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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 0161671 A2 (hereinafter Phillips).
Regarding claim 1, Phillips teaches an optical modulator comprising: “a vibrator configured to perform flexural vibration along a first direction” (figs. 5A-B, p. 8 last para p. 9 para 1; first direction is along the 260 in fig. 5A), the vibrator including: “a base extending along the first direction” (fig. 5A along line 260); “a first vibration arm extending along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction” (fig. 5A element 272; second direction orthogonal to line 260); and “a second vibration arm extending along the second direction” (fig. 5A element 270), “the first and second vibration arms being disposed side by side along the first direction and coupled to the base” (this is shown in fig. 5A); and “a diffraction grating disposed on the vibrator and having a plurality of grooves arranged in parallel along the first direction” (figs. 5A-B element 264, p. 8 last para p. 9 para 1), wherein a frequency of laser light incident on the diffraction grating is shifted (p. 8 last para p. 9 para 1), “each of the first vibration arm and the second vibration arm performs the flexural vibration along the first direction” (p. 8 last para p. 9 para 1), “the diffraction grating is disposed on at least one of the first vibration arm and the second vibration arm” (this is shown in figs. 5A-B),“a length, along the first direction, of the diffraction grating is smaller than each of a length, along the first direction, of the first vibration arm and a length, along the first direction, of the second vibration arm” (the diffraction grating is shorter than the two tuning fork arms with respect to line 260 as shown in fig. 5A), and “a length, along the second direction, of the diffraction grating is smaller than each of a length, along the second direction, of the first vibration arm and a length, along the second direction, of the second vibration arm” (the diffraction grating is shorter with respect to the lines parallel to the two arms).
Regarding claim 8, Phillips teaches the optical modulator according to claim 1, wherein the vibrator is a quartz crystal vibrator (p. 8 last para), a silicon vibrator, or a ceramic vibrator.
Regarding claim 12, Phillips teaches the optical modulator according to claim 1, wherein the diffraction grating is disposed on a surface of at least one of the first vibration arm and the second vibration arm, and an angle between the surface and a plane extending along the first and second directions is less than 90 degrees (fig. 5A shows the diffraction gratings are at 0 degrees).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Hirofumi, K. et al., JP 2007202210 A (hereinafter Hirofumi).
Regarding claim 3, Phillips teaches the optical modulator according to claim 1, “wherein each of the first vibration arm and the second vibration arm includes a first vibration portion directly adjacent to the base and a second vibration portion positioned at a tip end opposite to the base” (this limitation corresponds to fig. 6 of the instant application, Phillips teaches this limitation as shown in fig. 5A, p. 9 para 3),
Phillips fails to disclose “a width, along the first direction, the second vibration portion is wider than a width, along the first direction, of the first vibration portion, and the diffraction grating is disposed on the second vibration portion”.
Hirofumi, from the same field of endeavor as Phillips, teaches “a width, along the first direction, the second vibration portion is wider than a width, along the first direction, of the first vibration portion, and the diffraction grating is disposed on the second vibration portion” (this is shown in fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Hirofumi to Phillips to have “a width, along the first direction, the second vibration portion is wider than a width, along the first direction, of the first vibration portion, and the diffraction grating is disposed on the second vibration portion” in order to reduce the size of the resonator (p. 10 last para lines 7-8).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of JP2012257141A (hereinafter Ryuta).
Regarding claim 4, Phillips does not teach the optical modulator according to claim 1, further comprising: a housing having an accommodating portion configured to accommodate the vibrator and the diffraction grating wherein the accommodating portion is depressurized.
Ryuta, from the same field of endeavor as Phillips, teaches the optical modulator according to claim 1, further comprising: a housing having an accommodating portion configured to accommodate the vibrator and the diffraction grating wherein the accommodating portion is depressurized (p. 15 para 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Masayuki to the modified device of Dillon to have the optical modulator according to claim 1, further comprising: a housing having an accommodating portion configured to accommodate the vibrator and the diffraction grating wherein the accommodating portion is depressurized in order for the vibrating element not to be hindered (p. 15 para 4).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips and Ryuta as applied to claim(s) 4 above, and in view of JP 2004350015 A (hereinafter Masayuki).
Regarding claim 5, Phillips does not teach the optical modulator according to claim 4, wherein the housing has a lid or a transmission window through which the laser light is transmitted.
Masayuki, from the same field of endeavor as Phillips, teaches the optical modulator according to claim 4, wherein the housing has a lid or a transmission window through which the laser light is transmitted (fig. 2 element 39, p. 6 last para).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Masayuki to Phillips to have the optical modulator according to claim 4, wherein the housing has a lid or a transmission window through which the laser light is transmitted in order to allow light to be transmitted in the resonator.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips, Ryuta, and Masayuki, as applied to claim(s) 5 above, and in view of US 20080165341 A1 (hereinafter Dillon).
Regarding claim 6, Phillips does not teach the optical modulator according to claim 5, wherein
Dillon, from the same field of endeavor as Phillips, teaches the optical modulator according to claim 5, wherein the transmission window has a curved surface (figs. 6A-B, para [0056] lines 1-5; these are collimator lenses).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Masayuki to Phillips to have the optical modulator according to claim 5, wherein the transmission window has a curved surface in order to allow the light to collimate into the diffraction grating.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips, Ryuta, and Masayuki, as applied to claim(s) 5 above, and in view of US20200309953A1 (hereinafter Yamada).
Regarding claim 7, Phillips does not teach the optical modulator according to claim 5, wherein the transmission window has an incident surface inclined with respect to an incident direction of the incident laser light.
Yamada, from the same field of endeavor as Phillips, teaches the optical modulator according to claim 5, wherein the transmission window has an incident surface inclined with respect to an incident direction of the incident laser light (fig. 4 middle diagram element 36, para [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Yamada to Phillips to have the optical modulator according to claim 5, wherein the transmission window has an incident surface inclined with respect to an incident direction of the incident laser light in order to reduce the size of the device (para [0061]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Sonehara, T. et al., US 6381015 B1 (hereinafter Sonehara).
Regarding claim 9, Phillips fails to teach a laser interferometer comprising: a laser light source configured to emit the laser light toward an object; the optical modulator according to claim 1, which is irradiated with the laser light and superimposes a modulation signal on the laser light; a photodetector configured to: receive the laser light including a sample signal derived from the object and the modulation signal; and to output a light reception signal; a demodulation circuit configured to demodulate the sample signal from the light reception signal based on a reference signal; and an oscillation circuit configured to operate using the vibrator as a signal source and output the reference signal to the demodulation circuit.
Sonehara, from the same field of endeavor as Phillips, teaches a laser interferometer comprising: a laser light source (fig. 1 light source 1) configured to emit the laser light toward an object (fig. 1 sample); the optical modulator according to claim 1 (fig. 1 PZT 5), which is irradiated with the laser light and superimposes a modulation signal on the laser light (this is shown in fig. 1); a photodetector configured to: receive the laser light including a sample signal derived from the object and the modulation signal (fig. 1 photodetector 9); and to output a light reception signal (fig. 1 amplifier 11); a demodulation circuit configured to demodulate the sample signal from the light reception signal based on a reference signal (fig. 1 signal processing unit 14); and an oscillation circuit configured to operate using the vibrator as a signal source and output the reference signal to the demodulation circuit (fig. 1 oscillator 10, col 4 lines 38-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Sonehara to Phillips to have a laser interferometer comprising: a laser light source configured to emit the laser light toward an object; the optical modulator according to claim 1, which is irradiated with the laser light and superimposes a modulation signal on the laser light; a photodetector configured to: receive the laser light including a sample signal derived from the object and the modulation signal; and to output a light reception signal; a demodulation circuit configured to demodulate the sample signal from the light reception signal based on a reference signal; and an oscillation circuit configured to operate using the vibrator as a signal source and output the reference signal to the demodulation circuit in order to have a high signal stability and signal-to-noise-ratio (Abstract lines 21-22).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips and Sonehara as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Koji, K. et al., JP 2010164351 A (hereinafter Koji).
Regarding claim 10, Phillips fails to teach the laser interferometer according to claim 9, wherein the diffraction grating is a blazed diffraction grating, and the optical modulator is disposed such that the blazed diffraction grating is in a Littrow arrangement.
Koji, from the same field of endeavor as Phillips, teaches the laser interferometer according to claim 9, wherein the diffraction grating is a blazed diffraction grating, and the optical modulator is disposed such that the blazed diffraction grating is in a Littrow arrangement (fig. 2 p. 6 para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Koji to Phillips to have the laser interferometer according to claim 9, wherein the diffraction grating is a blazed diffraction grating, and the optical modulator is disposed such that the blazed diffraction grating is in a Littrow arrangement in order to obtain a high speed imaging system (p. 3 para 2 last sentence).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips and Hirofumi as applied to claim(s) 3 above, and further in view of Ryuta.
Regarding claim 11, Phillips does not teach the optical modulator according to claim 3, further comprising: a housing having an accommodating portion configured to accommodate the vibrator and the diffraction grating, wherein the accommodating portion is depressurized.
Ryuta, from the same field of endeavor as Phillips, teaches the optical modulator according to claim 3, further comprising: a housing having an accommodating portion configured to accommodate the vibrator and the diffraction grating, wherein the accommodating portion is depressurized (p. 15 para 4, note the diffracting gratings are the grooves).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ryuta to Phillips to have the optical modulator according to claim 3, further comprising: a housing having an accommodating portion configured to accommodate the vibrator and the diffraction grating, wherein the accommodating portion is depressurized in order for the vibrating element not to be hindered (p. 15 para 4).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights