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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 09/19/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/19/26.
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 1-5 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.
The term “a critical threshold state” in claims 1 and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a critical threshold state” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, the specification (see [0119] of the US PG Pub of the present application) merely discloses “the voltage value of the voltage characteristic signal is around 5V (i.e., the voltage characteristic signal critical in the cavity length adjusting actuator control system control threshold), and the specific voltage value needs to be judged by the operator according to the actual situation”, but fails to explicitly define what a critical threshold state is since the specific voltage needs to be judged but not predefined. Therefore, claims 1 and 5 are considered indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets “a critical threshold state” to be a state where the cavity length adjusting actuator is operated outside of its tuning range.
Claim 5 recites “a second electrical signal output from the cavity length adjusting actuator into a voltage characteristic signal” in lines 2-3. However, “a second electrical signal” lacks antecedent basis since “a first electrical signal” has not been defined in the claim or its parent claim. In addition, it’s unclear whether “a second electrical signal” is output by the cavity length adjusting actuator itself or a component of the cavity length adjusting actuator control system since the specification (see [0090] of the US PG Pub of the present application) discloses “The other way of the fast PI controller outputs the second electrical signal to the voltage conversion circuit, which is converted into a voltage characteristic signal suitable for microprocessor sampling”. Therefore, claim 5 is considered indefinite. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets “a second electrical signal” to be “an electrical signal” and output by any component from the cavity length adjusting actuator control system.
Claims 2-4 are also rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, by virtue of dependency.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US Patent 7,602,825 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a method for locking a repetition rate of an optical frequency comb (“a passively mode-locked laser system 600 having both a tunable optical delay line 610 and a PZT element 620 in the laser 101,” FIG. 6, col. 8 lines 10-13), comprising:
(S1) locking the repetition rate of the optical frequency comb with a cavity length adjusting actuator (“The high speed and fine tuning of the laser pulse repetition rate for phase locking to the external clock with low timing jitter is done by the PZT 620,” FIG. 6, col. 8 lines 17-19); and
(S2) when a locking state of the cavity length adjusting actuator is in a critical threshold state (“Frequency discriminator 630 instructs the optical delay line 610 to make appropriate adjustments when the difference between the RF clock frequency and the laser repetition rate is out of the PZT range and disable the PZT driver,” FIG. 6, col. 8 lines 22-26), adjusting the repetition rate of the optical frequency comb by adjusting an optical delay line of an optical frequency comb optical system to keep locking the repetition rate of the optical frequency comb (“The laser repetition coarse tuning over a large range is accomplished by the tunable optical delay line 610,” FIG. 6, col. 8 lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses prior to step (S1), the method further comprises: outputting, by the optical frequency comb optical system, a repetition rate signal to the cavity length adjusting actuator (a repetition rate signal output to the PZT actuator via Photodetector 110 prior to locking the repetition rate with the PZT actuator, FIG. 1, col. 5 lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses the step (S1) comprises: (S11) based on the repetition rate signal, obtaining a sinusoidal error signal for characterizing a phase difference between the repetition rate signal and a reference frequency signal (“The signal mixer produces an error voltage ΔV=Vp∙sin(2πf Δt) where Δt is the timing difference between the signal at the harmonic frequency from the photodetector 110 and the reference signal 140,” col. 5 line 66 - col. 6 line 2); and (S12) adjusting the repetition rate signal according to the sinusoidal error signal to complete locking of the repetition rate of the optical frequency comb (col. 6 lines 17-25).
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses the step (S11) comprises: converting the repetition rate signal into an electrical signal (via 110, FIG. 1, col. 5 lines 5-8); obtaining a fundamental signal or a high-order harmonic signal according to the electrical signal (via 121, FIG. 1, col. 5 lines 38-43), and amplifying the fundamental signal or the high-order harmonic signal (via 123, FIG. 1, col. 5 lines 52-56); performing phase discrimination on an amplified fundamental signal or an amplified high-order harmonic signal to obtain the phase difference (via 125, FIG. 1, col. 5 line 57 - col. 6 line 2); and filtering the phase difference to obtain the sinusoidal error signal (via 127, FIG. 1, where 127 is an integrator which acts as a low-pass filter, col. 6 lines 2-4).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. in view of CN114709708A (hereafter CN’708, 09/21/23 IDS, machine translation is attached).
Regarding claim 5, Lin has disclosed the method outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except the step (S2) comprises: converting, by an optical delay line control system, a second electrical signal output from the cavity length adjusting actuator into a voltage characteristic signal; determining, by the optical delay line control system, whether the locking state of the cavity length adjusting actuator is in the critical threshold state based on the voltage characteristic signal, wherein when the locking state of the cavity length adjusting actuator is in the critical threshold state, the optical delay line of the optical frequency comb optical system is adjusted to adjust the repetition rate of the optical frequency comb. CN’708 discloses “the low-speed servo feedback control module monitors the current control voltage value of the piezoelectric ceramic controller, when the control voltage value deviates from the target voltage, the optical fibre temperature adjusting amount in the resonant cavity of the mode-locked laser is calculated according to the voltage deviation value; then the temperature controller of the mode-locked laser adjusts and controls the temperature of the optical fibre in the resonant cavity according to the optical fibre temperature adjusting amount.” (see claim 2) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lin to monitor the PZT control voltage and initiate the coarse optical-delay-line adjustment based on deviation of the PZT control voltage from a predetermined target/threshold as taught by CN’708 in order to obtain repetition rate stabilization by extending the range over which the repetition rate could remain locked.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN104638501A (09/21/23 IDS) discloses a method of locking a repetition rate of an optical frequency comb similar to the claimed invention (see FIG. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUANDA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM - 6:30 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, MINSUN HARVEY can be reached at (571)272-1835. 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.
/YUANDA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
