DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election and amendment filed on February 6, 2026. In accordance with this amendment, claims 1, 3, 10, 14, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 22-23 are non-elected (“Withdrawn” from consideration) without traverse. Claims 1-21 are examined herein in a 1st office action on the merits, with claim 1 as the sole independent claim.
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 I, claims 1-21, in the reply filed on February 6, 2026 is acknowledged. Further, Applicant has amended sole examined independent claim 1 (of Group I) to remove features of the distinct Species. Therefore, that Species requirement (between Species I, II, and III) has been obviated. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that independent claim 1 is broader than originally claimed in the claim set dated May 15, 2023.
Claims 22-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 6, 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on November 22, 2024 and January 23, 2024, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (twenty-six (26) pages) were received on May 15, 2023. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding independent claim 1, the term “a sample” should be more clearly outlined in the claim body before reference. For example, see Applicant’s Fig. 1(a) and the “Sample 116.” Notably, distinct identifying language in the claim body such as “a sample coupled to the resonator”, and then the closing section “an output of the resonator, for outputting one or more output EM waves comprising information about the sample”, could be updated. Such claiming more concisely organizes such features of the claim and requires that the “sample” (feature 116) is actually required and is not an intended use of the “sensor” of claim 1. Regarding claim 4, the terms “further comprising” and “comprising the resonator” are awkward. Notable, the sensor does not “further comprise” an OPO. Conversely, an OPO is an example of a type of nonlinear structural feature that makes up the resonator (the resonator is already found in claim 1). Therefore, nothing is “further” comprised in claim 4, but claim 4 is merely an example of a type of the structure already claimed by claim 1. Regarding claim 7, using parenthesis should be avoided, use of commas is preferred. Therefore, the feature “(for lasing of the resonant EM waves)” should be updated with commas. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stothard US 2018/0266914 A1 (which has matured into U.S. Patent No. 11,221,271 B2), as applied to sole independent claim 1, and further in view of Gray et al. NPL “Quadratic Cavity Solitons for Enhanced Optical Gas Sensing” and Henderson U.S. Patent No. 7,620,077 B2.
Regarding sole examined independent claim 1, Stothard US 2018/0266914 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 3-10; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0002] – [0005], [0013] – [[0019], [0033], [0042] – [0060]; Claims) a sensor (“photoacoustic sensor for detecting trace amounts of hydrocarbons in gases or liquids”, Title), comprising: a resonator comprising a nonlinear material comprising a nonlinear susceptibility configured to convert a pump electromagnetic wave (EM) wave to a signal EM wave and an idler EM wave (Signal and Idler, see para [0042] – [0043], intracavity OPO using nonlinear material (see Fig. 5) to down-convert pump light into the signal and idler), wherein at least one of the pump EM wave, the signal EM wave and/or the idler EM wave is fed back through the nonlinear material to form one or more resonant EM waves (the cavity using mirrors M1 and M2 feeds back optical EM signals in resonant form; paras [0011], [0043], [0050]; Figs. 4, 6, and 7); an actuator (Modulator, Fig. 4; Differently positioned Modulator of Figs. 6 and 7) coupled to the resonator or a pump path to the resonator, for controlling at an operation point of the resonator; and an output of the resonator (light(s) output), for outputting one or more output EM waves, which comprise information (note breadth of “information” in a generic context).
Regarding independent claim 1, there is no express and exact teaching found within Stothard US ‘914 for the output of the resonator feature(s) to comprise information about a sample coupled to the resonator. However, the Examiner would first like to note that there is no direct claiming in claim 1 about how / where this “sample” is coupled to the resonator. Any such sample, in the secondary prior art references to follow, could be coupled to the resonator at any location of the overall “sensor” of claim 1. Therefore, the breadth of this “sample” feature with “information” is duly noted.
Gray et al. NPL “Quadratic Cavity Solitons for Enhanced Optical Gas Sensing” teaches (see ABS; Entire Document; 2 pages, Fig. 1(a) – (c), 2) a sensor with an output of an OPO resonator that includes a cavity and a gas sample that is input to the cavity, such sample including information that is part of the resultant output and used to measure signal powers of a Signal light at a photodetector, to indicate these changes based on pump power(s) and different sample concentrations (information); and Henderson U.S. Patent No. 7,620,077 B2 teaches (ABS; Figs. 3A, 3B, 22; corresponding text for OPO resonator cavity features; see also column 13, line 3-49; Claims) an OPO that uses analysis with a gas sample to be analyzed (detected at the output) for the purpose and motivation to improve beam quality and to allow effective coupling with combined features of optical elements used in conjunction with the OPO fiber laser design (see column 13, lines 3-49). The intended use of adding a “sample” with “information” is thus taught by both the Gray NPL and Henderson US ‘077 prior art documents, with clear motivations to improving analysis and detection.
Since Stothard US ‘914 and Gray NPL / Henderson US ‘077 are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Gray NPL / Henderson US ‘077 would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Stothard US ‘914.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teachings of Gray NPL / Henderson US ‘077, to include a “sample” as part of the input to a resonator (based on OPO nonlinear optics), with “information” as part of such sample to be detected / analyzed at the output, into the base design of the nonlinear OPO based sensor with a resonator cavity such as in Stothard US ‘914, to allow features of feedback detectable at the output based on such a sample, which is used to improve overall beam quality by such analysis for use to control features of the sensoring device (control of the pump, cavity features, resonator, actuator, etc.), for improving optical operation of the sensor. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of having a “sample” with “information” to achieve such results, for the purposes and motivations outlined by Gray and Henderson. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 1 is found obvious over Stothard US ‘914 and further in view of Gray NPL / Henderson US ‘077 (henceforth “COMBO”).
Regarding further dependent claim 2, based on the overall COMBO features for a hypothetical sensor device (as in claim 1), such COMBO features a detector coupled to the output of the resonator, for detecting an output power of the one or more output EM waves; and a computer coupled to the detector, wherein the computer is configured to determine the information about the sample from a change in the output power when the resonant EM waves are coupled to the sample (as in at least the secondary prior art references to Gray NPL and Henderson. Therefore, claim 2 is found obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Regarding further dependent claim 3, based on the overall COMBO features for a hypothetical sensor device (as in claim 2), such COMBO can feature a computer being configured to: determine the information by comparing the output power to a calculated output power calculated using a model of a response of the resonator coupled to the sample interacting with the resonant EM waves and/or, determine the information using a machine learning algorithm trained using training data, wherein: the training data comprises an association between: a concentration or composition of the sample, and the output power as a function of operating point (as in at least the secondary prior art references to Gray NPL and Henderson. Therefore, claim 3 is found obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Regarding claim 4, the base features of Stothard are optical parametric oscillator based (OPO) for the resonator and cavity (Figs. 2, 4, 6, and 7), therefore such combination is implied as part of claim 1’s structure (OPO). Therefore, claim 4 is found obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Regarding further claims 5-7, based on the overall COMBO features for a hypothetical sensor device (as in claim 4), such COMBO can easily be configured with the OPO (of Stothard) so that it operates at a phase transition between degenerate and non-degenerate operation (claim 5); operates near threshold for lasing of the resonant EM waves, and the EM comprise simultons, so that a sensitivity of the sensor to a change in the sample is enhanced by near-threshold dynamics such as simulton or other soliton formation mechanisms (claim 6); and in that in the actuator changes operation of the OPO from below a threshold, for lasing of the resonant EM waves, to above the threshold (claim 7). There is no criticality to the design of the hypothetical COMBO features in claims 1 and 4 to be used with such configuration. Therefore, claims 5-7 are found obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 8, based on the overall COMBO features for a hypothetical sensor device (as in claim 1), such COMBO, the resonator (of Stothard) can be configurable to operate near oscillation threshold for lasing of the resonant EM waves, as characterized by 0.9 ≤ pump power/threshold pump power ≤ 3; and/or the actuator can be configurable to set the detuning or the phase matching so that the resonator operates at least at a spectral phase transition between degenerate and non-degenerate operation and/or the resonant EM waves comprise simultons. Therefore, claim 8 is found obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 10, based on the overall COMBO features for a hypothetical sensor device (as in claim 1), such COMBO, the actuator can be readily