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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on July 7, 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR2107356 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 control means configured to balance the power of the two secondary beams as found in claims 8, 17, and 18 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification uses the phrases “as the signal-frequency source emits in continuous” (see paragraph 0057), “the laser diode 8 emits in continuous” (see paragraph 0064), and “the source can emit in continuous” (see paragraph 0073). This phrase is incomplete, as there is nothing that follows “in continuous” to allow the reader to know how the source “emit(s) in continuous”.
The examiner respectfully requests that applicant correct any other grammatical issues such as this that applicant may become aware of during prosecution of this application.
Appropriate correction is required.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract uses legal phraseology often used in patent claims; such language should be avoided as detailed below. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 11, each element (claim 1) or step (claim 11) should be separated by a line indentation. See 37 CFR 1.75(i).
In claim 2, the comma should be removed from after the phrase “the source beam power” in line 2 of the claim.
In claim 4, the comma should be removed from after the phrase “the laser source” in line 2 of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
For the above, the limitations “modulation means” (claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 14-20), “means for adjusting the temperature and/or the electric current” (claim 5), and “control means configured to balance the power . . .” (claims 7, 15, and 16) are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
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.
Claim 5 is 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 limitation “means for adjusting the temperature . . . of the laser source” as found in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
As “means for adjusting the temperature and/or the electric current of the laser source” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), the examiner turns to the specification to determine the structure capable of performing the claimed function. The modulation means, in paragraph 0034 of the specification, is disclosed as “a power supply, e.g. a current source, that powers the laser diode”. This would provide structure for a means that adjusts the electric current of the laser source. However, this does not provide structure for a means that adjusts the temperature of the laser source. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any other structure present in the specification that adjusts the temperature of the laser source. The only other element that can adjust the laser source appears to be external optical modulator 9, which is of the Mach-Zehnder type, which provides an alternative way to adjust the power of the source beam (see paragraph 0064). As a result, the specification fails to provide the corresponding structure for the claimed “means for adjusting the temperature . . . of the laser source”.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 5 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected for a lack of written description for the reasons set forth above regarding 35 USC 112(b) and indefiniteness. The rejection is made because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all structure that can perform the claimed function. Because the specification has not clearly defined structure for the means for adjusting the temperature of the laser source, this indicates that applicant has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guattari et al (2016/0231120) in view of Strandjord et al (2013/0107271).
Regarding claim 1, Guattari (prior art Fig. 1) discloses a fiber optic interferometer comprising a light generator 1, an optical source splitter 6, an optical fiber coil 11, an optical coupler-splitter 3, a photodetector 2, and an electronic signal-processing system 800, the light generator comprising a laser source able to emit a source beam 100 (see paragraph 0063), the source splitter being able to transmit the source beam towards the optical coupler-splitter (see Fig. 1, the source splitter transmits the source beam towards the coupler-splitter 3); the optical coupler-splitter being able to split the source beam into two secondary beams 150, 250 and to inject each secondary beam at one end of the optical fiber coil in such a way that the two secondary beams propagate in mutually opposed directions in the optical fiber coil (see paragraph 0064), each secondary beam travelling through the coil with a travel time τ defining a natural frequency of the coil fp = 1/2τ (see paragraphs 0075-0076), the optical coupler-splitter being able to recombine the two secondary beams at the exit of the optical fiber coil to form an interference beam 310 (see paragraph 0064), the source splitter being able to transmit the interference beam towards the photodetector (see paragraph 0064), wherein the laser source is configured to emit at most 4 longitudinal modes at each time instant t (laser diodes provide single longitudinal mode radiation), wherein the photodetector and the signal-processing system are configured to acquire and process a signal representative of the interference beam (see paragraph 0069).
Guattari fails to disclose that the light generator comprises modulation means designed to modulate the source beam at a modulation frequency equal to 2fp /2n+1, where n in a natural integer number greater than or equal to 1, and that the signal-processing system acquires and processes the signal representative of the interference beam at a demodulation frequency equal to fp /2n+1.
Strandjord discloses a system for reducing errors in a fiber optic gyroscope. Strandjord incorporates modulation means 410-1, 410-2 (see Fig. 4B) that modulate the source beam at a modulation frequency (see paragraph 0039) and uses resonance tracking electronics 414 to process a signal representative of the interference beam using a double demodulation technique (see paragraph 0043). While Strandjord fails to explicitly disclose the modulation and demodulation frequencies as fractions of the natural frequency of the resonator, Strandjord discloses that the modulation of the source beam is done to place a signature on the resonator output waves so that the resonance tracking electronics can reject signals and errors due to backscattered light in the resonator (see paragraph 0039), and that the demodulation performed by the tracking electronics is done in order to further discriminate between output signals and unwanted noise (see paragraph 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perform intensity modulation of the source beam of Guattari as taught by Strandjord and to perform processing of the interference signal using a demodulation frequency, the motivation being that such modulation and demodulation will reduce or eliminate rotation sensing errors due to modulator imperfections and backscatter (see paragraph 0039) while allowing the tracking electronics to discriminate between actual resonator output signals and unwanted noise (see paragraph 0043).
For the specifically claimed modulation and demodulation frequencies, the examiner notes that it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; the selection of the correct frequencies is further motivated by Strandjord, which states that the frequency of the intensity modulation is not harmonically related to the frequency of the common cavity modulation in the resonator 412 (see paragraph 0039), and the claimed modulation and demodulation frequencies, which are fractions of the natural frequency of the resonator, are broadly equivalent to the modulation frequency suggested by Strandjord.
As for claim 2, while the combination of Guattari and Strandjord fails to disclose that the modulation means are designed to modulate the source beam power in such a way that the source beam has a non-zero power at a time instant t-τ and the source beam has a zero power at time instances t and t-2τ, Strandjord, as discussed above regarding claim 1, states that the CW and CCW signals are modulated to place a signature on the resonator output light waves that allows resonance tracking electronics 414 to reject the signals and errors due to the backscatter light, and that the intensity is modulated with an intensity that varies at a specific frequency (see paragraph 0039). Modulating the frequency to meet the limitations required by claim 2 requires one having ordinary skill in the art to set the frequency of the intensity modulation to the proper value using the modulation signal generator 438. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the modulation frequency in the combination of Guattari and Strandjord so that the source beam power is modulated in such a way that the source beam has a non-zero power at a time instant t-τ and the source beam has a zero power at time instances t and t-2τ, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As for claim 3, while the combined device of Guattari and Strandjord discloses that the modulation means comprises an optical modulator that modulates the power of the source beam (modulation circuits 410-1 and 410-2 are intensity modulation circuits as in paragraph 0039 of Strandjord), the combined device fails to disclose that the modulator is arranged between the laser source and the source splitter. However, the examiner notes that Strandjord only requires that the modulation means be located before resonator 412 (see paragraph 0039), and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention requires only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Therefore, 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 modulation means of the combined device be located between the laser source and the source splitter, the motivation being that, so long as the modulation means are located before the resonator, there will be no change to the functionality of the device, as the modulation means will still modulate the light prior to the light entering the resonator loop of the combination.
As for claims 6, 12, and 13, the combination of Guattari and Strandjord fails to disclose that the modulation means are designed to square modulate the power of the source beam so that the power value at the point of measurement is equal to twice the average value of the power over a range of duration 2τ about the point of measurement. Strandjord discloses sine and triangle wave modulation (see paragraph 0041). However, as Guattari suggests square modulation for the phase of the source beam in Fig. 2, the examiner takes Official notice as to the well known use of square modulation waves for modulation of source beams, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use square modulation for the power of the source beam so that the power value at the point of measurement is equal to twice the average value of the power over a range of duration 2τ about the point of measurement, the motivation being that Guattari discloses square modulation as a known way to modulate an aspect of light (see Fig. 2), and because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As for claims 8 and 17, Guattari discloses that the laser source is a laser diode (see paragraph 0063).
As for claims 9 and 19, Guattari discloses an optical phase modulator 4 that is configured to modulate a phase difference between the two secondary beams (see paragraph 0064 and 0065). While Guattari fails to disclose that the phase modulation frequency is set to fp /2n+1, Guattari does disclose that the phase modulation frequency is set to fp (see paragraphs 0075-0076). The equation set forth in claims 9, 19, and 20, then, is a modification of the phase modulation frequency set forth in Guattari, as it is simply a fraction of the natural frequency of the gyroscope. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modulate the phase difference between the two secondary beams at fp /2n+1, the motivation being that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As for claim 10, Guattari discloses that the phase modulator modulates the phase difference according to an M-state modulation, for each phase-modulation period, where M is an even integer less than or equal to 20 (see Fig. 2 which shows a 2-state modulation).
Regarding claim 11, Guattari (prior art Fig. 1) discloses an interferometry method comprising emitting a source beam comprising at most 4 longitudinal modes at each time instant t; optically splitting the source beam into two secondary beams; injecting each secondary beam at one end of an optical fiber coil in such a way that the two secondary beams propagate in mutually opposed directions in the optical fiber coil, each secondary beam travelling through the coil with a travel time τ defining a natural frequency of the coil fp = 1/2τ (see paragraphs 0075-0076); optically recombining the two secondary beams at the exit of the optical fiber coil to form an interference beam; and detecting the interference beam incident on a photodetector.
Guattari fails to disclose that the method further comprises modulating the source beam at a modulation frequency equal to 2fp /2n+1, where n in a natural integer number greater than or equal to 1, with the detection of the interference beam being made using a demodulation frequency equal to fp /2n+1.
Strandjord discloses a method for reducing errors in a fiber optic gyroscope. Strandjord incorporates modulation means 410-1, 410-2 (see Fig. 4B) that modulate the source beam at a modulation frequency (see paragraph 0039) and uses resonance tracking electronics 414 to process a signal representative of the interference beam using a double demodulation technique (see paragraph 0043). While Strandjord fails to explicitly disclose the modulation and demodulation frequencies as fractions of the natural frequency of the resonator, Strandjord discloses that the modulation of the source beam is done to place a signature on the resonator output waves so that the resonance tracking electronics can reject signals and errors due to backscattered light in the resonator (see paragraph 0039), and that the demodulation performed by the tracking electronics is done in order to further discriminate between output signals and unwanted noise (see paragraph 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perform intensity modulation of the source beam of Guattari as taught by Strandjord and to perform processing of the interference signal using a demodulation frequency, the motivation being that such modulation and demodulation will reduce or eliminate rotation sensing errors due to modulator imperfections and backscatter (see paragraph 0039) while allowing the tracking electronics to discriminate between actual resonator output signals and unwanted noise (see paragraph 0043).
For the specifically claimed modulation and demodulation frequencies, the examiner notes that it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; the selection of the correct frequencies is further motivated by Strandjord, which states that the frequency of the intensity modulation is not harmonically related to the frequency of the common cavity modulation in the resonator 412 (see paragraph 0039), and the claimed modulation and demodulation frequencies, which are fractions of the natural frequency of the resonator, are broadly equivalent to the modulation frequency suggested by Strandjord.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guattari et al (2016/0231120) in view of Strandjord et al (2013/0107271) and in further view of Sanders (5,627,644).
As for claims 7 and 15, the combination of Guattari and Strandjord discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claims 1 and 2, but fails to disclose control means configured to balance the power of the two secondary beams.
Sanders, in a fiber optic gyroscope (Fig. 3), discloses control means 161 that intensity modulates beam 111 to affect the intensity level of that beam until it matches the intensity of beam 112 (see Col. 14, lines 50-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add control means to the combination of Guattari and Strandjord as per Sanders, the motivation being to remove any difference in phase relationship between counterpropagating beams due to the optical Kerr effect (see Col. 14, lines 50-58).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are 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:
As to claim 4, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 1, wherein the modulation means are designed to wavelength tune the laser source in such a way that the laser source emits a first longitudinal mode at a time instant t - τ and at least a second longitudinal mode, distinct from the first longitudinal mode, at the time instants t and t - 2τ, and wherein the electronic signal-processing system includes a filter suitable to eliminate a signal detected at a beat frequency between the first longitudinal mode and said at least one second longitudinal mode, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
The examiner notes that while claim 5 depends on claim 4, and would be allowable for prior art reasons for the reasons given above regarding claim 4, the 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections of that claim need to be overcome before that claim can be considered allowable.
With further regard to the above claim, while paragraphs 0046-0048 to Strandjord discloses turning slave light sources to CCW resonance frequencies that are one longitudinal mode lower or higher than the CW resonance frequency at a zero rotation rate of the RFOG 502 (see paragraph 0047 in particular), Strandjord fails to disclose the specific wavelength tuning set forth by the instant claim, along with the filter that eliminates a signal detected at a beat frequency between the longitudinal modes. Additionally, US 2019/0316907 to Khan et al. teaches a gyroscope that discloses that source 12 is a laser diode (see paragraph 0020) which is an example of the light source disclosed by Guattari in paragraph 0063. Khan states that such a light source provides single-longitudinal-mode laser radiation, and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would not expect tuning the laser diode of Guattari to change modes from one longitudinal mode to another longitudinal mode.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. “Asymmetry Analysis of the Resonance Curve in Resonant Integrated Optical Gyroscopes” by He et al. teaches using a tunable laser and a high aspect ratio silicon nitride waveguide to suppress polarization noise in the gyro (see abstract); “Development and Evaluation of Optical Passive Resonant Gyroscopes” by Ma et al. teaches countermeasures against parasitic noise sources in passive optical ring resonator gyroscopes (see abstract), and US 2019/0331492 to Ducloux discloses a gyroscope that also features square wave phase modulation of the light source (see paragraphs 0088-0089 for example).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 December 16, 2025