DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on March 4, 2024. Claims 1-18 are pending, with claims 1 and 2 in independent claim form.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on October 9, 2024 and March 4, 2024, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (seven (7) pages) were received on March 4, 2024. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding claims 1 and 2, the preamble of these claims appears redundant. For example, the entire phrase uses “near-infrared pulsed light source” three times in this preamble. Further, it is not immediately clear if the feature of the “terahertz wave generation device” is actually required in the claims 1 and 2, because this structural feature is not part of the claim body. Applicant should consider amending the features of dependent claim 12 into each independent claim 1 and 2, as this would require such structure of a “terahertz wave generation device” in the independent claim(s). Also noting claims 1, 2, and 12, the use of terms such as “based on a light injection terahertz-wave parametric generation method” (or the “system is generated using a photoinjection-type terahertz parametric generation method”) is objected to for having methods is Device claims. Finally in claims 1 and 2, the abbreviation after “pulse duty ratio” to be “(dB)” is unclear because pulse duty ratio does not abbreviate to “dB.” Further, because claims 1-18 appear to be direct translations from a foreign (Japanese) patent document into English, Applicant’s care is requested to carefully and thoroughly review each claim for typos, minor informalities, and any other awkward prose due to this translation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 2 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. Claims 3-18 are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being in dependent form.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 2, the closing phrase language “which is a ratio of pulse width of each of the pulses and a period of the pulses” lacks proper antecedent basis for such terminology of “pulses.” Previously in claims 1 and 2, the features of “near-infrared pulsed light source”, “with pulses”, and “pulsed light” (which is resultant or emitted) are recited. Therefore, it is not immediately clear which “pulses” are being referred by such language. Therefore, claims 1 and 2 lack proper antecedent basis under the meaning of definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and are herein rejected. Further regarding claims 1, 2, and 12, the mixing of device claims with “method” limitations (the “light injection” or “photoinjection-type” methods of claims 1, 2, and 12) is confusing by combining / mixing two statutory classes of claims into one claim. Also note that both “light injection” and “photoinjection” is claimed which is not consistent. Claims 3-18 are also rejected at least as being in dependent claim form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khan et al. NPL “Ultra-sensitive, room temperature THz detection…”
Regarding each independent claim 1 and 2, Khan et al. NPL (ABS; Entire Document, see pgs. 791711-1 through 791711-11; see Fig. 2) teaches all such structural features of the presented “near-infrared pulsed light source” in this claim (which is capable of being used with THz generation), in that a first near-infrared light source can emit near-infrared laser light which is a continuous wave of wavelength longer than 1,240nm; and a pulse modulator to modulate the near-infrared laser light from the first near-infrared light source with pulses, and to emit, as first near-infrared light, near-infrared pulsed light whose pulse width is less than or equal to one nanosecond, and whose extinction ratio is greater than or equal to a value which is a result of adding 10dB to a pulse duty ratio (dB) (or being “greater than”, for claim 2), which is a ratio of a pulse width of each of the pulses and a period of the pulses. Note also the comments from the extended European Search Report from the IDS filed October 9, 2024. Khan NPL is capable of all functional features and properties of these claims.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Staus et al. NPL “Continuously phase-matched terahertz different frequency generation…”
Regarding each independent claim 1 and 2, Staus et al. NPL (ABS; Entire Document pgs. 13296 through 13303; see Figs 4 and 5) teaches all such structural features of the presented “near-infrared pulsed light source” in this claim (which is capable of being used with THz generation), in that a first near-infrared light source can emit near-infrared laser light which is a continuous wave of wavelength longer than 1,240nm; and a pulse modulator to modulate the near-infrared laser light from the first near-infrared light source with pulses, and to emit, as first near-infrared light, near-infrared pulsed light whose pulse width is less than or equal to one nanosecond, and whose extinction ratio is greater than or equal to a value which is a result of adding 10dB to a pulse duty ratio (dB) (or being “greater than”, for claim 2), which is a ratio of a pulse width of each of the pulses and a period of the pulses. Note also the comments from the extended European Search Report from the IDS filed October 9, 2024. Staus NPL is capable of all functional features and properties of these claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014-514754 A (Electro Scientific), and further in view of JP 2020-514833 A (MacQuarie University). Note also the Written Opinion from PCT JP ‘690 as found in the IDS filed on March 4, 2024.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 2, JP 2020-514833 A teaches (ABS; Figs. 2A, 2B, 6B, 25A; corresponding text, in particular paragraphs [0004] , [0026], [0034] – [0036], [0095] – [0096]; Claims) outputting pulsed light by using a pulse modulator 2514 and 2518, in that input light is modulated whose pulse width is less than or equal to one ns, and whose extinction ratio is great than or equal to a value which is a result of adding 10dB to a pulse duty ratio being a ratio of the pulse widths and period (see cited Figs. above and region S3, with peak power at r1 and r2). JP ‘754 teaches using Nd:YVO4 for the laser(s).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 2, there is no express and exact teaching in JP ‘754 for using a near-infrared light source being modulated with such pulse modulator feature of JP ‘754.
JP 2020-514833 A (MacQuarie University) teaches (ABS; Figs.; para [0053]) features in which a near-infrared wavelength of a similar Nd:YVO4 in which the 1342 nm is described, so that near-IR pulses are used and output.
Since JP ‘754 and JP ‘833 are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by JP ‘833 would have been recognized in the pertinent art of JP ‘754.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of JP ‘833, to use pulsed sources with near-infrared wavelengths, such as 1342 nm, into the base design of the pulse modulator using laser inputs of JP ‘754, to allow for improved outputs that recognize the important near-IR wavelengths for optical lasers in communications and semiconductor optics, for improving the variability of the design of JP ‘754. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of using a near-infrared pulses light source to be modulated. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, independent claims 1 and 2 are found obvious over JP ‘754 and JP ‘833 (henceforth “COMBO”).
Regarding further dependent claims 3-18, and based on a review of the hypothetical base combination formed by COMBO in claims 1 and/or 2, such overall added dependencies do not serve to patentably distinguish from COMBO. At a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as the intensity modulators, timing control, amplifiers, or further use with a THz wave generation device (claims 12-18) because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected COMBO to perform equally well with such features as the optical dependencies (modification of intensity, timing, amplification, and/or use with THz generation) because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve optical laser outputs and pulse control of the optical formations. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with a (near-infrared) pulsed light source unit such as in COMBO. Further, the base structure of the independent claims 1-2 are found obvious over COMBO as discussed prior in this section. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) COMBO to obtain the invention as specified in claims 3-18. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Claims 3-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan NPL, as noted above. Note also the Extended European Search Report as found in the IDS dated on October 9, 2024.
Regarding base independent claims 1 and 2, Khan NPL clearly anticipates all structural features found therein (note the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections above).
Regarding further dependent claims 3-18, and based on a review of the base combination formed by Khan NPL in claims 1 and/or 2, such overall added dependencies do not serve to patentably distinguish from Khan NPL. At a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as the intensity modulators, timing control, amplifiers, or further use with a THz wave generation device (claims 12-18) because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Khan NPL to perform equally well with such features as the optical dependencies (modification of intensity, timing, amplification, and/or use with THz generation) because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve optical laser outputs and pulse control of the optical formations. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with a (near-infrared) pulsed light source unit such as in Khan NPL. Further, the base structure of the independent claim 1 is clearly anticipated by Khan NPL discussed prior to this section. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) Khan NPL to obtain the invention as specified in claims 3-18. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Claims 3-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Staus NPL, as noted above. Note also the Extended European Search Report as found in the IDS dated on October 9, 2024.
Regarding base independent claims 1 and 2, Staus NPL clearly anticipates all structural features found therein (note the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections above).
Regarding further dependent claims 3-18, and based on a review of the base combination formed by Staus NPL in claims 1 and/or 2, such overall added dependencies do not serve to patentably distinguish from Staus NPL. At a time before the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use features such as the intensity modulators, timing control, amplifiers, or further use with a THz wave generation device (claims 12-18) because Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Staus NPL to perform equally well with such features as the optical dependencies (modification of intensity, timing, amplification, and/or use with THz generation) because these claim terms would have been easily integrated and would have also been recognized by one with common skill in the art to improve optical laser outputs and pulse control of the optical formations. It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at those features with a (near-infrared) pulsed light source unit such as in Staus NPL. Further, the base structure of the independent claim 1 is clearly anticipated by Staus NPL discussed prior to this section. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) Staus NPL to obtain the invention as specified in claims 3-18. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references A and B (Moriguchi US ‘251 and Zhang US ‘899), which pertain to the state of the art of near-infrared wavelength (and other optical lasers) that may be modulated at the pulse level for improved operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 May 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights