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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that neither Videen nor Schwindt teach a light source module with a light beam combining element as presented in claims 4 and 6. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Videen (figure 1) teaches wherein the first semiconductor laser and the second semiconductor laser emit the light beams of a P-polarized first light beam and a P-polarized second light beam to a bonding surface of the polarization beam splitter (the illumination unit includes diode lasers (100,120) which emit S-polarized light and P-polarized light of mutually different wavelengths (lambda1, lambda2), respectively. A polarization beam splitter (110) passes the S-polarized light and reflects the P-polarized light, so that the two light are coincident at the output; see at least abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source module as taught by Videen in order to achieve an apparatus for simultaneous measurement of two polarization states of scattered light.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first semiconductor laser and the second semiconductor laser emitted the light beams of a P-polarized first light beam and a P-polarized second light beam to a bonding surface of the polarization beam splitter since it was known in the art that which polarized beam being is emitted by the first and second semiconductor lasers is merely a design matter that could have been appropriately performed by a person skilled in the art. Claim 4 is therefore unpatentable.
In addition, Videen (figure 1) teaches the optical waveplate 26 can comprise a high-order optical waveplate which functions as a quarter waveplate at the wavelength of the pump light beam 18 (e.g. a D1- or D2-line wavelength) and simultaneously functions as a half waveplate at the wavelength of the probe light beam 28 (e.g. a D2- or D1-line wavelength) (see at least column 12, lines 60-67 and column 12, lines 1-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source module as taught by Schwindt et al. in order to maintain the probe light beam linearly polarized, improve a signal-to-noise ratio for detecting the magnetic field, and simplify the manufacturing steps. Therefore, Sakuma et al. as modified by Schwindt et al. teaches wherein the light beam combining element has a ¼ wave plate disposed on an exit surface of the polarization beam splitter.
In addition, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 4 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al. (US 5,970,034) in view of Thollot et al. (EP 1874062).
Regarding claim 1, Sakuma et al. (figures 12 and 17A-17B) discloses a light source module, comprising:
a first semiconductor laser and a second semiconductor laser arranged so that respective light axes are parallel to each other (laser diodes 1a-1b); and
a light beam combining element (2a, 2b, 12, 13, 14) in which a first light beam emitted by the first semiconductor laser enters through a polarization beam splitter and in which a second light beam emitted by the second semiconductor laser enters through a prism, the light beam combining element configured to emit the first light beam and the second light beam with respective light axes made closer to each other (C1-C2; figures 17A-17B; see at least column 11, lines 55-67 and column 12, lines 1-36),
wherein an air conversion length of a first total distance from a first light emitting surface of the first semiconductor laser to an exit surface of the light beam combining element, and an air conversion length of a second total distance from a second light emitting surface of the second semiconductor laser to the exit surface of the light beam combining element are equal to each other (1a-1b; he optical source S2 designated collectively by a numeral 10b includes a laser diode 1a for emitting a laser beam and a collimator lens 2b for producing the parallel optical beam c2 from the laser beam produced by the laser diode 1b; see at least column 10, lines 9-26).
Sakuma et al. discloses the limitation as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Sakuma et al. is silent regarding a cube-type polarization beam splitter. Thollot et al. (figure 3) teaches a cube-type polarization beam splitter (the polarizing beam splitter can be replaced with other types of splitters, for example a polarizing splitter plate or a PBS (Polarizing Beam Splitter) cube; see at least page 3, 3rd paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarization beam splitter as taught by Thollot et al. in order to achieve several beams of different colors to be superposed, it increases the flexibility of implementing an anti-pirating system and the number of possible parameters. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use cube-type polarization beam splitter since it was known in the art that cube-type polarization beam splitters are commonly used in the light beam combining element.
Regarding claim 2, Sakuma et al. (figures 12 and 17A-17B) discloses wherein the light beam combining element comprises a polarization beam splitter (12) in which the first light beam directly enters, and a prism (13) which is arranged adjacent to the polarization beam splitter, and in which the second light beam directly enters, the prism configured to reflect the second light beam toward the polarization beam splitter, and the polarization beam splitter configured to transmit the first light beam, and to reflect the second light beam (13A; figure 17B; the laser beam produced by the laser diode 1b impinges upon a reflection surface 13A of the polarization beam-splitter 12 after passing through the collimator lens 2b and a half-wavelength plate 11, which is used for converting the laser beam incident to the beam-splitter 12 into a linearly polarized optical beam; see at least column 11, lines 55-67 and column 12, lines 1-36).
Regarding claim 3, Sakuma et al. (figures 12 and 17A-17B) discloses wherein the first light beam and the second light beam are linearly-polarized light beams which coincide in polarization direction with each other, and the light beam combining element further comprises a ½ wave plate disposed on a plane of incidence of the prism (11; the laser beam produced by the laser diode 1b impinges upon a reflection surface 13A of the polarization beam-splitter 12 after passing through the collimator lens 2b and a half-wavelength plate 11, which is used for converting the laser beam incident to the beam-splitter 12 into a linearly polarized optical beam; see at least column 11, lines 55-67 and column 12, lines 1-36).
Regarding claim 5, Sakuma et al. (figures 12 and 17A-17B) discloses wherein a ray axis of the ½ wave plate is set so as to convert the P-polarized light into the S-polarized light (11; half-wave plate (HWP) rotates the polarization plane of incident linear light (S or P) by an angle equal to 2theta, where theta is the angle between the input polarization and the plate's fast axis).
The limitations “wherein a ray axis of the ½ wave plate is set so as to convert the P-polarized light into the S-polarized light” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Sakuma et al. (figures 12 and 17A-17B) discloses wherein the first light emitting surface of the first semiconductor laser and the second light emitting surface of the second semiconductor laser are located on a same plane (1a-1b; he optical source S2 designated collectively by a numeral 10b includes a laser diode 1a for emitting a laser beam and a collimator lens 2b for producing the parallel optical beam c2 from the laser beam produced by the laser diode 1b; see at least column 10, lines 9-26).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al. (US 5,970,034) in view of Thollot et al. (EP 1874062); further in view of Videen (US 6,239,873).
Regarding claim 4, Sakuma et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above. However, Sakuma et al. is silent regarding wherein the first semiconductor laser and the second semiconductor laser emit the light beams of a P-polarized first light beam and a P-polarized second light beam to a bonding surface of the polarization beam splitter. Videen (figure 1) teaches wherein the first semiconductor laser and the second semiconductor laser emit the light beams of a P-polarized first light beam and a P-polarized second light beam to a bonding surface of the polarization beam splitter (the illumination unit includes diode lasers (100,120) which emit S-polarized light and P-polarized light of mutually different wavelengths (lambda1, lambda2), respectively. A polarization beam splitter (110) passes the S-polarized light and reflects the P-polarized light, so that the two light are coincident at the output; see at least abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source module as taught by Videen in order to achieve an apparatus for simultaneous measurement of two polarization states of scattered light.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first semiconductor laser and the second semiconductor laser emitted the light beams of a P-polarized first light beam and a P-polarized second light beam to a bonding surface of the polarization beam splitter since it was known in the art that which polarized beam being is emitted by the first and second semiconductor lasers is merely a design matter that could have been appropriately performed by a person skilled in the art. Claim 4 is therefore unpatentable.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma et al. (US 5,970,034) in view of Thollot et al. (EP 1874062); further in view of Schwindt et al. (US 8,212,556).
Regarding claim 6, Sakuma et al. (figures 12 and 17A-17B) discloses wherein the light beam combining element has a 1/2 wave plate disposed on an exit surface of the polarization beam splitter (12 and 14). However, Sakuma et al. is silent regarding wherein the light beam combining element has a ¼ wave plate disposed on an exit surface of the polarization beam splitter. Videen (figure 1) teaches the optical waveplate 26 can comprise a high-order optical waveplate which functions as a quarter waveplate at the wavelength of the pump light beam 18 (e.g. a D1- or D2-line wavelength) and simultaneously functions as a half waveplate at the wavelength of the probe light beam 28 (e.g. a D2- or D1-line wavelength) (see at least column 12, lines 60-67 and column 12, lines 1-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source module as taught by Schwindt et al. in order to maintain the probe light beam linearly polarized, improve a signal-to-noise ratio for detecting the magnetic field, and simplify the manufacturing steps. Therefore, Sakuma et al. as modified by Schwindt et al. teaches wherein the light beam combining element has a ¼ wave plate disposed on an exit surface of the polarization beam splitter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights