DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on February 3, 2026. In accordance with this amendment, claims 1, 4, 10-12, 14, 16, and 17 have been amended, while new claims 18-20 have been added.
Claims 1-20 remain pending (claim 17 is now rejoined with Group I because this claim depends from claim 1), with claims 1 and 20 in independent claim form.
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
Previous “Withdrawn” Method Claim 17 is now rejoined with Group I, because this claim now depends directly from independent claim 1. However, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (in view of 35 U.S.C. 101) for improperly mixing statutory classes within one claim. See the full 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection as listed below for claim 17.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: regarding claim 13, the phrase “and to direct broadband laser light in the beam extraction unit” should read “and to direct the broadband laser light [[into the beam extraction unit”, for clarity and a smoother reading. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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. Claim 1 is a system / device / apparatus claim (a “light source unit”), but added dependent claim 17 is attempting to add method steps (for “using”, or “manufacturing” / “assembling”) into this system claim. Accordingly, claim features from two statutory classes are included in one claim. A single claim that includes both an apparatus and a method of using / manufacturing / assembling the apparatus is indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)). It may be unclear if infringement occurs when the method is performed, or if just having the structure of the device / apparatus is enough for infringement. For these reasons, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The rejection may be overcome by deleting the method step(s). For examination purposes, the step limitation will be treated as an intended result limitation and rejected if the structure of the prior art device is capable of such intention.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clowes et al. 8,902,495 B2, and further in view of Sahara et al. US 2022/0276153 A1 and Clowes et al. US 2009/0097512 A1.
Regarding sole examined independent claim 1, Clowes et al. 8,902,495 B2 teaches (ABS; Figs. 4, 6A; corresponding text, in particular column 15, line 46 through column 20, line 24; Claims) a light source unit 405 (Fig. 4; also overall “unit” in Fig. 6A) which is capable of being used with an imaging device, the light source unit comprising: a beam extraction unit 419 / 619 configured to receive laser light (from 448), to direct at least a part of the light having a first wavelength into an amplifier beam path (the upper path in Fig. 4; in 449), and to direct residual laser light into a first illumination path (lower path in Fig. 4), an optical amplifier unit 420 arranged in the amplifier beam path and configured to generate amplified laser light having the first wavelength by amplifying the part of the laser light, and a frequency changing unit 428 arranged in the amplifier beam path (the upper path, Fig. 4) and configured to generate laser light having a second wavelength from the amplifier laser light having the first wavelength (four-wave-mixing (FWM) process; note column 15, line 46 through column 16, line 59).
Regarding independent claim 1, Clowes US ‘495 does not expressly and exactly teach that the “beam extraction unit” receives broadband light from source 448, and that such “beam extraction unit” is either “a wavelength-dependent splitter” or a “polarization-dependent splitter.” However, using broadband laser signals are common in the art of nonlinear frequency conversion, as these broad bandwidths of wavelength can have improved design and performance as desired in the laser art (notably broadband may in the range of 50 nm+ or wavelengths in a signal). Additionally, having two different types of features for the “beam extraction unit” may be evidence of the non-criticality of either singular structure in an overall design.
Further, the prior art references to Sahara et al. US 2022/0276153 A1 (ABS; Figs. 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14; corresponding text, paragraphs [0092] – [0123]; Claims) and Clowes et al. US 2009/0097512 A1 (ABS; Figs. 5, 6; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0044] – [0070]; Claims) teach configurations in which light source units are shown, in that broadband laser light is input (note cited Figs. of Sahara ‘153 elements 1 / 2 create a broadband input; Figs. 5 and 6 of Clowes ‘512 in which the input from 40 is broadband), and further that these broadband inputs are then directed / propagated into optical systems that employ beam-splitting (beam “extracting”; element 32 of Sahara; element 50 of Clowes ‘512) optics that direct the broadband signals into different paths. The broadband signals in both Sahara ‘153 and Clowes ‘512 are modulated by optical features for improved pulse designs. Notably, and based on the amendment filed February 3, 2026, Clowes ‘512 teaches (Fig. 5) that the element corresponding to the beam extraction unit 52 is polarization-dependent (see Clowes ‘512 para [0044], using a polarizing beam splitter, which implies structure for the “splitter” in claim 1; also note other similar splitting mechanisms in para [0044] which makes the polarization-dependency feature clearly taught by Clowes ‘512).
Since Clowes ‘495 and Sahara ‘153 / Clowes ‘512 are all from the same field of endeavor (note that the two Clowes US references include at least one Common Inventor), the purposes disclosed by Sahara ‘153 / Clowes ‘512 would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Clowes ‘495.
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 Sahara ‘153 / Clowes ‘512, to use a broadband input laser signal as the source of the nonlinear optical designed system of Clowes ‘495, to allow for features for wavelength conversion to a 2nd wavelength of the broadband signal, for improving optical operation of the system and outputting frequency changed light but having different broadband wavelengths as the input signal(s), and also to recognize that a splitter can be used that depends on polarization as a factor (from Clowes ‘512). Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of using “broadband” as the input light, at least partially because Clowes is the same inventor, but also because such features of “broadband” are commonly used in optical imaging devices, and also the inclusion of polarization dependent features or properties for a splitter/coupler from Clowes ‘512. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claim 1 is found obvious over Tanaka and further in view of Clowes ‘495 and Sahara ‘153 / Clowes ‘512. Such combination of prior art references is henceforth designation “COMBO.”
Regarding dependent claim 2, COMBO directs the wavelength converted light to a second illumination path (Figs. 4 and 6A).
Regarding claim 4, at least Clowes ‘512 teaches an AOTF coupled along the optical path (63, Fig. 6), and such configurations for tuning out unwanted wavelength properties are known and would have been obvious as part of the combination “light source unit” as in claim 1. KSR.
Regarding claim 3, the separated / split beams are then combined or “unified” by a unit 454 / 654 at least in the primary reference, thus such re-combining is obvious based on COMBO’s teaching.
Regarding claim 5, at least separation by polarization is shown by the secondary reference to Clowes ‘512 (Fig. 5, element 52), thus first and second polarization features of the two paths would have been an obvious modification of the input light. KSR. This feature is now found in claim 1 in generic terms (from February 3, 2026).
Regarding claims 6/7, using a “filter” mechanism (for unwanted wavelengths during attention) is discussed in the primary reference to Clowes ‘495, and accordingly it would have been obvious in the COMBO system to use filters (either band-pass or short-pass) for the motivation of removing unwanted signals. KSR.
Regarding claim 8, at least parametric processes (such as FWM) are discussed in the description of the primary art to Clowes ‘495 (Disclosure, column 12), accordingly those features would have been recognized as inherent in the COMBO light source.
Regarding claim 13, at least supercontinuum light is disclosed as the input / broadband in Sahara ‘153, accordingly such features for the input signal to the “beam extraction unit” would have been obvious in COMBO. KSR.
Regarding claim 16, the “light source unit” of the hypothetical COMBO is capable of being used for imaging (with an “imaging device”), and thus the COMBO features are an intended use (for imaging) and would have an obvious resultant featured use of the product. KSR.
Further regarding dependent claims 9-12 and 14-15, there is no express and exact recitation of a single embodiment that employs such features in COMBO (features of higher harmonics for the parametric generation, the lens ->crystal -> lens in the beam path (claims 9-10); or the exact wavelength for the 1st or 2nd wavelength (claims 11-12); or use of an optical amplifier control unit for setting parametric of the amplifier (claims 14-15)). However, at a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as the desired harmonic processes for generation of 2nd wavelengths, selectable wavelengths of light such as 350nm – 450 nm (half of input, being frequency converted) / or 700 nm to 900 nm (for input), or the use of a control unit to control amplification in the desired means (to set parameters), because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected COMBO to perform equally well with such features as the optical dependencies (generated harmonics, wavelengths, control of amplifier as selectable design choices) because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve optical signal propagation and the resultant broadband output. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with a light source unit such as in COMBO. Further, the base structure of the sole independent claim 1 is found obvious over COMBO as discussed prior in this section. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) COMBO to obtain the invention as specified in claims 9-12 and 14-15. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 17, all such structure is found in the base claim 1, and the use of such structural design is implied by COMBO. Further, the PTO is not equipped to test the myriad methods of use of an apparatus / device claim, and no patentable weight is given unless the method steps impute a structural difference over the prior art. KSR. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that the structural design of COMBO is capable of such method steps of using the same device. Claim 17 is therefore found obvious over COMBO and does not impute any structure to distinguish from COMBO.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed. New independent claim 20 has been presented and in particular requires that the “beam extracting unit” is a “wavelength-dependent splitter” in the design shown in at least Figure 1 (element 106 is wavelength-dependent and splits the broadband signal 104 based on desired wavelength into the two paths 108 and 110). New dependent claims 18-19 are also 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. Noting the feature of “an edge filter” (see element 306 in Figs. 3-4), such an overall combination of features, with the “beam extraction unit” (302 in Figs. 3-4). The closest prior art of record (Clowes ‘495; Sahara ‘153; Clowes ‘512; Imeshev US ‘983) does not expressly teach or reasonably suggest the combination of features, as a whole and as arranged as found in independent claim 20 and/or dependent claim 18 (claim 19 further depends from claim 18). The close prior art of the current record may teach any one of the structural features found in claim 20, or claim 18, but the Examiner must consider the context of such features in view of the original specification and drawings (notably Figs. 1-4). For these reasons, and based on careful review of all prior art found in the current record, the Examiner is unable to present a prima facie case of obviousness for either claim 20 or dependent claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 3, 2026 (pages 7-10) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, pertaining to amended independent claim 1. The prior art of COMBO meets each requirement for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, as is outlined and listed above. Claims 1-17 are thus finally rejected herein.
Applicant’s arguments (pages 10-11), see the creation of a new independent claim 20, which limits the “beam extraction unit” to be only a “wavelength-dependent splitter”, and having such integral design and combination of terms, as a whole, is found persuasive. Therefore, all prior art rejections to COMBO herein are not applicable to new independent claim 20.
The Examiner is amenable for Applicant to cancel all dependent claims 2-4 and 6-16 (in an “after-final” type amendment), and have these claims depend from allowed independent claim 20. However, note that claim 5 may conflict with independent claim 20 because 1st and 2nd polarization properties are recited by this dependency. If “wavelength-selective” features of a splitter / coupler are required by claim 20, it is unclear is claim 5 thus conflicts with “polarization” features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references A-B, which pertain to the state of art of optical light sources that employ: separation paths such as splitters/couplers, nonlinear optical elements, optical amplifiers, filters, along the optical path.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection, or shifts of rejection for COMBO above, 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 February 17, 2026