DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on July 28, 2026. In accordance with this amendment, claims 1, 4, 7, and 17 have been amended, claims 22-23 have been formally canceled, while new independent claim 24 has been added.
Claims 1-21 and 24 remain pending, with claims 1 and 24 the two independent claims at issue.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on July 28, 2026, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9-12, 18, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haakestad et al. NPL “Intracavity Trace Molecular Detection with Broadband mid-IR Frequency Comb Source.”
Haakestad NPL teaches (ABS; Intro; Figs. 5-12; pgs. 631-638) a sensor (Fig. 5 showing structural configuration; pg. 634), comprising: a resonator (“OPO”) comprising a nonlinear material comprising a nonlinear susceptibility (the NLO crystal PPLN in Haakestad) configured to convert a pump electromagnetic wave (EM) (from the femtosecond pump laser, Fig. 5) to a signal EM wave and an idler EM wave (functional result of the OPO in Haakestad is the creation of a signal / idler from a pump, where at least one of the pump, signal, and/or idler EM waves is fed back through the nonlinear material to form one or more resonant EM waves (cavity formed by mirrors in Fig. 5 to feed EM wave(s) back through the PPLN); an actuator (the PZT mounted feature on the right mirror in Fig. 5) coupled to the resonator or a pump path of the resonator, for controlling an “operation point” of the resonator (through the PZT application, note Figs. 5-6); and a sample container (the “Gas Cell” contains “samples”) positioned to couple a sample to the resonant EM waves (as part of the resonant cavity, where input and output gas samples are coupled (top of Fig. 5)); and an output of the resonator (a mid-IR comb (the output spectra) in Fig. 5 near ZnSe (CaF2) mirror to FTIR), for outputting one or more output EM waves comprising inherent information about the sample coupled to the resonator (output spectra to FTIR is detected and changes in the spectra/power are used to detect the presence and concentrations of the gas sample(s); Figs. 9-11; also gas samples are located in the cavity so that intracavity EM waves interact with sample(s) during being fed back), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations of independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Haakestad NPL teaches an element to optically detect the output (at the FTIR), and a computer-controller structure, which meets all structure claimed and is capable of all function of the computing (based on power).
Noting 2nd independent claim 24, which as formed is essentially dependent claim 2 (with the features of base independent claim 1), all such structure is found in Haakestad NPL for the reasons discussed above, and all function in claim 24 is capable of being performed by the same structural features (optical output power can be detected as part of the output).
Regarding dependent claim 4, an OPO is comprised as part of the resonator, for resonance function as in Fig. 5 Haakestad NPL.
Regarding claim 9, the actuator function of the PZT is capable of cavity length tuning (as a predictable spectral tuning) and the output of such can be used to reconstruct the function of tunable laser spectrometry. All structure necessary for this claim is found in Haakestad.
Regarding claim 10, the PZT tuning is capable for dynamic range, sensitivity, or selectivity, based on the tuning affect of the PZT (at least selection).
Regarding claims 11-12, the sample comprises one or more molecules, which can be computed and used as information of a physical / chemical property of the gas.
Regarding claim 18, the resonator is a cavity with the nonlinear material being between a number of mirrors (Haakestad NPL Fig. 5), and the sample space is found within the optical cavity for the sample (the gas) being positioned therein (top Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, the sensor system of Haakestad NPL in Fig. 5 is capable of being used in an overall larger “analyzed”, as an intended use thereof, and thus there is no structure imputed by claim 20 to distinguish from Haakestad NPL’s sensor.
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 3, 5-8, 13-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haakestad et al. NPL “Intracavity Trace Molecular Detection with Broadband mid-IR Frequency Comb Source”, further upon independent claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Haakestad NPL teaches (ABS; Intro; Figs. 5-12; pgs. 631-638) a sensor (Fig. 5 showing structural configuration; pg. 634), comprising: a resonator (“OPO”) comprising a nonlinear material comprising a nonlinear susceptibility (the NLO crystal PPLN in Haakestad) configured to convert a pump electromagnetic wave (EM) (from the femtosecond pump laser, Fig. 5) to a signal EM wave and an idler EM wave (functional result of the OPO in Haakestad is the creation of a signal / idler from a pump, where at least one of the pump, signal, and/or idler EM waves is fed back through the nonlinear material to form one or more resonant EM waves (cavity formed by mirrors in Fig. 5 to feed EM wave(s) back through the PPLN); an actuator (the PZT mounted feature on the right mirror in Fig. 5) coupled to the resonator or a pump path of the resonator, for controlling an “operation point” of the resonator (through the PZT application, note Figs. 5-6); and a sample container (the “Gas Cell” contains “samples”) positioned to couple a sample to the resonant EM waves (as part of the resonant cavity, where input and output gas samples are coupled (top of Fig. 5)); and an output of the resonator (a mid-IR comb (the output spectra) in Fig. 5 near ZnSe (CaF2) mirror to FTIR), for outputting one or more output EM waves comprising inherent information about the sample coupled to the resonator (output spectra to FTIR is detected and changes in the spectra/power are used to detect the presence and concentrations of the gas sample(s); Figs. 9-11; also gas samples are located in the cavity so that intracavity EM waves interact with sample(s) during being fed back).
Noting further dependent claims 3, 5-8, 13-17, 19, and 21: there is no express and exact teaching found within the four-corners of Haakestad NPL for those features, in that further optical dependencies for the sensing use and operations thereof, in that the OPO / resonator functions or senses as claimed.
Noting dependent claim 3, based on the overall Haakestad NPL features for a sensor device (as in claim 2), such Haakestad NPL 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 Haakestad NPL Fig. 5). Therefore, claim 3 is found obvious over Haakestad NPL. KSR.
Regarding further claims 5-7, based on the overall Haakestad NPL features for a hypothetical sensor device (as in claim 4), such Haakestad NPL can easily be configured with the OPO (of Haakestad NPL) 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 Haakestad NPL. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 8, based on the overall Haakestad NPL features for a sensor device (as in claim 1), such Haakestad NPL, the resonator (of Haakestad NPL) 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 Haakestad NPL. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 13, based on the overall Haakestad NPL features for a sensor device (as in claim 1), such Haakestad NPL, 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 Haakestad NPL and fed back into the sensor system. Therefore, claim 13 is found obvious over Haakestad NPL. KSR.
Regarding dependent claims 14-15, based on the overall Haakestad NPL features for a sensor device (as in claim 1), such Haakestad NPL, the use of an electro-optic or thermal feature for the actuator is an obvious and common design choice for actuation. The PZT actuator of Haakestad NPL 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 Haakestad NPL. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 16, based on the overall Haakestad NPL features for a sensor device (as in claim 1), such Haakestad NPL, 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 Haakestad NPL. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 17, based on the overall Haakestad NPL features for a sensor device (as in claim 1), such Haakestad NPL, 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 Haakestad NPL. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 19, based on the overall Haakestad NPL features for a sensor device (as in claim 1), such Haakestad NPL, 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 Haakestad NPL. KSR.
Regarding dependent claim 21, such information is an obvious design choice for the use and operation of the sensor device of Haakestad NPL, in that using Beer Lambert Law for saturation of a linear absorber as an intended use. Therefore, such use would be obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the effective filing date of the current application’s claims. KSR.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment with remarks, filed July 28, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-8 and 10-20, under COMBO, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, those rejections as were previously mailed on April 30, 2026 have been withdrawn. Additionally, features have been amended into independent claim 1 by Applicant, and those amendments have also created a new independent claim 24. Accordingly, and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Haakestad NPL. Because such features (a “sample container positioned to couple a sample to the resonant EM waves”) have been added to claim 1 / 24, this action is made FINAL.
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
Applicant's amendment dated on July 28, 2026 has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection, or shift(s) of rejection, as presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 September 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights