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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/23/24 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 4 and 6 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the signal light" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, the limitation is considered to recite “a signal light.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation "signal light" in line 3. It is unclear whether this refers to the signal light recited in claim 5. For purposes of examination, the limitation is considered to recite “the signal light” to provide proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (CN 111697425A).
Re. Claim 1, Tan et al. discloses a single-frequency continuous-wave optical parametric oscillator, characterized by comprising a pumping source 101, a focusing lens 102, a resonant cavity, an optical parametric down-conversion crystal 104, and a birefringent crystal 106 (Fig. 2; [0049]);
wherein a polarization direction of a pump light provided by the pumping source 101 is horizontal polarization ([0047] and [0052]);
the resonant cavity comprises an input lens 103, an output lens 107 and at least two transitional elements 105 and 109 arranged between the input lens 103 and the output lens 107, a waist spot of the pump light obtained by the focusing lens 102 is located between the input lens 103 and a first transitional element 105 (e.g., plano-concave lens) adjacent to the input lens 103 on an optical path, and a center of the optical parametric down-conversion crystal 104 coincides with the waist spot of the pump light (Fig. 2; [0053]-[0054]); and
the birefringent crystal 106 is located at a beam waist between the output lens 107 and a second transitional element 109 (e.g., reflector) adjacent to the output lens 107 on an optical path, and the birefringent crystal 106 adopts critical phase matching or non-critical phase matching so as to generate frequency-doubled light (Fig. 2; [0054]).
However, Tan et al. does not disclose an arrangement wherein (a) the input lens is a concave-convex lens, (b) the output lens is a planoconcave lens, (c) the two transitional elements are both planoconcave lenses.
Lens shapes recited within the claimed invention, including concave-convex lenses and planoconvex lenses, are well known in the art and their use as recited in the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of creating a resonant cavity having desired beam shaping. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 3, Tan et al. renders obvious the single-frequency continuous-wave optical parametric oscillator as discussed above. Tan et al. also discloses the resonant cavity is a ring cavity (Fig. 2; [0051]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 9, Tan et al. renders obvious the single-frequency continuous-wave optical parametric oscillator as discussed above. Tan et al. also discloses the birefringent crystal has a shape 106 of a fan-shaped structure, a cuboid with a flat or wedged end face, or a cube with a flat or wedged end face (Fig. 2; [0046], [0049]). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 10, Tan et al. renders obvious the single-frequency continuous-wave optical parametric oscillator as discussed above, characterized in that the pumping source is an all-solid-state solid laser and the resonant cavity is end-pumped.
However, Tan et al. does not disclose an arrangement wherein the pumping source is an all-solid-state laser.
Optical parametric oscillators pumped by all-solid-state lasers are well known in the art (see Tan et al., [0005]), and the claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of achieving the desired frequencies. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-8, and 11-16 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, and upon correction of the antecedent basis issues discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re. Claims 2 and 11-16, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, characterized in that signal light generated by the optical parametric down-conversion crystal resonates in the resonant cavity, and the pump light, the idler light generated by the optical parametric down-conversion crystal, and the frequency-doubled light generated by the birefringent crystal pass through the resonant cavity in a single pass, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
The most applicable prior art, Tan et al. (CN 111697425A), discussed above, fails to disclose the claimed invention, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims. Instead, in Tan et al. the idler signal 203 resonates within the cavity while the signal light 202 generated by the optical parametric down-conversion crystal 104 passes through the cavity in a single pass and exits the cavity through output lens 107 (Fig. 2; [0054]).
Re. Claim 4, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically wherein that in the ring cavity, a signal light passes through the concave-convex lens, the optical parametric down-conversion crystal, the first transitional planoconcave lens, the second transitional planoconcave lens, the birefringent crystal and the output planoconcave lens in sequence, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
The most applicable prior art, Tan et al. (CN 111697425A), discussed above, fails to disclose the claimed invention, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims. Instead, in Tan et al. the signal light 203 is generated in the optical parametric down-conversion crystal 104 (Fig. 2), and therefore never passes through the input lens.
Re. Claims 5-6, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically characterized in that the concave surface of the output planoconcave lens is plated with a high-transmittance film for frequency-doubled light and a partial-transmittance film for signal light, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
The most applicable prior art, Tan et al. (CN 111697425A), discussed above, fails to disclose the claimed invention, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims. Instead, in Tan et al. the output lens is provided with light-transmittance films for both the frequency doubled light 204 and the signal light 202
Re. Claims 7-8, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically characterized in that the resonant cavity is a standing wave cavity, and in the standing wave cavity, the first transitional planoconcave lens and the output planoconcave lens are the same planoconcave lens, and the signal light passes through the concave-convex lens, the optical parametric down-conversion crystal, the first transitional planoconcave lens, the birefringent crystal, the second transitional planoconcave lens, the birefringent crystal and the first transitional planoconcave lens in sequence.
The most applicable prior art, Tan et al. (CN 111697425A), discussed above, fails to disclose the claimed invention, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 3/5/26