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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/27/2025 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 18 are pending.
Claim 6 has been amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejections, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejections of claim 6 is withdrawn.
Claim 17 has been cancelled, therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 17 is moot.
Claim 5 has been cancelled, therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 5 is moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 10/27/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Otani (US 2002/0139924 A1). Please see the detailed rejection below.
Applicant’s argument, see page 8, filed 10/27/2025, with respect to claim 14 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 14 has been withdrawn. Claim 14 is allowed. Please see reasons for allowance below.
Claim Interpretation
A solid nonlinear optical element is a known structural element, therefore, the previous 112(f) interpretation of a “solid nonlinear optical element” in claims 1, 4, 6-7, and 14 is withdrawn. There are no longer any 112(f) interpretations.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites “the nonlinear optical element” which has insufficient antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “a solid nonlinear optical element”, therefore, it would appear that claim 18 should instead recite “the solid nonlinear optical element.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Fuji et al ("Generation and Characterization of Phase-Stable Sub-Single-Crystal Pulses at 3000 cm−1", 2015, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, Vol. 12, No. 5; disclosed in the IDS dated 02/12/2024) in view of Otani (US 2002/0139924 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Fuji et al teaches a method for photonic sampling of a test-waveform (Abstract: IR pulses are generated and measured), the method comprising:
providing a sampling light pulse (Fig. 5(a): Eref);
generating a local oscillator (ESHG(t) from page 4, Col. 2, last paragraph; Second harmonic generation (SHG) is shown in Fig. 5(a)) by frequency multiplication of the sampling light pulse (Shown in page 4, Col. 2, last paragraph where (ESHG (t) ∝ E2 ref(t));
generating a signal wave (Fig. 5(a): FWDFG (four-wave difference frequency generation)) by frequency mixing (FWDFG shown in Fig. 5(a) and described in the Abstract) of the sampling light pulse (Fig. 5(a): Eref) and the test-waveform (Fig. 5(a): EIR created by a Ti:sapphire laser from Fig. 2(a)), in a laser filament (Abstract), wherein the frequency multiplication of the sampling light pulse and the frequency mixing of the sampling light pulse and the test-waveform are selected such that the local oscillator (Fig. 5(b): SHG (second harmonic generation)) and the signal wave (Fig. 5(b): FWM, generated FWDFG signal) are at least partly spectrally overlapping (Shown in Fig. 5(b) where the spectrum of the FWM signal (blue) and the spectrum of the SHG signal (red) overlap around ~400 to 410 nm);
detecting an interference signal of the local oscillator and the signal wave (Shown in Fig. 5(b) and described in the caption of Fig. 5(b) where the local oscillator is the SH (second harmonic) of the reference pulse and the signal wave is the FWM signal.) for various time delays of the sampling light pulse with respect to the test-waveform (Page 5, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph: The FWDFG signal (test waveform) is delayed by ~300 fs relative to the reference pulse (sampling light pulse) due to the group delay difference in the substrate before entering the BBO crystal.);
and determining a temporal evolution of at least one of an electric field of the test waveform and the envelope function of the test-waveform based on the detected interference signal (Abstract: “The waveform of the sub-single-cycle pulse was completely characterized with the frequency-resolved optical gating capable of a carrier-envelope phase (CEP) determination.” It is known in the field of endeavor that a carrier-envelope phase is the phase difference between a carrier wave and an envelope function, therefore, to be able to determine a CEP one would first need to know the envelope function where an envelope function shows a temporal evolution of an electric field of a test waveform.).
Fuji et al does not teach generating a signal wave by frequency mixing of the sampling light pulse and the test-waveform in a solid nonlinear optical element.
Otani (US 2002/0139924 A1), related to an optical sampling waveform measuring apparatus, does teach generating a signal wave (sum frequency light outputted from a nonlinear optical crystal from [0060]) by frequency mixing (sum frequency is a type of frequency mixing) of the sampling light pulse (sampling light from [0059]) and the test-waveform (measuring object light from [0059]) in a solid nonlinear optical element (Fig. 1: AANP 10 [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fuji et al to incorporate generating a signal wave by frequency mixing of the sampling light pulse and the test-waveform in a solid nonlinear optical element, as disclosed by Otani. The advantage of the above-mentioned method is that a wider band can be achieved ([0003] from Otani).
Regarding Claim 2, Fuji et al modified by Otani teaches the method according to claim 1.
Fuji et al modified by Otani further teaches that one or more of the following harmonics of the sampling light pulse are provided by the frequency multiplication as the local oscillator: second harmonic (Fig. 5(a): SHG second harmonic generation), third harmonic, and fourth harmonic.
Regarding Claim 3, Fuji et al modified by Otani teaches the method according to claim 1.
Fuji et al modified by Otani further teaches that the signal wave (Otani, sum frequency light outputted from a nonlinear optical crystal from [0060]) is provided by at least one of the following frequency mixing processes: sum frequency (sum frequency from [0060]) generation, difference frequency generation, four wave mixing involving the sum of two photons of the sampling light pulse and one photon of the test-waveform, four wave mixing involving the difference of two photons of the sampling light pulse and one photon of the test-waveform; cross phase modulation.
Regarding Claim 8, Fuji et al modified by Otani teaches the method according to claim 1.
Fuji et al modified by Otani further teaches that the test-waveform (Fig. 5(a): EIR created by a Ti:sapphire laser from Fig. 2(a)) is spectrally centered in the near-infrared (Fig. 2(a): Ti:sapphire laser has a wavelength of 790 nm) or the visible spectral range and/or wherein the sampling light pulse (Fig. 5(a): Eref generated by Ti:sapphire laser from Fig. 2(a)) is spectrally centered in the near-infrared (Fig. 2(a): Ti:sapphire laser has a wavelength of 790 nm) or the visible spectral range.
Regarding Claim 9, Fuji et al modified by Otani teaches the method according to claim 1.
Fuji et al modified by Otani further teaches that the local oscillator (Fig. 5(b): SHG signal) and/or the signal wave are spectrally centered in the visible or ultraviolet spectral range (Shown in Fig. 5(b) where the wavelength range of the SHG signal is in the UV spectral range (~10-400nm), therefore, the SHG signal would be spectrally centered in the UV spectral range.).
Regarding Claim 10, Fuji et al modified by Otani teaches the method according to claim 1.
Fuji et al modified by Otani further teaches spectrally filtering (Fig. 5(a): BF (blue filter)) and/or polarization filtering (Fig. 5(a): calcite polarizer P) at least the spectrally overlapping components of the local oscillator and the signal wave prior to heterodyne detection (Fig. 5(a) shows that the blue filter BF and calcite polarizer P are before the spectrometer (OMA) which is used for detection of the interference signals where the interference signal is shown in Fig. 5(b) which has a spectral overlap in the UV region)).
Regarding Claim 11, Fuji et al modified by Otani teaches the method according to claim 1.
Fuji et al modified by Otani further teaches that the test-waveform and the sampling light pulse are based on carrier-envelope phase (CEP) stabilized laser pulses (Page 4, Col. 2, “CEP Stability” section describes that the CEP of the generated IR pulses (test-waveform and sampling light pulse, EIR and Eref, respectively) are passively stabilized.).
Regarding Claim 12, Fuji et al modified by Otani teaches the method according to claim 1.
Fuji et al modified by Otani further teaches that only one photon of the test-waveform is involved in generating a photon of the signal wave (Abstract: Four-wave difference frequency generation involves only one photon from the test waveform being involved in the generation of the signal wave (See equation for the four-wave difference frequency generation in Abstract where there is a singular ω2 to generate a signal wave (ω0).).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji et al ("Generation and Characterization of Phase-Stable Sub-Single-Crystal Pulses at 3000 cm−1", 2015, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, Vol. 12, No. 5; disclosed in the IDS dated 02/12/2024) in view of Otani (US 2002/0139924 A1) and further in view of Xu (US 2020/0295519 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Fuji et al modified by Otani teaches the method according to claim 1.
Fuji et al modified by Otani further teaches the solid nonlinear optical element (Otani, Fig. 1: AANP 10).
Fuji et al modified by Otani appears to be silent to the solid nonlinear optical element has a thickness of 100 µm or less.
Xu, related to photonic sampling, does teach that the solid nonlinear optical element (nonlinear crystal from [0055]) has a thickness of 100 µm or less ([0055]: “The thickness of the nonlinear crystal is from 10 μm to 300 μm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fuji et al combined with Otani so that the solid nonlinear optical element has a thickness of 100 μm or less, as disclose by Xu. The thickness of nonlinear crystals from 10 μm to 300 μm can be used to satisfy phase matching conditions ([0055] from Xu).
Regarding Claim 18, Fuji et al modified by Otani teaches the method according to claim 1.
Fuji et al modified by Otani further teaches the nonlinear optical element (Otani, Fig. 1: AANP 10).
Fuji et al modified by Otani appears to be silent to the nonlinear optical element has a thickness of 10 µm or less.
Xu, related to photonic sampling, does teach that the solid nonlinear optical element (nonlinear crystal from [0055]) has a thickness of 10 µm or less ([0055]: “The thickness of the nonlinear crystal is from 10 μm to 300 μm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fuji et al combined with Otani so that the nonlinear optical element has a thickness of 10 μm or less, as disclose by Xu. The thickness of nonlinear crystals from 10 μm to 300 μm can be used to satisfy phase matching conditions ([0055] from Xu).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji et al ("Generation and Characterization of Phase-Stable Sub-Single-Crystal Pulses at 3000 cm−1", 2015, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, Vol. 12, No. 5; disclosed in the IDS dated 02/12/2024) in view of Otani (US 2002/0139924 A1) and Xu (US 2020/0295519 A1), and further in view of Cook et al (“Intense terahertz pulses by four-wave rectification in air”, 2000, Optics Letters, Vol. 25, No. 16).
Regarding Claim 7, Fuji et al modified by Otani teaches the method according to claim 1.
Fuji et al modified by Otani further teaches the solid nonlinear optical element (Otani, Fig. 1: AANP 10).
Fuji et al modified by Otani appears to be silent to the solid nonlinear optical element has a thickness of more than 100 µm.
Xu, related to photonic sampling, does teach that the solid nonlinear optical element (nonlinear crystal from [0055]) has a thickness of more than 100 µm ([0055]: “The thickness of the nonlinear crystal is from 10 μm to 300 μm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fuji et al combined with Otani so that the solid nonlinear optical element has a thickness of more than 100 μm, as disclose by Xu. The thickness of nonlinear crystals from 10 μm to 300 μm can be used to satisfy phase matching conditions ([0055] from Xu).
Fuji et al modified by Otani and Xu appears to be silent to the solid nonlinear optical element is provided at an angle satisfying a phase matching condition for the test-waveform and the sampling light pulse.
Cook et al, related to ultrafast pulse generation, does teach a solid nonlinear optical element (BBO from page 1, Col. 1, last paragraph) is provided at an angle satisfying a phase matching condition for the test-waveform and the sampling light pulse (page 1, Col. 1, last paragraph: BBO crystal is phased matched).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fuji et al combined with Otani and Xu so that the solid nonlinear optical is provided at an angle satisfying a phase matching condition for the test-waveform and the sampling light pulse, as disclosed by Cook et al. The advantage being that second harmonic generation can be generated (page 1, Col. 1, last paragraph from Cook et al) for generating intense, ultrafast terahertz pulses (Abstract from Cook et al).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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:
Regarding Claim 4, Fuji et al modified by Otani teaches the method according to claim 1.
Fuji et al modified by Otani further teaches the frequency multiplication of the sampling light pulse (Fuji et al, Fig. 5(a): second harmonic generation SHG) and the frequency mixing of the sampling light pulse and the test-waveform (Otani, [0059-0060]: A nonlinear optical crystal 10 is used for frequency mixing (sum frequency) of the sampling light (sampling light pulse) and the measuring object light (test-waveform).
Fuji et al modified by Otani does not teach that the frequency multiplication of the sampling light pulse is carried out in the same solid nonlinear optical element as the frequency mixing of the sampling light pulse and the test-waveform. Fuji et al modified by Otani teaches that the frequency multiplication of the sampling light pulse and the frequency mixing of the sampling light pulse and test-waveform are done by separate optical elements rather than being done by the same optical element.
Therefore, as to Claim 4, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for photonic sampling of a test-waveform, wherein the frequency multiplication of the sampling light pulse is carried out in the same solid nonlinear optical element as the frequency mixing of the sampling light pulse and the test-waveform, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 4.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 13, Fuji et al modified by Otani teaches the method according to claim 1.
Fuji et al modified by Otani further teaches that the CEP (carrier envelope phase) of the generated IR pulse is passively stabilized with the condition that the phase difference of φ0 is zero (Page 4, Col. 2, paragraph 1).
However, Fuji et al modified by Otani does not teach that the nonlinear order of the wave-mixing process involved in generating the local oscillator is identical to the nonlinear order of the wave-mixing process involved in generating the signal wave.
As to Claim 13, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for photonic sampling of a test-waveform, the method comprising where the nonlinear order of the wave-mixing process involved in generating the local oscillator is identical to the nonlinear order of the wave-mixing process involved in generating the signal wave, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 1.
Claims 14-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 14, Fuji et al (“Generation and Characterization of Phase-Stable Sub-Single Crystal Pulses at 3000 cm-1”, 2015, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, Vol. 12, No. 5; disclosed in the IDS dated 02/12/2024) teaches a device for photonic sampling of a test-waveform (Abstract: IR pulses are generated and measured), the device comprising:
varying a temporal delay of a sampling light pulse with respect to the test-waveform (Page 3, Col. 2, paragraph 2: There can be a delay between the input pulses (EIR and Eref);
a solid nonlinear optical element (Fig, 5(a): BBO β-barium borate crystal) for generating a local oscillator (ESHG(t) from page 4, Col. 2, last paragraph) by frequency multiplication of the sampling light pulse (Shown in page 4, Col. 2, last paragraph where (ESHG (t) ∝ E2 ref(t)) such that the local oscillator (Fig. 5(b): SHG (second harmonic generation)) and a signal wave (Fig. 5(b): FWM, generated FWDFG signal) are at least partly spectrally overlapping (Shown in Fig. 5(b) where the spectrum of the FWM signal (blue) and the spectrum of the SHG signal (red) overlap around ~400 to 410 nm);
a heterodyne detector (Fig. 5(a): spectrometer for ultraviolet region (OMA)) for detecting an interference signal of the spectrally overlapping local oscillator and the signal wave (Shown in Fig. 5(b) and described in the caption of Fig. 5(b)) for various temporal delays of the sampling light pulse with respect to the test-waveform (Page 5, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph: The FWDFG signal (test waveform) is delayed by ~300 fs relative to the reference pulse (sampling light pulse) due to the group delay difference in the substrate before entering the BBO crystal.).
Fuji et al appears to be silent to having a delay stage.
Piccoli (US 2020/0259305), related to a method and device for generating ultrafast optical pulses, does teach having a delay stage (Fig. 11A: optical delay line ODL).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fuji et al to incorporate having a delay stage, as disclosed by Piccoli. Delay stages are well known in the field of endeavor with the advantage of allowing a time delay between laser pulses for pump-probe pulse measurements ([0069-0071] from Piccoli).
Fuji et al modified by Piccoli does not teach a solid nonlinear optical element for generating a local oscillator by frequency multiplication of the sampling light pulse and for generating a signal wave by frequency mixing photons of the test-waveform and the sampling light pulse.
Otani (US 2002/0139924 A1), related to an optical sampling waveform measuring apparatus, does teach a solid nonlinear optical element (Fig. 1: AANP 10 [0059]) for generating a signal wave (sum frequency light outputted from a nonlinear optical crystal from [0060]) by frequency mixing photons (sum frequency is a type of frequency mixing) of the test-waveform (measuring object light from [0059]) and the sampling light pulse (sampling light pulse from [0059-0060]).
However, Fuji et al modified by Piccoli and Otani does not teach a solid nonlinear element for generating a local oscillator by frequency multiplication of the sampling light pulse and for generating a signal wave by frequency mixing photos of the test wave-form and the sampling light pulse. Fuji et al modified by Piccoli and Otani teaches that the frequency multiplication of the sampling light pulse and the frequency mixing of the sampling light pulse and test-waveform are done by separate optical elements rather than being done by the a single solid nonlinear optical element.
Therefore, as to Claim 14, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a device for photonic sampling of a test-waveform, the device comprising a solid nonlinear element for generating a local oscillator by frequency multiplication of the sampling light pulse and for generating a signal wave by frequency mixing photos of the test wave-form and the sampling light pulse, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 14.
Claims 15-16 are allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877