DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on December 22, 2023. Claims 1-26 are pending, 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on March 4, 2024, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (eleven (11) pages) were received on December 22, 2023. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 16, 20, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding claim 12, the typo “fulfil” should read “fulfill.” Regarding claims 16 and 20, the reference numbers in parenthesis (“(120)” and “(110)”) should be removed as reference numbers are not typically used in US PTO claims. Regarding claim 22, the term “an one-dimensional’ should read “a one-dimensional”, while the use of “it” is not preferred in US PTO claims. Terms such as “it” and “they” should be replaced by the actual structural term. Appropriate correction is required.
Further, claims 1-26 appear to be direct translations from a foreign patent document (German) into the English language. Applicant’s cooperation is requested to carefully and thoroughly review all claims 1-26 for other awkward phrasing, typos, or minor informalities that come to Applicant’s attention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 21 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.
Regarding claim 21, the term “thin body” in the claim body is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, in term of thin in relation to a “body” feature. The clear scope (metes-and-bounds) of what “thin” means is not outlined by the claims or the referenced specification, and therefore claim 21 is rejected as being vague and indefinite under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-4, 6-14, and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakabayashi et al. U.S. Patent No. 8,587,863 B2.
Wakabayashi et al. U.S. Patent No. 8,587,863 B2 teaches (ABS; Figs. 2-4, 6, 7, 9, and 10-13; corresponding text, in particular column 3, line 61 through column 14, line 64; Claims) a radiation field provision device (Figs. 6 and 9), in which an optical path (path is shown by at least 31b, but also 31, see Fig. 9; column 12, lines 7-43) for a radiation field is defined, comprising a frequency conversion body (overall structure in center of Figs. 6 and 9), wherein the frequency conversion body is partially formed from a frequency-converting medium 120 (KBBF crystal is non-linear, serving as a “wavelength conversion element” see column 6, line 51 through column 7, line 13) and a reflector 121 (high-reflective film), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the KBBF crystal 120 is non-linear and a wavelength conversion element, thus it converts the radiation field component to a different wavelength (frequency).
Regarding claim 3, frequency (wavelength) conversion takes place along at least a reflected branch (after reflection on 121), because the optical signal remains in the KBBF crystal 120 after reflection by 121.
Regarding claim 4, frequency (wavelength) conversion takes place at least along an incident branch of the crystal 120 in Figs. 6 and 9 of Wakabayashi.
Regarding claim 6, the axis is symmetrical of the frequency conversion element before/after the reflection, which meets all structure (depending on the “marked axis”, which is a frame-of-reference).
Regarding claim 7, the axis is asymmetrical of the frequency conversion element before/after the reflection, which meets all structure (depending on the “marked axis”, which is a frame-of-reference, and the Examiner can pick any oblique or slanted axis as marked).
Regarding claim 8, Figs. 6 and 9 shows the reflector 121 being “attached” (optically, mechanically, or otherwise) to frequency conversion medium 120.
Regarding claim 9, in a different embodiment of Figs. 2-3 of Wakabayashi, the part of the end of the crystal 120 is the reflector formation, thus it meets the structure of the reflector being at least partially from the crystal 120 itself.
Regarding claims 10-11, because the term “marked axis” is a frame of reference, the Examiner can choose any “axis” to meet language for perpendicular and obliquely of the frequency conversion body, thus there is no structure in these claims to distinguish from Wakabayashi Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 12, the reflector reflects radiation that fulfills conditions for the frequency conversion.
Regarding claim 13, all structure is met, and there is no clear indication, from any part of Wakabayashi, that any phase relationships are caused to change (thus substantially unchanged reflections is met).
Regarding claim 14, the high-reflective film 121 may be a multilayer film (column 10, lines 44-49).
Regarding claim 17, the surfaces run parallel (to parts of the reflector) in at least one configuration as in Figs. 6, 9, and 10-13 for structure in 120.
Regarding claims 18-19, in an alternate construction of the reference, and because prism feature(s) 110 / 211 of the Figs. 6, 9, and 10-13 can be considered as a larger “part” of the frequency converter, such limitations for obliquely formed surfaces can be met in a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) by the slants/obliques of the upper prism element(s) as in 110 of Figs. 6 and 9 and/or as in 211 of Figs. 10-13, which meets all structure of the oblique intermediate relationships to a distant surface of the lower part at 120.
Regarding claim 20, at least a surface of the NLO optical crystal which converts frequency can be coated with a film 321 (column 15, lines 10-14).
Regarding claim 21, the frequency conversion body 120 can be considered a “thin” body is a reasonable frame of references, see Figs. 6 and 9, because it is rectangular in shape and narrow/thin in at least one dimension.
Regarding claim 22, all structure is met because at least heat conduction can occur in at least one dimension in element 120.
Regarding claim 23, cooling mechanism 130 is on the side of the frequency conversion 120 and reflector 121 (ABS; “cooling mechanism”).
Regarding claim 24, the feature 110 can be considered a “front side body” (Figs. 6 and 9), also noting feature 211 as a “front side body” in Figs. 10-13.
Regarding claim 25, because a resonator is described in the Background, specification, and features of Figs. 1A, 1B, the frequency conversion body can be considered “outside” of a resonator, in an optical use thereof. It is not immediately clear than any actual resonator is required in the claim features of claim 25, and this claim does not further limit claim 1’s “frequency conversion body” in any way.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujiwara et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,764,421 B2.
Fujiwara et al. U.S. Patent No. 7,764,421 B2 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1, 5a-5c, 7a-c, 9; corresponding text, in particular columns 4-11; Claims) a radiation field provision device (Figs. 1 and 5a-5c), in which an optical path (path is shown by at least LO -> L1) for a radiation field is defined, comprising a frequency conversion body (overall structure in center of Figs. 5c), wherein the frequency conversion body is partially formed from a frequency-converting medium (22 / 21 / 21b form a frequency converter 20; note column 4, lines 6-54) and a reflector 21b (serves to reflect, see Fig. 5c), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 5, because of the formation of the light(s) in the branches at least in Figs. 5a-5c, features for comparison of the aggregate in 22 meets the limitations that none of the frequency conversion takes places in parts of the paths, when comparing the upper and lower paths on the input side of at least Fig. 5c, which meets all structure of claim 5.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller U.S. Patent No. 7,423,802 B2.
Miller U.S. Patent No. 7,423,802 B2 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1-2; corresponding text, in particular column 4, line 1 through column 6, line 35; Claims) a radiation field provision device (Figs. 1 and 2), in which an optical path (path is shown by at least by 118 - > 204 - > 128) for a radiation field is defined, comprising a frequency conversion body (overall structure in center of Figs 1-2 at 108), wherein the frequency conversion body is partially formed from a frequency-converting medium 108 and a reflector 208 (columns 4-5, description of the “optical frequency converter”, notably column 5, line 32 through column 6, line 35), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 16, the reflector 208 may be a grating (column 6, lines 3-7), which meets all structure.
Claims 1 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koyata et al. US 2009/0232169 A1 (cited in the IDS filed March 4, 2024).
Koyata et al. US 2009/0232169 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A, 6B, 8A, 8B, 14A; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0040] – [0064], [0078] – [0082], [0102] – [0105]; Claims) a radiation field provision device (Figs. 6A-6B, Embodiment 4, paragraphs [0078] – [0082]), in which an optical path (optical signal propagation path) for a radiation field is defined, comprising a frequency conversion body (overall structure in center of Figs. 6A-6B and Figs. 1A-1B), wherein the frequency conversion body is partially formed from a frequency-converting medium (waveguide body itself is non-linear, at 6a / 2a, as part of 2) and a reflector 4 (“second reflector”; paras [0078] – [0082]; “wavelength converting”), which clearly, fully meets Applicant’s claimed structural limitations for sole independent claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 26, the frequency conversion body feature is arranged within (and part of) at least one resonator (para [0078]; ABS “optical resonator”), noting also claims 22-24 of Koyata ‘169, which meets all structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyata et al. US 2009/0232169 A1 (cited in the IDS filed March 4, 2024), standing alone.
Regarding independent claim 1, Koyata et al. US 2009/0232169 A1 teaches (ABS; Figs. 1A, 1B, 6A, 6B, 8A, 8B, 14A; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0040] – [0064], [0078] – [0082], [0102] – [0105]; Claims) a radiation field provision device (Figs. 6A-6B, Embodiment 4, paragraphs [0078] – [0082]), in which an optical path (optical signal propagation path) for a radiation field is defined, comprising a frequency conversion body (overall structure in center of Figs. 6A-6B and Figs. 1A-1B), wherein the frequency conversion body is partially formed from a frequency-converting medium (waveguide body itself is non-linear, at 6a / 2a, as part of 2) and a reflector 4 (“second reflector”; paras [0078] – [0082]; “wavelength converting”).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Koyata US ‘169 does not explicitly and exactly teach a phase matching layer involved with a phase matching functionality of the optical device in the configurations above. However, and notably toward phase matching features of a laser device, Koyata teaches in Embodiment 3, and with Figures 4-5 (paragraphs [0071] – [0077]) outlines needs for maintaining proper phase conditions for a laser, with angle-turned phase matching. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would have recognized from the teachings found within Koyata itself, and based on common skill in the art, that having a formed layer that improves phase matching would have been an obvious design choice. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have an additional phase matching layer accompanies with the wavelength converting device of Koyata for the purpose of decreasing poor output lights, and maintain consistent phase properties of the light(s). KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious and required no undue burden of experimentation to arrive at such features of the resonator of Koyata with a phase matching layer added thereto, and claim 15 would have been obvious over Koyata standing alone.
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 D, E, and N, which pertain to the state of the art of frequency / wavelength conversion device that use a reflector as part of the frequency conversion, at which the reflector function is at/near a surface of the frequency conversion medium and is a portion causing frequency conversion. Note that each reference D, E, and N also teach multiple reflections with frequency conversion.
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 December 11, 2025