configured to modulate at least one to tune a dynamic range, sensitivity, or selectivity of the sensor (see Modulator of Stothard). Therefore, claim 10 is found obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 11, based on the overall COMBO features for a hypothetical sensor device (as in claim 1), such COMBO, the information can readily comprise at least a concentration or a composition differentiation of the sample comprising one or more molecules, as in Gray / Henderson. Therefore, claim 11 is found obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 12, based on the overall COMBO features for a hypothetical sensor device (as in claim 1), such COMBO, the information comprises a physical or chemical property of the sample comprising a solid, liquid, or gas, as in Gray / Henderson. Therefore, claim 12 is found obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 13, based on the overall COMBO features for a hypothetical sensor device (as in claim 1), such COMBO, the information can be readily output in real time with a change in the sample and with a temporal resolution limited by a modulation or actuation speed of the actuator and acquisition time of the information. Such implementation would impart features analyzed at the output / detector or COMBO and fed back into the sensor system. Therefore, claim 13 is found obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Regarding dependent claims 14-15, based on the overall COMBO features for a hypothetical sensor device (as in claim 1), such COMBO, the use of an electro-optic or thermal feature for the actuator is an obvious and common design choice for actuation. The actuator of COMBO is applied at/with the resonator, and such features would have been recognized as an obvious implementation. Therefore, claims 14-15 are found obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 16, based on the overall COMBO features for a hypothetical sensor device (as in claim 1), such COMBO, using the overall sensor as part of one or more chips is an obvious construct, as creating an optical resonator device with a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) would have been implied as a way to manufacture such an integrated opto-electronic device. Therefore, claim 16 is found obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 17, based on the overall COMBO features for a hypothetical sensor device (as in claim 1), such COMBO, can further comprise means for making the resonant EM wave of the resonator interact with the sample, wherein the means comprises a sample container positioned to couple the sample to the resonator through an evanescent field, a slot waveguide, an optical fiber, a chamber in the resonator, a fluidic coupling, a free space coupling, or a hollow core fiber, as an obvious design choice. Therefore, claim 17 is found obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 18, based on the overall COMBO features for a hypothetical sensor device (as in claim 1), such COMBO can allow the resonator to comprise a cavity comprising the nonlinear material between mirrors, and the cavity comprises a sample space for positioning the sample within the cavity. Such outline is similar in construct to both Stothard and Henderson, and would have been easily implemented by one having ordinary skill in the art without undue burden or unnecessary steps of implementation. Therefore, claim 18 is found obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 19, based on the overall COMBO features for a hypothetical sensor device (as in claim 1), such COMBO, using a fiber loop would have been easily recognized in nonlinear optics, for either applying delay and/or further nonlinearities to the OPO, as a commonly used optical sub-element. Therefore, claim 19 is found obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 20, based on the overall COMBO features for a hypothetical sensor device (as in claim 1), such COMBO, such features (analysis of breath, pollutants, gases, industrial monitor of gases) are an intended use and design which an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized. Such gases could be incorporated as part of the secondary reference (Gray NPL; Henderson). Therefore, claim 20 is found obvious over COMBO. KSR.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 21 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. Regarding claims 9 and 21, and based on a careful review of the closest prior art of the current record (and the hypothetical COMBO features of independent claim 1), the Examiner is unable to present a prima facie case of obviousness for either express feature in claim 9 and/or claim 21. Claim 9 requires “wherein the actuator causes the resonant EM waves in the resonator to follow a predictable spectral tuning and the output EM waves can be used to reconstruct the function of a tunable laser spectrometer”, while Claim 21 requires “wherein the information comprises a concentration of the sample in a range of part per trillion volume to several precents causing saturation in a linear absorption sensor according to the Beer Lambert Law.” Neither such feature is found reasonably obvious, with clear motivation and rationale to combine, particular considering COMBO in claim 1. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to present a prima facie case of obviousness to either claim 9 or 21 based on the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references A-E, which pertain to the state of the art of optical parametric oscillators (OPOs) which include resonator cavities, and allow for optical sensing / laser usage of the signal and/or idler being formed nonlinearly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 April 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights