cancelled. Claims 1 through 8, 14 through 30, and 36 through 45 are addressed by this 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1).
Each of figures 2C, 3C, 3D, 5, 6, 7C, 8A, and 8B include multiple views that are not separately labeled. Each view must be individually labeled.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15, 16, 37, and 38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 15, this claim requires "Wherein the nonlinear energy spectrum is realized by inserting a Kerr nonlinear medium into the cavity." Since this claim is directed toward a device rather than the method of fabricating a device, the use of the verb "inserting" can only mean that the claimed device is actuated to insert a nonlinear medium and that this process of insertion is what causes the claimed effect to arise. However, it is clear from the disclosure that the "insertion" of the nonlinear medium is a fabrication step and there is no indication that movement of the nonlinear medium after fabrication is what causes the claimed effect. To the contrary, the disclosure indicates that the claimed effect is achieved by the presence of this nonlinear medium within the cavity and makes no mention of movement thereof. Since the claimed effect is disclosed as being achieved in a different manner than the only contextually appropriate meaning of this claim, the disclosure cannot enable this meaning of this claim. As such, this claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as meaning that the claimed insertion is a fabrication step in creating the claimed device and not that the claimed device performs the claimed insertion.
Regarding claim 37, this claim requires "Wherein the nonlinear energy spectrum is realized by inserting a Kerr nonlinear medium into the cavity." Since this claim is directed toward a device rather than the method of fabricating a device, the use of the verb "inserting" can only mean that the claimed device is actuated to insert a nonlinear medium and that this process of insertion is what causes the claimed effect to arise. However, it is clear from the disclosure that the "insertion" of the nonlinear medium is a fabrication step and there is no indication that movement of the nonlinear medium after fabrication is what causes the claimed effect. To the contrary, the disclosure indicates that the claimed effect is achieved by the presence of this nonlinear medium within the cavity and makes no mention of movement thereof. Since the claimed effect is disclosed as being achieved in a different manner than the only contextually appropriate meaning of this claim, the disclosure cannot enable this meaning of this claim. As such, this claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as meaning that the claimed insertion is a fabrication step in creating the claimed device and not that the claimed device performs the claimed insertion.
Regarding claims 16 and 38, each of these claims depend properly from one of claims 15 and 37 and inherit all limitations thereof. As such, these claims are 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.
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, 5, 7, 8, 16, 19, 27, 29, 30, 38, and 41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Regarding claim 3, this claim requires "Wherein the gain medium comprises one or more of the following: a. a solid-state gain medium (such as YAG, YAP, LuAG, YVO4, KGW with Nd, Er, Tm, Yb, or other rare-earth dopants), Ti:Sapphire, Ruby, b. a gain medium based on a semiconductor such as GaAs, AlGaAs, GaInAsP, InP, InGaAs, GaN or one or multiple quantum wells, c. a gain medium based on quantum dots, d. a gain medium based on dyes such as rhodamine-6G, e. gases such as He-Ne mixtures or CO2." However, this usage of the lists prefaced by the phrase "such as" as well as the parenthetical listing of examples constitutes a listing of exemplary optional elements. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims (MPEP §2173.05(d)). By including these lists of examples within the claim, it is unclear to what degree the remainder of the claim is limited. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as though the all listings of exemplary optional elements were entirely absent from the claim.
Additionally, The above language introduces the recited list of alternatives using the transitional phrase "comprises". Use of the transitional phrase "comprises" in this manner causes the grouping to produce an open list of alternatives. A claimed listing of alternatives must be closed (MPEP §2173.05(h)I). As such, this claim is indefinite for this additional reason as 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as a closed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 5, this claim requires "The two mirrors having any geometry (e.g. a planar Fabry-Perot cavity, a confocal or semi-confocal cavity, a spherical or hemi-spherical cavity, or an unstable resonator)." However, this usage of the parenthetical listing of examples constitutes a listing of exemplary optional elements. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims (MPEP §2173.05(d)). By including this list of examples within the claim, it is unclear to what degree the remainder of the claim is limited. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as though the all listings of exemplary optional elements were entirely absent from the claim.
Regarding claim 7, this claim requires "Wherein the optical filter comprises at least one of notch, edge, band-pass filters or more general filter shapes." The above language introduces the recited list of alternatives using the transitional phrase "comprises". Use of the transitional phrase "comprises" in this manner causes the grouping to produce an open list of alternatives. A claimed listing of alternatives must be closed (MPEP §2173.05(h)I). As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as a closed list of alternatives.
Additionally, this claim requires "[The optical filter] may be realized based on thin films, coupled resonances, Fano resonances, (surface and volume) diffraction (Bragg) gratings, fiber gratings, and bistable optical systems." However, by using the transitional phrase "may be" to introduce this limitation, this limitation becomes entirely optional. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims (MPEP §2173.05(d)). By including this optional limitation within the claim, it is unclear how or if these options restrict the meaning of the remainder of the claim. As such, this claim is indefinite for this additional reason as 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as only requiring the presence of some manner of optical filter.
Regarding claim 8, this claim requires "Wherein a sharpness of the optical filter at some frequency, ω, is at least 1 part in 102, 103, 104, 105, or 106, wherein the sharpness is defined as Δω/ω, where Δω is defined as a frequency deviation from ω required for a transmission of the optical filter to double." Due to the requirement of multiple overlapping and progressively narrower ranges, it is unclear if the narrower ranges are exemplary or required. Since it is unclear what is required by this claim, this claim is determined to be indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as requiring only the broadest recited range.
Regarding claim 16, this claim requires "Wherein the Kerr nonlinear medium comprises GaAs, Ge, ZnTe (and general semiconductors), Si, Si3N4, GaP, Silica, chalcogenide glasses such as As2S3 or As2Se3, nonlinear gases such as CS2, saturable absorbing media (such as Cr:YAG), or polymers such as PTS or DDMEBT." However, this usage of the lists prefaced by the phrase "such as" as well as the parenthetical listing of examples constitutes a listing of exemplary optional elements. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims (MPEP §2173.05(d)). By including these lists of examples within the claim, it is unclear to what degree the remainder of the claim is limited. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as though the all listings of exemplary optional elements were entirely absent from the claim.
Additionally, The above language introduces the recited list of alternatives using the transitional phrase "comprises". Use of the transitional phrase "comprises" in this manner causes the grouping to produce an open list of alternatives. A claimed listing of alternatives must be closed (MPEP §2173.05(h)I). As such, this claim is indefinite for this additional reason as 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as a closed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 19, this claim requires "Wherein the nonlinear energy spectrum is realized by coupling two levels of a quantum system, such as an atom or molecule or artificial atom such as a quantum dot or quantum well, to the cavity." However, this usage of the lists prefaced by the phrase "such as" constitutes a listing of exemplary optional elements. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims (MPEP §2173.05(d)). By including these lists of examples within the claim, it is unclear to what degree the remainder of the claim is limited. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as though the all listings of exemplary optional elements were entirely absent from the claim.
Regarding claim 27, this claim requires "The two mirrors having any geometry (e.g., a planar Fabry-Perot cavity, a confocal or semi-confocal cavity, a spherical or hemi-spherical cavity, or an unstable resonator)." However, this usage of the parenthetical listing of examples constitutes a listing of exemplary optional elements. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims (MPEP §2173.05(d)). By including this list of examples within the claim, it is unclear to what degree the remainder of the claim is limited. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as though the all listings of exemplary optional elements were entirely absent from the claim.
Regarding claim 29, this claim requires "Wherein the optical filter comprises at least one of notch, edge, band-pass filters or more general filter shapes." The above language introduces the recited list of alternatives using the transitional phrase "comprises". Use of the transitional phrase "comprises" in this manner causes the grouping to produce an open list of alternatives. A claimed listing of alternatives must be closed (MPEP §2173.05(h)I). As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as a closed list of alternatives.
Additionally, this claim requires "[The optical filter] may be realized based on thin films, coupled resonances, Fano resonances, (surface and volume) diffraction (Bragg) gratings, fiber gratings, bistable optical systems." However, by using the transitional phrase "may be" to introduce this limitation, this limitation becomes entirely optional. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims (MPEP §2173.05(d)). By including this optional limitation within the claim, it is unclear how or if these options restrict the meaning of the remainder of the claim. As such, this claim is indefinite for this additional reason as 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as only requiring the presence of some manner of optical filter.
Regarding claim 30, this claim requires "Wherein a sharpness of the optical filter at some frequency, ω, is at least 1 part in 102, 103, 104, 105, or 106, wherein the sharpness is defined as Δω/ω, where Δω is defined as a frequency deviation from ω required for a transmission of the optical filter to double." Due to the requirement of multiple overlapping and progressively narrower ranges, it is unclear if the narrower ranges are exemplary or required. Since it is unclear what is required by this claim, this claim is determined to be indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as requiring only the broadest recited range.
Regarding claim 38, this claim requires "Wherein the Kerr nonlinear medium comprises GaAs, Ge, ZnTe (and general semiconductors), Si, Si3N4, GaP, silica, chalcogenide glasses such as As2S3 or As2Se3, nonlinear gases such as CS2, saturable absorbing media (such as Cr:YAG), or polymers such as PTS or DDMEBT." However, this usage of the lists prefaced by the phrase "such as" as well as the parenthetical listing of examples constitutes a listing of exemplary optional elements. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims (MPEP §2173.05(d)). By including these lists of examples within the claim, it is unclear to what degree the remainder of the claim is limited. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as though the all listings of exemplary optional elements were entirely absent from the claim.
Additionally, The above language introduces the recited list of alternatives using the transitional phrase "comprises". Use of the transitional phrase "comprises" in this manner causes the grouping to produce an open list of alternatives. A claimed listing of alternatives must be closed (MPEP §2173.05(h)I). As such, this claim is indefinite for this additional reason as 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as a closed list of alternatives.
Regarding claim 41, this claim requires "Wherein the nonlinear energy spectrum is realized by coupling two levels of a quantum system, such as an atom or molecule or artificial atom such as a quantum dot or quantum well, to the cavity." However, this usage of the lists prefaced by the phrase "such as" constitutes a listing of exemplary optional elements. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims (MPEP §2173.05(d)). By including these lists of examples within the claim, it is unclear to what degree the remainder of the claim is limited. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted as though the all listings of exemplary optional elements were entirely absent from the claim.
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, 6 through 8, 20, 22, 24, 28 through 30, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arkhipov et al. (Arkhipov, "Experimental detection of nonclassicality of single-mode fields via intensity moments," 26 Dec. 2016, Opt Express, Vol. 24, No. 26, pp. 29496-29505) in view of Isogai et al. (Isogai, "Frequency Dependent Squeezing Roadmap toward 10dB," Oct. 2017, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp. 1-37).
Arkhipov and Isogai were initially cited in IDS dated 22 December 2023.
Regarding claim 1, Arkhipov discloses, "Generation of sub-Poissonian states of radiation at optical and infrared frequencies" (pg. 29501 and Fig. 1, where sub-Poissonian states are generated at 560nm). "A pump" (pg. 29501 and Fig. 1, where the laser source provides the pump). "A gain medium" (pg. 29501 and Fig. 1, where the BBO provides the gain medium). "A cavity" (pg. 29501 and Fig. 1, where the laser source includes a cavity). Arkhipov does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein apparatus exhibits a sharp frequency dependent gain or loss." Isogai discloses, "Wherein apparatus exhibits a sharp frequency dependent gain or loss" (pg. 3, 4, and 14, where the cavity presents a sharp frequency dependent loss). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arkhipov with the teachings of Isogai. In view of the teachings of Arkhipov regarding a device for producing sub-Poissonian emission, the additional inclusion of a sharp frequency dependent gain or loss as taught by Isogai would enhance the teachings of Arkhipov by providing an additional mechanism for achieving the squeezed state of Arkhipov (see pg. 29498 of Arkhipov discussing the desire for a squeezed state therein).
Regarding claim 6, Arkhipov does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the sharp frequency dependent loss is realized by an optical filter." Isogai discloses, "Wherein the sharp frequency dependent loss is realized by an optical filter" (pg. 3, 4, and 14, where the cavity operates as a filter with a sharp frequency dependent loss). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arkhipov with the teachings of Isogai for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Arkhipov discloses, "Wherein the optical filter comprises at least one of notch, edge, band-pass filters or more general filter shapes" (pg. 29501 and Fig. 1, where the signal and idler are filtered by an interference filter that is a bandpass filter and is necessarily formed of thin films). "[The optical filter] may be realized based on thin films, coupled resonances, Fano resonances, (surface and volume) diffraction (Bragg) gratings, fiber gratings, and bistable optical systems" (pg. 29501 and Fig. 1, where the signal and idler are filtered by an interference filter that is a bandpass filter and is necessarily formed of thin films).
Regarding claim 8, Arkhipov discloses, "Wherein a sharpness of the optical filter at some frequency, ω, is at least 1 part in 102, 103, 104, 105, or 106, wherein the sharpness is defined as Δω/ω, where Δω is defined as a frequency deviation from ω required for a transmission of the optical filter to double" (pg. 29501, Fig. 1, where a 14nm bandpass at 560nm provides a sharpness of 2.5 parts in 100 which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 20, Arkhipov does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the gain medium exhibits the sharp frequency dependent gain." Isogai discloses, "Wherein the gain medium exhibits the sharp frequency dependent gain" (pg. 27, where the cavity exhibits sharp frequency dependent gains). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arkhipov with the teachings of Isogai for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, Arkhipov discloses, "Wherein a nonlinear crystal is disposed within the cavity" (pg. 29501 and Fig. 1, where the nonlinear BBO crystal provides the gain). "Wherein the nonlinear crystal in conjunction with the gain medium together realize an effectively sharp gain" (pg. 29501 and Fig. 1, where the nonlinear BBO crystal provides the gain).
Regarding claim 24, Arkhipov discloses, "Generation of sub-Poissonian states of radiation at optical and infrared frequencies" (pg. 29501 and Fig. 1, where sub-Poissonian states are generated at 560nm). "A cavity" (pg. 29501 and Fig. 1, where the laser source provides the pump). "A source of pump radiation to populate the cavity with an initial number of photons" (pg. 29501 and Fig. 1, where the laser source includes a cavity). Arkhipov does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein apparatus exhibits a sharp frequency dependent gain or loss." Isogai discloses, "Wherein apparatus exhibits a sharp frequency dependent gain or loss" (pg. 3, 4, and 14, where the cavity presents a sharp frequency dependent loss). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arkhipov with the teachings of Isogai for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 28, Arkhipov does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the sharp frequency dependent loss is realized by an optical filter." Isogai discloses, "Wherein the sharp frequency dependent loss is realized by an optical filter" (pg. 3, 4, and 14, where the cavity operates as a filter with a sharp frequency dependent loss). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arkhipov with the teachings of Isogai for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, Arkhipov discloses, "Wherein the optical filter comprises at least one of notch, edge, band-pass filters or more general filter shapes" (pg. 29501 and Fig. 1, where the signal and idler are filtered by an interference filter that is a bandpass filter and is necessarily formed of thin films). "[The optical filter] may be realized based on thin films, coupled resonances, Fano resonances, (surface and volume) diffraction (Bragg) gratings, fiber gratings, bistable optical systems" (pg. 29501 and Fig. 1, where the signal and idler are filtered by an interference filter that is a bandpass filter and is necessarily formed of thin films).
Regarding claim 30, Arkhipov discloses, "Wherein a sharpness of the optical filter at some frequency, ω, is at least 1 part in 102, 103, 104, 105, or 106, wherein the sharpness is defined as Δω/ω, where Δω is defined as a frequency deviation from ω required for a transmission of the optical filter to double" (pg. 29501, Fig. 1, where a 14nm bandpass at 560nm provides a sharpness of 2.5 parts in 100 which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 44, Arkhipov does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the apparatus exhibits a sharp frequency dependent loss and no gain." Isogai discloses, "Wherein the apparatus exhibits a sharp frequency dependent loss and no gain" (pg. 3, 4, and 14, where the filter cavity exhibits a sharp loss and no gain). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arkhipov with the teachings of Isogai for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 45, Arkhipov does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the apparatus exhibits a sharp frequency dependent loss and a non-frequency dependent gain." Isogai discloses, "Wherein the apparatus exhibits a sharp frequency dependent loss and a non-frequency dependent gain" (pg. 29, where the cavity experiences frequency dependent loss and frequency independent gains). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arkhipov with the teachings of Isogai for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Claims 2 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arkhipov, in view of Isogai, and further in view of Lim et al. (Lim, US Patent 5,757,837).
Lim was initially cited in IDS dated 22 December 2023.
Regarding claim 2, Arkhipov does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the gain medium, the absorbing medium, or the cavity exhibits a sharp frequency dependent gain or loss." Isogai discloses, "Wherein the gain medium, the absorbing medium, or the cavity exhibits a sharp frequency dependent gain or loss" (pg. 3, 4, and 14, where the cavity presents a sharp frequency dependent loss). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arkhipov with the teachings of Isogai for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "An absorbing medium, which absorbs strongly at optical infrared frequencies." Lim discloses, "An absorbing medium, which absorbs strongly at optical infrared frequencies" (col. 2, lines 35-43, col. 4, lines 20-24, and Fig. 1, pt. 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Lim. In view of the teachings of Arkhipov regarding a device for producing sub-Poissonian emission, the additional inclusion of an absorbing medium as taught by Lim would enhance the teachings of Arkhipov and Isogai by allowing the operation of the emission to be monitored in a highly responsive manner.
Regarding claim 25, Arkhipov does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the absorbing medium or the cavity exhibits a sharp frequency dependent gain or loss." Isogai discloses, "Wherein the absorbing medium or the cavity exhibits a sharp frequency dependent gain or loss" (pg. 3, 4, and 14, where the cavity presents a sharp frequency dependent loss). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Arkhipov with the teachings of Isogai for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "An absorbing medium, which absorbs strongly at optical or infrared frequencies." Lim discloses, "An absorbing medium, which absorbs strongly at optical or infrared frequencies" (col. 2, lines 35-43, col. 4, lines 20-24, and Fig. 1, pt. 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Lim for the reasons provided above regarding claim 2.
Claims 3, 14 through 17, and 36 through 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arkhipov, in view of Isogai, and further in view of Bermel et al. (Bermel, US Pub. 2011/0002574).
Bermel was initially cited in IDS dated 22 December 2023.
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the gain medium comprises one or more of the following: a. a solid-state gain medium (such as YAG, YAP, LuAG, YVO4, KGW with Nd, Er, Tm, Yb, or other rare-earth dopants), Ti:Sapphire, Ruby, b. a gain medium based on a semiconductor such as GaAs, AlGaAs, GaInAsP, InP, InGaAs, GaN or one or multiple quantum wells, c. a gain medium based on quantum dots, d. a gain medium based on dyes such as rhodamine-6G, e. gases such as He-Ne mixtures or CO2." Bermel discloses, "Wherein the gain medium comprises one or more of the following: a. a solid-state gain medium (such as YAG, YAP, LuAG, YVO4, KGW with Nd, Er, Tm, Yb, or other rare-earth dopants), Ti:Sapphire, Ruby, b. a gain medium based on a semiconductor such as GaAs, AlGaAs, GaInAsP, InP, InGaAs, GaN or one or multiple quantum wells, c. a gain medium based on quantum dots, d. a gain medium based on dyes such as rhodamine-6G, e. gases such as He-Ne mixtures or CO2" (p. [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Bermel. In view of the teachings of Arkhipov regarding a device for producing sub-Poissonian emission, the alternate construction of the nonlinear medium from semiconductor materials as taught by Bermel would enhance the teachings of Arkhipov and Isogai by providing a suitably alternate material and arrangement thereof for achieving the required nonlinear conversion.
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the cavity comprises a nonlinear energy spectrum." Bermel discloses, "Wherein the cavity comprises a nonlinear energy spectrum" (p. [0026], [0057], and Fig. 4, pts. 38 and 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Bermel for the reasons provided above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the nonlinear energy spectrum is realized by inserting a Kerr nonlinear medium into the cavity." Bermel discloses, "Wherein the nonlinear energy spectrum is realized by inserting a Kerr nonlinear medium into the cavity" (p. [0026], [0057], and Fig. 4, pts. 38 and 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Bermel for the reasons provided above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the Kerr nonlinear medium comprises GaAs, Ge, ZnTe (and general semiconductors), Si, Si3N4, GaP, Silica, chalcogenide glasses such as As2S3 or As2Se3, nonlinear gases such as CS2, saturable absorbing media (such as Cr:YAG), or polymers such as PTS or DDMEBT." Bermel discloses, "Wherein the Kerr nonlinear medium comprises GaAs, Ge, ZnTe (and general semiconductors), Si, Si3N4, GaP, Silica, chalcogenide glasses such as As2S3 or As2Se3, nonlinear gases such as CS2, saturable absorbing media (such as Cr:YAG), or polymers such as PTS or DDMEBT" (p. [0043], [0057], and Fig. 4, pts. 38 and 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Bermel for the reasons provided above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the nonlinear energy spectrum is realized by inserting fifth-, seventh-, or higher-order nonlinear medium into the cavity." Bermel discloses, "Wherein the nonlinear energy spectrum is realized by inserting fifth-, seventh-, or higher-order nonlinear medium into the cavity" (p. [0088], where a higher harmonic is produced in the nonlinear optical processes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Bermel for the reasons provided above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 36, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the cavity comprises a nonlinear energy spectrum." Bermel discloses, "Wherein the cavity comprises a nonlinear energy spectrum" (p. [0026], [0057], and Fig. 4, pts. 38 and 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Bermel for the reasons provided above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 37, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the nonlinear energy spectrum is realized by inserting a Kerr nonlinear medium into the cavity." Bermel discloses, "Wherein the nonlinear energy spectrum is realized by inserting a Kerr nonlinear medium into the cavity" (p. [0026], [0057], and Fig. 4, pts. 38 and 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Bermel for the reasons provided above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 38, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the Kerr nonlinear medium comprises GaAs, Ge, ZnTe (and general semiconductors), Si, Si3N4, GaP, silica, chalcogenide glasses such as As2S3 or As2Se3, nonlinear gases such as CS2, saturable absorbing media (such as Cr:YAG), or polymers such as PTS or DDMEBT." Bermel discloses, "Wherein the Kerr nonlinear medium comprises GaAs, Ge, ZnTe (and general semiconductors), Si, Si3N4, GaP, silica, chalcogenide glasses such as As2S3 or As2Se3, nonlinear gases such as CS2, saturable absorbing media (such as Cr:YAG), or polymers such as PTS or DDMEBT" (p. [0043], [0057], and Fig. 4, pts. 38 and 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Bermel for the reasons provided above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 39, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the nonlinear energy spectrum is realized by inserting fifth-, seventh-, or higher-order nonlinear medium into the cavity." Bermel discloses, "Wherein the nonlinear energy spectrum is realized by inserting fifth-, seventh-, or higher-order nonlinear medium into the cavity" (p. [0088], where a higher harmonic is produced in the nonlinear optical processes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Bermel for the reasons provided above regarding claim 3.
Claims 4, 5, 23, 26, 27, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arkhipov, in view of Isogai, and further in view of Bogoni et al. (Bogoni, US Pub. 2009/0116089).
Bogoni was initially cited in IDS dated 22 December 2023.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the cavity comprises a nonlinear cavity." Bogoni discloses, "Wherein the cavity comprises a nonlinear cavity" (p. [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Bogoni. In view of the teachings of Arkhipov regarding a device for producing sub-Poissonian emission and the teachings of Isogai regarding the inclusion of a sharp frequency dependent gain or loss, the additional inclusion of a nonlinear cavity with a sharp frequency response as taught by Bogoni would enhance the teachings of Arkhipov and Isogai by providing an additional mechanism for providing a sharp frequency response in the nonlinear medium.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the nonlinear cavity comprises a cavity formed by two mirrors." "The two mirrors having any geometry (e.g. a planar Fabry-Perot cavity, a confocal or semi-confocal cavity, a spherical or hemi-spherical cavity, or an unstable resonator)." Bogoni discloses, "Wherein the nonlinear cavity comprises a cavity formed by two mirrors" (p. [0031] and Fig. 1, pts. M1 and M2). "The two mirrors having any geometry (e.g. a planar Fabry-Perot cavity, a confocal or semi-confocal cavity, a spherical or hemi-spherical cavity, or an unstable resonator)" (p. [0031] and Fig. 1, pts. M1 and M2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Bogoni for the reasons provided above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 23, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein at least one frequency dependent mirror is disposed in the cavity." "Wherein the frequency dependent mirror causes the cavity to exhibit a sharp frequency dependent loss." Bogoni discloses, "Wherein at least one frequency dependent mirror is disposed in the cavity" (p. [0031]). "Wherein the frequency dependent mirror causes the cavity to exhibit a sharp frequency dependent loss" (p. [0045] and Fig. 7A, where the mirror exhibits sharp frequency dependence at high power operation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Bogoni for the reasons provided above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 26, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the cavity comprises a nonlinear cavity." Bogoni discloses, "Wherein the cavity comprises a nonlinear cavity" (p. [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Bogoni for the reasons provided above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 27, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the nonlinear cavity comprises a cavity formed by two mirrors." "The two mirrors having any geometry (e.g., a planar Fabry-Perot cavity, a confocal or semi-confocal cavity, a spherical or hemi-spherical cavity, or an unstable resonator)." Bogoni discloses, "Wherein the nonlinear cavity comprises a cavity formed by two mirrors" (p. [0031] and Fig. 1, pts. M1 and M2). "The two mirrors having any geometry (e.g., a planar Fabry-Perot cavity, a confocal or semi-confocal cavity, a spherical or hemi-spherical cavity, or an unstable resonator)" (p. [0031] and Fig. 1, pts. M1 and M2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Bogoni for the reasons provided above regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 43, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein at least one frequency dependent mirror is disposed in the cavity." "Wherein the frequency dependent mirror causes the cavity to exhibit a sharp frequency dependent loss." Bogoni discloses, "Wherein at least one frequency dependent mirror is disposed in the cavity" (p. [0031]). "Wherein the frequency dependent mirror causes the cavity to exhibit a sharp frequency dependent loss" (p. [0045] and Fig. 7A, where the mirror exhibits sharp frequency dependence at high power operation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Bogoni for the reasons provided above regarding claim 4.
Claims 21 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arkhipov, in view of Isogai, and further in view of Chemla et al. (Chemla, US Patent 4,597,638).
Regarding claim 21, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a semiconductor or insulating material is placed in the cavity." "Wherein the semiconductor or insulating material is operated near the band-edge to create the sharp frequency dependent gain." Chemla discloses, "Wherein a semiconductor or insulating material is placed in the cavity" (col. 5, lines 38-45, and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "Wherein the semiconductor or insulating material is operated near the band-edge to create the sharp frequency dependent gain" (col. 9, lines 8-21, and Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Chemla. In view of the teachings of Arkhipov regarding a device for producing sub-Poissonian emission and the teachings of Isogai regarding the inclusion of a sharp frequency dependent gain or loss, the alternate use of a semiconductor operating near a band-edge as taught by Chemla would enhance the teachings of Arkhipov and Isogai by allowing the device to operate near a regime where the operational frequency is limited.
Regarding claim 42, The combination of Arkhipov and Isogai does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a semiconductor or insulating material is placed in the cavity." "Wherein the semiconductor or insulating material is operated near the band-edge to create the sharp frequency dependent gain." Chemla discloses, "Wherein a semiconductor or insulating material is placed in the cavity" (col. 5, lines 38-45, and Fig. 1, pt. 120). "Wherein the semiconductor or insulating material is operated near the band-edge to create the sharp frequency dependent gain" (col. 9, lines 8-21, and Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Arkhipov and Isogai with the teachings of Chemla for the reasons provided above regarding claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 40 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.
Claims 19 and 41 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 18 depends properly from claims 1 and 14 and requires the apparatus of those claims to additionally include exciton-cavity coupling that exceeds the dissipation rates of the exciton and cavity separately.
Arkhipov is notable for teaching an arrangement for producing sub-Poissonian states. However, Arkhipov makes no mention of a comparison between exciton-cavity coupling to any particular dissipation rates.
Similarly, Isogai and Bermel are notable for teaching other claimed elements. However, these references also make no mention of a comparison between exciton-cavity coupling to any particular dissipation rates.
The prior art is silent as to any comparison between exciton-cavity coupling to any particular dissipation rates. Accordingly, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate within this regime. As such, claim 18 contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 19 depends properly from claims 1 and 14 and requires the apparatus of those claims to additionally include coupling between two quantum states in a dispersive strong-coupling regime. The detuning of the quantum system and the cavity is also larger than their dissipation rates. These features are absent from the prior art in a manner similar to how the above noted features of claim 18 are absent from the prior art. As such, claim 19 also contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 40 depends properly from claims 24 and 36 and requires features that are similar to those recited in claim 18 including the features thereof supporting the allowance of claim 18. As such, this claim also contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 41 depends properly from claims 24 and 36 and requires features that are similar to those recited in claim 19 including the features thereof supporting the allowance of claim 19. As such, this claim also contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vahala et al. (Vahala, US Patent 5,199,038) is cited for teaching an arrangement for squeezing intensity noise below normal quantum limits.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights