DETAILED 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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitations “first optical frequency measurement subsystem”, “second optical frequency measurement subsystem”, “first optical system” and “second optical system” which use the generic placeholder “system” that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Accordingly, the limitations “first optical frequency measurement subsystem” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to the label 116 within fig. 1 comprising a first optical system 106 (see further interpretation below), an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), and a measurement circuit 114, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “second optical frequency measurement subsystem” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to the label 118 within fig. 1 comprising a second optical system 108 (see further interpretation below), an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), and a measurement circuit 114, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “first optical system” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to at least one monotonic optical filter, wavelength-dependent coupler, periodic filter, or DLI (delay line interferometer) (applicant’s specification [0039]), and any equivalents thereof.
The limitation “second optical system” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to at least two periodic filters and/or one or more WDM couplers, monotonic filters, etalons, DLIs, and/or other interferometers (applicant’s specification [0041], [0042]), and equivalents thereof.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “third optical frequency measurement subsystem” and “third optical system” which use the generic placeholder “system” that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Accordingly, the limitation “third optical frequency measurement subsystem” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to the label 120 within fig. 1 comprising a third optical system 110 (see further interpretation below), an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), and a measurement circuit 114, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation “third optical system” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to at least two periodic filters and/or one or more WDM couplers, monotonic filters, etalons, DLIs, and/or other interferometers (applicant’s specification [0043], [0044]), and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claims 1-24 are 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 1, the term “higher” within the phrase “higher accuracy” on line 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “higher accuracy” 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. The term “higher accuracy” is recited as a means for comparing the second measured accuracy with the first measured accuracy, but the claim does not provide a means a metric to perform the comparison between the first and second measured accuracies. The claim does recite a first accuracy range and second accuracy range, but there is no explicit mention or definition that corresponds to the accuracy. “Higher accuracy” could refer to the second accuracy range being narrower than the first accuracy range but could also refer to an accuracy an uncertainty within the physical measurement of the first and second measured accuracies as well – it is unclear from the claim what is intended. In a case where the second accuracy range being narrower than the first accuracy range is intended to convey “higher accuracy”, examiner suggests including a metric which defines the first and second accuracy range explicitly.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the second frequency response is unique when the second frequency-span region is centered on any frequency within the first frequency-span region”, the independent claim 1 recites the second frequency must be centered on the first measured frequency and thus cannot be centered on any frequency within the first frequency-span region.
Regarding claim 8, the term “sufficiently small” on line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “sufficiently small” 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. The claim does not provide a means to ascertain how small the first accuracy range must be to ensure the first measured frequency is within the second-frequency span region, and the specification does not remedy this deficiency.
Regarding claim 15, the term “higher” within the phrase “higher accuracy” on lines 7-8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “higher accuracy” 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. The term “higher accuracy” is recited as a means for comparing the third measured accuracy with the second measured accuracy, but the claim does not provide a means a metric to perform the comparison between the second and third measured accuracies. The claim does recite the second accuracy range and a third accuracy range, but there is no explicit mention or definition that corresponds to the accuracy. “Higher accuracy” could refer to the third accuracy range being narrower than the second accuracy range but could also refer to an accuracy an uncertainty within the physical measurement of the second and third measured accuracies as well – it is unclear from the claim what is intended. In a case where the third accuracy range being narrower than the second accuracy range is intended to convey “higher accuracy”, examiner suggests including a metric which defines the second and third accuracy range explicitly.
Regarding claim 23, the term “higher” within the phrase “higher accuracy” on line 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. As with independent claim 1, the phrase “higher accuracy” 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. The term “higher accuracy” is recited as a means for comparing the second measured accuracy with the first measured accuracy, but the claim does not provide a means a metric to perform the comparison between the first and second measured accuracies. The claim does recite a first accuracy range and second accuracy range, but there is no explicit mention or definition that corresponds to the accuracy. “Higher accuracy” could refer to the second accuracy range being narrower than the first accuracy range but could also refer to an accuracy an uncertainty within the physical measurement of the first and second measured accuracies as well – it is unclear from the claim what is intended. In a case where the second accuracy range being narrower than the first accuracy range is intended to convey “higher accuracy”, examiner suggests including a metric which defines the first and second accuracy range explicitly.
Claims 3-7, 9-14, and 16-22 are rejected due to the deficiencies of at least claim 1.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected due to the deficiencies of claim 15.
Claim 24 is rejected due to its dependence on the deficiency of claim 23.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 3-7, 9-14, 16-22, and 24 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination. In particular, a thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests all limitations of the invention disclosed in the instant application.
Regarding claim 1, the concept of “an optical frequency measurement system, comprising:
a beam splitter configured to split a light beam into a plurality of measurement beams, including a first measurement beam and a second measurement beam;
a first optical frequency measurement subsystem configured to receive the first measurement beam and measure a first frequency of the first measurement beam with a first accuracy range to obtain a first measured frequency that corresponds to a frequency of the light beam; and
a second optical frequency measurement subsystem configured to receive the second measurement beam and measure a second frequency of the second measurement beam with a second accuracy range that is narrower than the first accuracy range to obtain a second measured frequency that corresponds to the frequency of the light beam with a higher accuracy than the first measured frequency,
wherein the first optical frequency measurement subsystem comprises a first optical system having a first frequency response that is unique across a first frequency-span region such that each different frequency value within the first frequency-span region corresponds to a unique measurement value of the first measured frequency, the first frequency being within the first frequency-span region,
wherein the second optical frequency measurement subsystem comprises a second optical system having a second frequency response that is unique across a second frequency-span region such that each different frequency value within the second frequency-span region corresponds to a unique measurement value of the second measured frequency, the second frequency being within the second frequency-span region,
wherein the second frequency-span region is narrower than the first frequency-span region,
wherein the second frequency-span region is centered on the first measured frequency, and
wherein the first accuracy range is narrower than half of a frequency range of the second frequency-span region” is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
The closest prior art is generally regarded to be US 2023/0125343 A1 Francisco Javier Vaquero Caballero et al. (“Caballero”) in view of GB 2526365 A by Ian Ashworth (“Ashworth”). Caballero when modified by Ashworth discloses an optical frequency measurement system (Caballero abstract describes a detector circuit to detect an optical signal), comprising a beam splitter configured to split a light beam into a plurality of measurement beams, including a first measurement beam and a second measurement beam (Caballero [0075]-[0076] and fig. 6 disclose a polarization beam splitter 605 which splits an incoming optical signal into at least two measurement beams);
a first measurement system configured to receive the first measurement beam and measure the first measurement beam (Caballero [0075] and fig. 6 discloses a detector 630-1 comprising an analog-to-digital converter 640-1 (ADC) which measure the first measurement beam) and measure a first frequency of the first measurement beam with a first accuracy range to obtain a first measured frequency that corresponds to a frequency of the light beam (Ashworth discloses obtaining a first Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) in fig. 3a [a first frequency measurement]; fig. 1 shows DFTs with differing bin widths, where the first DFT may be considered the signal G0 + 3dB [shown as a first accuracy range]);
a second measurement system configured to receive the second measurement beam and measure the second measurement beam (Caballero [0075] and fig. 6 discloses a detector 630-2 which measures the other half of the split incident light by the polarization beam splitter, and is comprised of an ADC 640-2) and measure a second frequency of the second measurement beam with a second accuracy range that is narrower than the first accuracy range to obtain a second measured frequency that corresponds to the frequency of the light beam (Ashworth fig. 3a shows a second DFT being obtained [a second measured frequency]; again, fig. 1 shows DFTs with differing bin widths, where the second DFT may be considered as the signal G0 + 6dB, as a range narrower than the first DFT),
wherein the second frequency-span region is narrower than the first frequency-span region (Ashworth fig. 1; the figure represents differing accuracy ranges between the two DFTs, and also represents the second frequency-span region being narrower than the first).
Caballero when modified by Ashworth is silent to the second measured frequency [having] a higher accuracy than the first measured frequency,
wherein the first optical frequency measurement subsystem comprises a first optical system having a first frequency response that is unique across a first frequency-span region such that each different frequency value within the first frequency-span region corresponds to a unique measurement value of the first measured frequency, the first frequency being within the first frequency-span region,
wherein the second optical frequency measurement subsystem comprises a second optical system having a second frequency response that is unique across a second frequency-span region such that each different frequency value within the second frequency-span region corresponds to a unique measurement value of the second measured frequency, the second frequency being within the second frequency-span region,
wherein the second frequency-span region is centered on the first measured frequency, and
wherein the first accuracy range is narrower than half of a frequency range of the second frequency-span region.
Claims 3-22 would be allowable due to their dependence on the allowable subject matter disclosed in claim 1 above barring any outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) within the named dependent claims.
Regarding claim 23, the concept of “a method, comprising:
splitting, by a beam splitter, a light beam into a plurality of measurement beams, including a first measurement beam and a second measurement beam;
measuring, by a first optical frequency measurement subsystem, a first frequency of the first measurement beam with a first accuracy range to obtain a first measured frequency that corresponds to a frequency of the light beam; and
measuring, by a second optical frequency measurement subsystem, a second frequency of the second measurement beam with a second accuracy range to obtain a second measured frequency that corresponds to the frequency of the light beam with a higher accuracy than the first measured frequency,
wherein the first optical frequency measurement subsystem comprises a first optical system having a first frequency response that is unique across a first frequency-span region such that the first measured frequency is unique to the first frequency provided at an input of the first optical system a first frequency response that is unique across a first frequency-span region such that each different frequency value within the first frequency-span region corresponds to a unique measurement value of the first measured frequency, the first frequency being within the first frequency-span region,
wherein the second optical frequency measurement subsystem comprises a second optical system having a second frequency response that is unique across a second frequency-span region such that the second measured frequency is unique to the second frequency provided at an input of the second optical system a second frequency response that is unique across a second frequency-span region such that each different frequency value within the second frequency-span region corresponds to a unique measurement value of the second measured frequency, the second frequency being within the second frequency-span region,
wherein the second frequency-span region is narrower than the first frequency-span region,
wherein the second frequency-span region is centered on the first measured frequency, and
wherein the first accuracy range is narrower than half of a frequency range of the second frequency-span region” is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
The closest prior art is generally regarded to be Caballero in view of Ashworth, which discloses a method, comprising:
splitting, by a beam splitter, a light beam into a plurality of measurement beams, including a first measurement beam and a second measurement beam (Caballero [0075]-[0076] and fig. 6 disclose a polarization beam splitter 605 which splits an incoming optical signal into at least two measurement beams)
measuring, by a first optical frequency measurement subsystem, a first frequency of the first measurement beam (Caballero [0075] and fig. 6 discloses a detector 630-1 comprising an analog-to-digital converter 640-1 (ADC) which measure the first measurement beam; Ashworth discloses obtaining a first Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) in fig. 3a [a first frequency measurement];) with a first accuracy range to obtain a first measured frequency that corresponds to a frequency of the light beam (Ashworth fig. 1 shows DFTs with differing bin widths, where the first DFT may be considered the signal G0 + 3dB [shown as a first accuracy range]); and
measuring, by a second optical frequency measurement subsystem, a second frequency (Ashworth of the second measurement beam (Caballero [0075] and fig. 6 discloses a detector 630-2 which measures the other half of the split incident light by the polarization beam splitter, and is comprised of an ADC 640-2; Ashworth fig. 3a shows a second DFT being obtained [a second measured frequency];) with a second accuracy range to obtain a second measured frequency that corresponds to the frequency of the light beam (Ashworth fig. 1 shows DFTs with differing bin widths, where the second DFT may be considered as the signal G0 + 6dB, as a range narrower than the first DFT),
wherein the second frequency-span region is narrower than the first frequency-span region (Ashworth fig. 1; the figure represents differing accuracy ranges between the two DFTs, and also represents the second frequency-span region being narrower than the first).
Caballero when modified by Ashworth is silent to wherein the first optical frequency measurement subsystem comprises a first optical system having a first frequency response that is unique across a first frequency-span region such that the first measured frequency is unique to the first frequency provided at an input of the first optical system a first frequency response that is unique across a first frequency-span region such that each different frequency value within the first frequency-span region corresponds to a unique measurement value of the first measured frequency, the first frequency being within the first frequency-span region,
wherein the second optical frequency measurement subsystem comprises a second optical system having a second frequency response that is unique across a second frequency-span region such that the second measured frequency is unique to the second frequency provided at an input of the second optical system a second frequency response that is unique across a second frequency-span region such that each different frequency value within the second frequency-span region corresponds to a unique measurement value of the second measured frequency, the second frequency being within the second frequency-span region, and
wherein the second frequency-span region is centered on the first measured frequency, and
wherein the first accuracy range is narrower than half of a frequency range of the second frequency-span region.
Claim 24 would be allowable due to its dependence on the allowable subject matter disclosed within claim 23 above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The following document(s) were considered but not relied up on for the rejection set forth in this action:
US 10,900,838 B1 by Hugh Podmore et al.
US 2020/0333129 A1 by Hooman Mohseni et al.
US 9,857,160 B1 by John M. Hoffer, Jr
JP 2015/155822 A by Hirokazu Matsumoto et al.
US 6,738,140 B2 by Stephen R. Friberg et al.
US 6,108,527 A by Robert R. Urban et al.
US 5,453,834 A by James O. Evanstad
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877