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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
mechanically tunable microresonator with two stretchable fiber tails and a piezo system of claim 5, and
the two fiber tailed microresonator, one tail being held on a static stage, one tail being held on a single piezo system, a tapered fiber transverse to the fiber tails outlined in claim 8
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 refers to obtaining a ratio between “the light wavelengths squared” and “the microresonator diameter” to be between 1 and 100. First, the originally filed specification at pages 4-5 only outlines a single wavelength and therefore not “wavelengths”. Second, the values outlined on pages 4-5 for the single wavelength given and the microresonator diameter range disclosed does not produce a value of 1-100 when made into a ratio. Based on the Applicant’s original disclosure of the instant application it is not clear the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention in claim 6 at the time the application was filed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 8 outlines a method of tuning a microresonator’s whispering gallery modes (WGM) by making use of a microresonator having two fiber tails, one tail being on a static stage, the other tail being on a single axis piezo system, bring a tapered fiber in contact with the microresonator to achieve optical coupling where the tapered fiber is transverse to the tails of the microresonator, and thereafter tuning the WGMs by applying a voltage to the piezo system. The Applicant has not provided a figure to show this two tailed, piezo driven, WGM tuning means for a microresonator. Other than repeating the language of claim 8 in the written description the Applicant has not outlined how a microresonator with two fiber tails is physically arranged or constructed. Applicant has not shown how the single axis piezo is arranged relative to the tail and microresonator in order to enable the WGM tuning. Applicant has also not outlined how the tuning of the WGMs occurs when the piezo system is activated.
The amount of experimentation needed to practice the invention is found to be undue or unreasonable based on (see MPEP 2165.01a) (1) C: the state of the prior art as the prior art was not found to teach such a system or a system related thereto, (2) F: the amount of direction provided by the inventor due to the lack of detail in the originally filed disclosure outlined above, (3) G: the lack of showing of working examples, and (4) H: the quantity of experimentation therefore needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
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, 6-8 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 2-5) 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.
Claim 1 at line 2 makes of use “(longitudinal)” where ‘longitudinal’ is enclosed in parentheses. It is therefore unclear if the term is meant to be an example or to be further limiting.
For purposes of examination, “longitudinal” is understood to be limiting.
Claim 1 at line 2 refers to “fiber coupled diode laser” and at line 3 to “an optical fiber with a tapered region”. It is unclear if the claim is referring to two separate fibers (a first fiber coupled to a diode laser, a second fiber with a taper) or is instead referring to a single fiber which itself has a tapered region. The originally filed disclosure at figure 1 appears to show a laser diode at “1” being connected to a single fiber which has thereon a polarization controller “2” and later a tapered portion “5”. As the originally filed specification appears to outline using a single fiber and claim 1 appears to be written to include more than a single fiber there is an inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the disclosure which renders the scope of the claim uncertain (see MPEP 2173.03).
For purposes of examination, the claim will be read as making use of two fibers.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the polarization" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim making the scope unclear as more than 1 polarization of light exists.
For purposes of examination the limitation will be read as “a polarization”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the whispering gallery modes" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim making the scope unclear as more than 1 type of mode exists.
For purposes of examination the limitation will be read as “whispering gallery modes”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the light wavelengths" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim making the scope unclear as more than 1 wavelength of light exists.
For purposes of examination the limitation will be read as “wavelengths of the light”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the light wavelengths” in line 1. The specification as originally filed only appears to outline production of a single light wavelength (see specification pages 4-5). As the originally filed specification appears to outline using a single wavelength and claim 6 has been written to include more than a single wavelength there is an inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the disclosure which renders the scope of the claim uncertain (see MPEP 2173.03).
For purposes of examination, the claim will be read as making use of a single wavelength.
The term “long” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long” 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.
For purposes of examination “long” will be read as the coherence of the system/method’s laser in the cited prior art.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the closest microresonator’s WGM" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim making the scope unclear.
It is noted that this limitation is confusing on two accounts. First, no presence of a microresonator is positively stated, and second, no presence of WGMs is stated.
For purposes of examination the limitation will be read as “finding a closest WGM of a microresonator”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the spectral tuning process" in 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim making the scope unclear.
For purposes of examination the limitation will be read as “the tuning process”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "one of the fiber tails" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim making the scope unclear.
For purposes of examination, the limitations will be read as “a first fiber tail” and “a second fiber tail”.
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.
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(s) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsko et al. (US 2019/0146091) in view of Maleki et al. (US 2012/0194893) and RP Photonics (“Single mode operation”; RP Photonics Encyclopedia; capture date 11/11/2019; https://web.archive.org/web/20191111210335/https://www.rp-photonics.com/single_mode_operation.html).
With respect to claim 1, Matsko teaches an apparatus comprising :a multimode (longitudinal) (fig.1 #102, [0026], fig.6 #600 spectrum showing multi longitudinal modes based on multi wavelength output, [0065]), fiber coupled laser diode ([0037] laser light coupled to fiber before microresonator and before mirror #222), an optical fiber with a tapered region ([0031]), coupled to the said diode, a microresonator (fig.2 #201) in contact with the tapered region of said fiber (fig.2, at least optically in contact to transfer light), a first temperature controller that controls temperature and wavelength of the laser diode ([0062]), a device for modifying the whispering gallery modes (WGM) distribution of the microresonator ([0031-32]), and a control feedback system that adjusts the modes distribution of the microresonator (fig.4, [0043]). Matsko does not teach a polarization controller that controls the polarization of the light in the tapered region. Maleki teaches a related injection locked laser system using a WGM microresonator (fig.10) and further teaches controlling polarization at the output of the laser before the coupler into the microresonator (fig.10 #1021). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system of Matsko to make use of a polarization controller that controls the polarization of light in the tapered region (i.e. coupler) as Maleki has demonstrated such an arrangement which would be beneficial to control TE/TM mode behavior (Maleki, [0045]).
Matsko further does not teach single transverse mode laser output. RP Photonics teaches single transverse mode laser operation is useful to provide high beam quality at/near diffraction limits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Matsko to use a laser with single transverse mode output as taught by RP Photonics in order to enable using a high-quality beam at/near the diffraction limit for focusing to small spots and/or coupling to optics.
With respect to claim 2, Matsko teaches said control feedback system is configured to ensure lasing stability ([0036], low noise/linewidth).
With respect to claim 4, Matsko teaches said device is a temperature controller ([0031]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsko, Maleki, RP Photonics in view of Bilenko et al. (US 2020/0313389).
With respect to claim 3, Matsko, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the control system to continuously scan the WGM-locked laser diode wavelength by using current ([0067]) and tuning of the laser wavelength based on temperature ([0062]), but does not teach said control feedback system is configured to continuously scan said WGM-locked laser diode wavelength through said first temperature controller. Bilenko teaches a related injection locked laser system using a microresonator (fig.1) including continuous scanning the wavelengths using temperature control of the laser ([0033], [0089] compared to [0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system of Matsko to preform the continuous scan of laser wavelengths based on temperature control instead of current control as Bilenko has demonstrated each means is suitable for the given application (see MPEP 2144.06 II, 2144.07) and would provide an alternate means of sweeping.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsko, Maleki and RP Photonics in view of Painter et al. (US 6741628).
With respect to claim 5, Matsko, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the mechanical tunability of the microresonator using a piezo system ([0032]), but does not teach said device is based on a microresonator with two stretchable fiber tails. Painter teaches a related WGM microresonator device using a tapered fiber coupler (fig.2) having two tails (fig.2 left/right sides of taper) wherein the tapered fiber coupler uses a fiber type which is stretchable (col.4 lines 12-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of a fiber with two tails and taper forming method of Painter in the system of Matsko in order to utilize a demonstrated fiber taper arrangement shown to couple to WGM microresonators as well as to employ a means of manufacture shown to create the desired fiber taper type which is able to couple to microresonators.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilenko in view of Maleki et al. (US 2008/0310463, hereafter ‘463) and Maleki.
With respect to claim 7, Bilenko teaches a method to obtain a tunable long coherence laser (fig.1, output achieved by Bilenko considered ‘long’ coherence as not defined in the claim), comprising: defining a desired laser wavelength ([0087], match frequency of laser), said desired laser wavelength being within a tunability range of said tunable long coherence laser ([0087] necessarily true to obtain wavelength); finding the closest microresonator's WGM to the desired laser wavelength ([0087], match frequency of the microresonator); bringing the microresonator to its pre-modified initial conditions of temperature or tensile stress (condition before applying tuning); setting the temperature of the laser to lock the laser to that closest WGM ([0087]); tuning the laser temperature and the microresonator's WGM using a feedback control system ([0087], fig.6b) that ensures the stability of the locking during the spectral tuning process (fig.8, [0090], 1 stable, low linewidth, locked mode achieved); and stopping the tuning process when the desired laser wavelength is obtained ([0087] tuning process ends at match). Bilenko does not specify tuning the laser temperature and the microresonator's WGM occurs simultaneously. ‘463 teaches a related locked laser system using a WGM microresonator (fig.1) which includes simultaneous tuning of the laser and microresonator systems ([0032-33]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the method of Bilenko to tune the laser and microresonator simultaneously as demonstrated by ‘463 in order to reduce adjustment time by doing the operations concurrently.
Bilenko does not teach a polarization controller that controls the polarization of the light as part of the process. Maleki teaches a related injection locked laser system using a WGM microresonator (fig.10) and further teaches controlling polarization at the output of the laser before the coupler into the microresonator (fig.10 #1021). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the method of Bilenko to make use of a polarization controller that controls the polarization of light as Maleki has demonstrated such an arrangement which would be beneficial to control TE/TM mode behavior (Maleki, [0045]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included PTO892 form for a list of related art directed to injection locked lasers using microresonators and/or details of related microresonators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights