Non-Final Rejection
Acknowledgements
1. Claims 1-12 were presented for examination on February 1, 2024. These claims are grouped as follows:
claims 1-11; and
claim 12.
2. Applicant claims foreign priority to EP 23159062.1, which was filed February 28, 2023. The foreign priority documents have been received.
3. The presumed effective filing date is February 1, 2024, which is the filing date of U.S. App. No. 18/429,576.
Election/Restrictions
4. Applicant's election with traverse of species 1 in the reply filed on August 14, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 7 is now withdrawn from prosecution. Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are examined.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not identified a single class or subclass applicable to one species and not the other. See Remarks 1. This is not found persuasive because the burden is that the search of each species requires employing divergent search strategies or search queries. Specifically, species 2 has a control unit (#270) and a lock-in Amp (#268) that species 1 does not. Moreover, the sensor units of species 1 and species 2 are mutually exclusive. As such, the search would be burdensome because it would require the search of essentially two patentably distinct structures, i.e., the sensor unit of species 1 or the sensor unit of species 2, irrespective of whether they are classified in the same or the different classes/subclasses.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the indefinite limitation is “whereby the laser apparatus is configured to control a linewidth of the laser beam in dependence of an external reflection of the 2nd portion of the laser beam being output, received by the laser apparatus” because it is unclear whether the reflection of the 2nd portion is received the laser apparatus or whether the 2nd portion itself is received by the laser apparatus.
As to claim 6, the indefinite limitation is “controlling the linewidth of the laser beam in dependence of the external reflection of the 2nd portion of the laser beam being output, received by the laser apparatus” because it is unclear whether the reflection of the 2nd portion is received the laser apparatus or whether the 2nd portion itself is received by the laser apparatus.
As to claim 12, the indefinite limitation is “whereby the linewidth of the laser beam is controlled in dependence of an external reflection of the 2nd portion of the laser beam being output, received by the laser apparatus” because it is unclear whether the reflection of the 2nd portion is received the laser apparatus or whether the 2nd portion itself is received by the laser apparatus. Also, it is unclear whether there the “received by the laser apparatus” is/is not part of the claimed “controlling” step.
Asa to claims 2-5 and 7-11, these claims are rejected because of their dependence upon indefinite base claim 1.
6. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted element is the means for splitting the laser beam in to “a 1st portion of the laser beam” and “a 2nd portion of the laser beam,” e.g., coupler (figure 1, #130), beam splitter, grating, etc. This omission of this element amounts to a gap between the element of “a laser beam” and “a 1st portion of the laser beam” and “a 2nd portion of the laser beam” because the claim does not address how the laser beam is portioned into these claimed two parts.
7. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps is splitting the “laser beam” into a “1st portion” and a “2nd portion.” This omission of this step amounts to a gap between the steps because the claim does not address how the laser beam is portioned into these claimed two parts.
8. Because claims 1-12 are indefinite, the claims are best understood as the structure of figure 1 (species 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
495
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. As best understood, claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 12,730,200 to Piggot et al. filed Sep. 19, 2022 (“Piggot”).
As to claims 1 and 4, the claimed “laser diode,” “sensor unit,” “phase shifter,” “laser beam,” “1st portion of the laser beam,” and the “2nd portion of the laser beam” are anticipated by the annotated portions of Piggot figure 2A.
PNG
media_image2.png
685
946
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Examiners consider the 1st photodiode of the coherent detection (#280) to read on the claimed “conversion element” because it converts an optical signal into an electrical signal. The other photodiode reads on the claimed “photo-sensitive element.”
As to claim 6, Examiners find the combination of the RF modulator (#222), phase/frequency encoding (#224), the DSP (#290), and the ADC (#282) to read on the claimed “control unit.”
As to claim 8, Examiners find the RF modulator (#222) provides the frequency modulation.
As to claim 9, the light source (#202) is a single mode laser diode.
As to claim 11, the laser diode, the sensor unit, and the phase shifter are integrated on the Photonic Integrated Circuit (PIC).
Claim 12 is merely the method of operation of Piggot’s figure 2A.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. While not in condition for allowance because of pending §112(b) rejections, claims 3, 5, and 10, as best understood, appear to contain allowable subject matter.
As to claim 3, the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “the conversion element comprises a Fabry-Perot cavity” in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
As to claim 5, the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “the phase shifter is a thermos-optic phase shifter” in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
As to claim 10, the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “an active laser medium of the laser diode comprises quantum dots” in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEANDRA M HUGHES whose telephone number is (571)272-6982. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-Th 8AM-6PM.
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, Hetul Patel can be reached at 571-272-4184. 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.
Signed:
/DEANDRA M HUGHES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights