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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 16–17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 provides for “a second photonic crystal fiber.” Independent claim 1, from which it depends, provides for a (nondescript) “photonic crystal fiber.” While separate limitations of a “photonic crystal fiber” and “a second photonic crystal fiber” are, by themselves, an acceptable way of claiming something, the claim here is less than suitably clear because the specification specifically provides for a “first photonic crystal fiber.” Claim 7 should include limitations along the lines of “the photonic crystal fiber includes a first photonic crystal fiber and a second photonic crystal fiber,” as provided in the specification, so that the delineation between the “photonic crystal fiber” and the “first photonic crystal fiber” is made clear.
Claim 16 recites “the first photonic crystal fiber” (ll. 20–21). There is no explicit antecedent basis for this limitation prior to this point in the claims. However, antecedent basis for this, and the overall construction, is provided on ll. 51–53 of the same claim. The claim should be amended to provide antecedent basis first, and should overall be clear and organized in its structure as it does so, i.e. by linking the second photonic crystal fiber to the (nondescript) photonic crystal fiber along with the initial mention of the second photonic crystal fiber in the claim.
Claim 17 is objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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) 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The special-mode filtering unit in claim 8 (element 108 in the disclosure).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Comment: The “exciting light introducing unit” in claim 1 is formulated as a limitation to be interpreted under § 112(f), but it is not, as the structure attributable to this element is very well-known in the art. See MPEP § 2181.I.C.: “Examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation that uses the term ‘means’ or generic placeholder associated with functional language, unless that term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., ‘filters’), or (2) otherwise modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function.”
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 provides that “the condensing lens is replaced with a spatial-mode filtering unit for introducing the laser beam into the photonic crystal fiber.” As such, the claim provides for the removal of a limitation (the condensing lens). See MPEP § 608.1(n).III., “if claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C, and D, a claim reciting the structure of claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements.”
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected due to dependency upon a rejected claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 102
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 1–5, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Di Teodoro et al. (US Pub. 2007/0104431).
Claim 1: Di Teodoro discloses a laser oscillating device for amplifying and emitting a laser beam, comprising:
a signal laser oscillator (110) for emitting a laser beam;
a laser medium (115B) for amplifying the laser beam emitted from the signal laser oscillator;
an exciting light introducing unit (116B) for introducing an exciting light into the laser medium; and
a photonic crystal fiber (115A) for shaping the laser beam.
Claim 2: Di Teodoro discloses that the photonic crystal fiber is interposed between the signal laser oscillator and the laser medium (see 115A between 110 and 115B in figs. 1A and 1B).
Claim 3: Di Teodoro discloses that the photonic crystal fiber is disposed behind the laser medium (see 115A upstream of 115B in figs. 1A and 1B).
Claim 4: Di Teodoro discloses a condensing lens (112) for converging and introducing the laser beam into the photonic crystal fiber (see ¶ 119 describing 112 as a focusing lens; see also ¶¶ 100 and 110).
Claim 11: Di Teodoro discloses that the exciting light introducing unit includes a first dichroic mirror (113B) for transmitting the laser beam therethrough and reflecting light of other wave-lengths (necessary and inherent for a dichroic mirror), an exciting light source (116B) for introducing the exciting light to the first dichroic mirror (see 116B and 113B in fig. 1B), and a second dichroic mirror (113A) for transmitting therethrough the laser beam that has passed through the laser medium and reflecting and excluding the light of other wavelengths (necessary and inherent for a dichroic mirror).
Claim 12: Di Teodoro discloses two or more units each including the laser medium (115B, 115C) and the exciting light introducing unit (116B, 116C), which are arranged in tandem (see figs. 1A and 1B).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Teodoro.
Di Teodoro discloses a first collimating lens for rectifying the laser beam that has passed through the photonic crystal fiber into a collimated beam (see 112 described in ¶ 119);
a second condensing lens (see 112 described in ¶ 119) for converging and introducing the laser beam that has passed through the first collimating lens into the laser medium; and
a second collimating lens (ibid.) for rectifying the laser beam that has passed through the laser medium into a collimated beam, wherein
the exciting light introducing unit includes:
a first dichroic mirror (113B) interposed between the first collimating lens and the second condensing lens (appreciable from fig. 1D and ¶ 119), for transmitting the laser beam therethrough and reflecting light of other wavelengths (necessary and inherent with a dichroic mirror),
an exciting light source (116B) for introducing the exciting light to the first dichroic mirror, and
a second dichroic mirror (113A) for transmitting therethrough the laser beam that has passed through the second collimating lens and reflecting and excluding the light of other wavelengths (necessary and inherent with a dichroic mirror).
Di Teodoro does not explicitly disclose a first condensing lens for converging the laser beam emitted from the signal laser oscillator and introducing the converged laser beam into the photonic crystal fiber.
However, given how Di Teodoro otherwise teaches using condensing lenses to introduce the laser into the photonic crystal fibers (in ¶ 119), before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the same element to properly guide the laser into the photonic crystal fiber from the signal laser oscillator into the photonic crystal fiber.
Comment: Nomaru (US Pub. 2012/0103952) is an example of a reference that shows this arrangement with oscillator 61, condensing lens 642, and photonic crystal fiber 641.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, and 13–17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 provides that the photonic crystal fiber shapes the laser beam. The disclosure is not clear on how (i.e. by what structure) the photonic crystal fiber shapes the laser beam (the disclosure says that “the photonic crystal fiber 56 may be of known nature”). Given that Applicant’s disclosure seems to involve the shaping of a presumably Gaussian-distribution laser output from the oscillator into a more ideal Gaussian distribution, the Office understands the meaning of the claimed shaping to be broad, such that photonic crystal fibers in general would shape a laser beam as claimed, particularly as they would have at least one mode effect on the beam. Furthermore, the Office’s research suggests that something like a single-mode index-guiding photonic crystal fiber would be most suitable for the disclosed invention.
Although Di Teodoro reads on many of the claims, it seems to relate to telecommunications rather than the semiconductor wafer processing as in Applicant’s disclosure, rendering largely ineligible for considering claims obvious in view of it and other prior art.
Nomaru (US Pub. 2012/0103952) discloses a semiconductor wafer laser processing apparatus that includes a photonic crystal fiber, but it is silent regarding the amplification medium. Kim et al. (KR 2015-0106676 A) is similar. The Office notes that some amplification medium is a part of every laser system.
Morikazu et al. (US Pub. 2018/0257174) is relevant to numerous dependent claims indicated as having allowable subject matter, but as suggested above, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use its teachings to modify a telecommunications laser.
Prior art such as Green (US Pub. 2007/0047066), Chuang et al. (US Pub. 2006/0045163), and Vaissié et al. (US Pat. 7,835,646) are relevant for disclosing photonic crystal fibers and laser amplification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights