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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/18/2024 is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the final lines of the claims should recite “a beginning of repeated operations.
Claims 5 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the final lines of the claims should recite “a number of pulses”.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: the final lines of the claim should recite “the replaced intensity spectrogram and the constrained phase spectrogram”.
Claims 7 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the final lines of the claims should recite “a modified second waveform function”.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“preliminary data generation unit” comprising “first, second, and third transform units” in claim 9
“data selection unit” in claim 9
various “units” comprised within the “second transform unit” in claims 14 and 15
When looking to the Specification of the published application, paragraph [0063] indicates that the corresponding structure for these elements is a processor running a program.
NOTE: “Storage unit” of claim 9 does not invoke 112(f) because it is well known in the art to be memory.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it/they is/are drawn to a computer program per se which is not subject matter eligible under 35 USC 101 (see MPEP 2106.03, I, fifth paragraph, “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations”).
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 3, 4, 11, and 12 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.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 11, and 12, each recite a “target” for comparison to center wavelength differences. However, there is confusion as to what the target and the claims seem to not make grammatical sense as currently worded. From reading the specification, it appears that this is a target optical pulse train but that is not clear with how the claims are currently recited.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al, JP 2018036484 A (see attached machine translation) in view of Nakano et al, U.S. Publication No. 2016/0329246.
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi teaches a data generation program (see Takahashi paragraph [0054]) for controlling a spatial light modulator, the data generation program causing a computer to execute (see paragraph [0013], “This figure shows the modulation surface of a spatial light modulation element”), the data generation method comprising:
preparing a plurality of initial phase spectrum functions (see paragraph [0057], “First, we prepare the initial intensity spectral function A<sub>0<
/sub>(ω) and the phase spectral function Ψ<sub>0</sub>(ω), which are functions of frequency ω (process number (1) in the figure)” and paragraph [0059], “Subsequently, by repeating the above processes (1) to (7) multiple times” indicating that different initial phase spectral functions are used);
generating each of a plurality of pieces of preliminary data for controlling the spatial light modulator by using each of the plurality of initial phase spectrum functions (see paragraph [0059], “the phase spectral shape represented by the phase spectral function Ψ<sub>n</sub>(ω) in the waveform function can be brought closer to the phase spectral shape corresponding to the desired time intensity waveform. The final phase spectral function Ψ<sub>IFTA</sub>(ω) will form the basis for the modulation pattern required to obtain the desired time-intensity waveform”); and
wherein the generating each of the plurality of pieces of preliminary data includes:
transforming a first waveform function in a frequency domain including an intensity spectrum function and a phase spectrum function into a second waveform function in a temporal domain including a temporal intensity waveform function and a temporal phase waveform function (see paragraph [0058], “Next, we perform a Fourier transform from the frequency domain to the time domain on the above function (a) (arrow A1 in the figure). This yields a frequency-domain waveform function (b) that includes the time-intensity
waveform function b<sub>n</sub>(t) and the time-phase waveform function Θ<sub>n</sub> (t) (process number (3) in the figure)”);
calculating, from the second waveform function, a third waveform function in the temporal domain that includes a temporal intensity waveform function and a temporal phase waveform function (see paragraph [0058], “This yields a frequency-domain waveform function (b) that includes the time-intensity
waveform function b<sub>n</sub>(t) and the time-phase waveform function Θ<sub>n</sub>(t) (process number (3) in the figure). Next, the time-intensity waveform function b<sub>n< /sub>(t) included in the above function (b) is replaced with the time-intensity waveform function Target<sub>0</sub>(t) based on the desired waveform (processing numbers (4) and (5) in the figure)”) and corresponds to a target intensity spectrogram generated in advance (see paragraph [0064], “Next, the waveform function modification unit 27 of the phase spectrum design unit 22 modifies the second waveform function (j) so that the spectrogram of the replaced second waveform function (j) approaches the target spectrogram that was previously generated according to the desired wavelength band”); and
transforming the third waveform function into a fourth waveform function in the frequency domain including an intensity spectrum function and a phase spectrum function (see paragraph [0058], “Next, we perform an inverse Fourier transform from the time domain to the frequency domain on the above function (d) (arrow A2 in the figure). This yields a frequency domain
waveform function (e) that includes the intensity spectral function B<sub>n</sub>(ω) and the phase spectral function Ψ<sub>n</sub>(ω) (process number (6) in the figure)”), and
in the generating each of the plurality of pieces of preliminary data, the transforming the first waveform function, the calculating, and the transforming the third waveform function are repeatedly performed for each of the plurality of pieces of preliminary data while replacing the first waveform function with the fourth waveform function, each of the plurality of initial phase spectrum functions is set as the phase spectrum function of the first waveform function in the transforming the first waveform function at beginning of repeated operations, and each of the plurality of pieces of preliminary data is generated based on the phase spectrum function of the fourth waveform function obtained after the repeated operations (see paragraph [0059]).
Takahashi does not expressively teach
selecting at least one of the plurality of pieces of preliminary data and setting the at least one piece of preliminary data as data for controlling the spatial light modulator.
However, Nakano in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method for controlling a spatial light modulator (see Nakano Abstract) with a piece of preliminary data (see paragraph [0100]) as taught in Takahashi comprising
selecting the piece of preliminary data and setting the at least one piece of preliminary data as data for controlling the spatial light modulator (see paragraph [0100]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of selecting data for controlling a spatial light modulator as taught in Nakano with the method of creating multiple pieces of preliminary data taught in Takahashi, the motivation being to allow data input flexibility and choosing ideal data inputs for controlling such a modulator.
Method claim 1 recites similar limitations as claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi in view of Nakano teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the target intensity spectrogram is an intensity spectrogram related to an optical pulse train including a plurality of optical pulses having different center wavelengths from each other (see Takahashi paragraph [0021], “SLM14 is an example of a phase mask that simultaneously performs phase modulation and intensity modulation of optical Lb in order to generate optical pulses P21 to P23, which have a
time difference between them and different central wavelengths, from a single optical pulse P1” and paragraph [0088], “As described above, in the data creation unit 17 of this embodiment, a second waveform function (h) in the time domain is generated by performing a Fourier transform on the first waveform function (g) in the frequency domain, and then the second waveform function (h) is replaced with a time intensity waveform function Target<sub>0</sub>(t) based on a desired waveform”).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi in view of Nakano teaches all the limitations of claim 2, but does not expressively teach wherein a center wavelength difference between the plurality of optical pulses in the target intensity spectrogram is set to be larger than a center wavelength difference between the plurality of optical pulses as a target.
However, Takahashi in view of Nakano does teach this as a design factor (see Takahashi paragraph [0101]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to create the target intensity spectrogram in such a way to create the desired central wavelength difference based on needs in the system.
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi in view of Nakano teaches all the limitations of claim 2, but does not expressively teach wherein a center wavelength difference between the plurality of optical pulses in the target intensity spectrogram is set to be larger than 1.1 times a center wavelength difference between the plurality of optical pulses as a target.
However, Takahashi in view of Nakano does teach this as a design factor (see Takahashi paragraph [0101]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to create the target intensity spectrogram in such a way to create the desired central wavelength difference based on needs in the system.
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi in view of Nakano teaches all the limitations of claim 2, but does not expressively teach wherein a center wavelength difference between the plurality of optical pulses in the target intensity spectrogram is set to be smaller than a value obtained by dividing a wavelength band of input light to the spatial light modulator by a value obtained by subtracting 1 from number of pulses in the optical pulse train.
However, Takahashi in view of Nakano does teach this as a design factor (see Takahashi paragraph [0101]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to create the target intensity spectrogram in such a way to create the desired central wavelength difference based on needs in the system.
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi in view of Nakano teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the calculating includes:
transforming the second waveform function into an intensity spectrogram and a phase spectrogram; replacing the intensity spectrogram with the target intensity spectrogram and constraining the phase spectrogram (see Takahashi paragraph [0064], “Next, the waveform function modification unit 27 of the phase spectrum design unit 22 modifies the second waveform function (j) so that the spectrogram of the replaced second waveform function (j) approaches the target spectrogram that was previously generated according to the desired wavelength band” and paragraph [0065], “In this embodiment, the conversion result (time, frequency, spectral intensity) is defined as a "spectrogram."”); and
transforming replaced intensity spectrogram and constrained phase spectrogram into the third waveform function (see Takahashi paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi in view of Nakano teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the calculating includes:
performing, for the second waveform function, replacement of the temporal intensity waveform function based on a target waveform corresponding to the target intensity spectrogram (see Takahashi paragraph [0058], “This yields a frequency-domain waveform function (b) that includes the time-intensity
waveform function b<sub>n</sub>(t) and the time-phase waveform function Θ<sub>n</sub>(t) (process number (3) in the figure). Next, the time-intensity waveform function b<sub>n< /sub>(t) included in the above function (b) is replaced with the time-intensity waveform function Target<sub>0</sub>(t) based on the desired waveform (processing numbers (4) and (5) in the figure)”);
modifying the second waveform function so that a spectrogram of the second waveform function approaches the target intensity spectrogram; and generating the third waveform function from modified second waveform function (see Takahashi paragraph [0064], “Next, the waveform function modification unit 27 of the phase spectrum design unit 22 modifies the second waveform function (j) so that the spectrogram of the replaced second waveform function (j) approaches the target spectrogram that was previously generated according to the desired wavelength band”).
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al, JP 2018036484 A (see attached machine translation) in view of Nakano et al, U.S. Publication No. 2016/0329246 and Dantus et al, U.S. Publication No. 2008/0170218.
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi teaches a data generation device for controlling a spatial light modulator (see Takahashi Abstract), the data generation device comprising:
a preliminary data generation unit (see paragraph [0054]) that generates each of a plurality of pieces of preliminary data for controlling the spatial light modulator (see paragraph [0059], “the phase spectral shape represented by the phase spectral function Ψ<sub>n</sub>(ω) in the waveform function can be brought closer to the phase spectral shape corresponding to the desired time intensity waveform. The final phase spectral function Ψ<sub>IFTA</sub>(ω) will form the basis for the modulation pattern required to obtain the desired time-intensity waveform”) by using a plurality of initial phase spectrum functions (see paragraph [0057], “First, we prepare the initial intensity spectral function A<sub>0</sub>(ω) and the phase spectral function Ψ<sub>0</sub>(ω), which are functions of frequency ω (process number (1) in the figure)” and paragraph [0059], “Subsequently, by repeating the above processes (1) to (7) multiple times” indicating that different initial phase spectral functions are used); and
wherein the preliminary data generation unit includes:
a first transform unit (see paragraph [0054]) that transforms a first waveform function in a frequency domain including an intensity spectrum function and a phase spectrum function into a second waveform function in a temporal domain including a temporal intensity waveform function and a temporal phase waveform function (see paragraph [0058], “Next, we perform a Fourier transform from the frequency domain to the time domain on the above function (a) (arrow A1 in the figure). This yields a frequency-domain waveform function (b) that includes the time-intensity waveform function b<sub>n</sub>(t) and the time-phase waveform function Θ<sub>n</sub> (t) (process number (3) in the figure)”);
a second transform unit (see paragraph [0054]) that calculates, from the second waveform function, a third waveform function in the temporal domain that includes a temporal intensity waveform function and a temporal phase waveform function (see paragraph [0058], “This yields a frequency-domain waveform function (b) that includes the time-intensity waveform function b<sub>n</sub>(t) and the time-phase waveform function Θ<sub>n</sub> (t) (process number (3) in the figure). Next, the time-intensity waveform function b<sub>n< /sub>(t) included in the above function (b) is replaced with the time-intensity waveform function Target<sub>0</sub>(t) based on the desired waveform (processing numbers (4) and (5) in the figure)”) and corresponds to a target intensity spectrogram generated in advance (see paragraph [0064], “Next, the waveform function modification unit 27 of the phase spectrum design unit 22 modifies the second waveform function (j) so that the spectrogram of the replaced second waveform function (j) approaches the target spectrogram that was previously generated
according to the desired wavelength ban”); and
a third transform unit (see paragraph [0054]) that transforms the third waveform function into a fourth waveform function in the frequency domain including an intensity spectrum function and a phase spectrum function (see paragraph [0058], “Next, we perform an inverse Fourier transform from the time domain to the frequency domain on the above function (d) (arrow A2 in the figure). This yields a frequency domain waveform function (e) that includes the intensity spectral function B<sub>n</sub>(ω) and the phase spectral function Ψ<sub>n</sub>(ω) (process number (6) in the figure)”), and
the preliminary data generation unit repeatedly performs operations of the first transform unit, the second transform unit, and the third transform unit for each of the plurality of pieces of preliminary data while replacing the first waveform function with the fourth waveform function, sets each of the plurality of initial phase spectrum functions as the phase spectrum function of the first waveform function in the first transform unit at beginning of repeated operations, and generates each of the plurality of pieces of preliminary data based on the phase spectrum function of the fourth waveform function obtained after the repeated operations (see paragraph [0059]).
Takahashi does not expressively teach
a storage unit that stores a plurality of initial phase spectrum functions;
a data selection unit that selects at least one of the plurality of pieces of preliminary data and sets the at least one piece of preliminary data as data for controlling the spatial light modulator.
However, Nakano in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system for controlling a spatial light modulator (see Nakano Abstract) with a piece of preliminary data (see paragraph [0100]) as taught in Takahashi comprising
a data selection unit (see Figure 10, controller 205) that selects the piece of preliminary data and sets the at least one piece of preliminary data as data for controlling the spatial light modulator (see paragraph [0100]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching a data selection unit for controlling a spatial light modulator as taught in Nakano with the system of creating multiple pieces of preliminary data taught in Takahashi, the motivation being to allow data input flexibility and choosing ideal data inputs for controlling such a modulator.
Takahashi in view of Nakano does not expressively teach a storage unit that stores a plurality of initial phase spectrum functions.
However, Dantus in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system for controlling a spatial light modulator (see Dantus paragraph [0049]) via a plurality of initial phase spectrum functions (see paragraph [0060], “The SLM applies the reference phase function to the input pulse… For each reference phase function that is introduced by the computer-controlled SLM, a different spectrum is recorded and stored in the computer controller”) as taught in Takahashi in view of Nakano comprising
a storage unit that stores a plurality of initial phase spectrum functions (see paragraph [0056], “Alternately, instead of an LCD-SLM to introduce phase functions prestored in the memory unit of the controller”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of using a storage unit to store phase functions as taught in Dantus with the system taught in Takahashi in view of Nakano, the motivation being to allow preoptimized functions to be found and used in multiple future applications.
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi in view of Nakano and Dantus teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches wherein the target intensity spectrogram is an intensity spectrogram related to an optical pulse train including a plurality of optical pulses having different center wavelengths from each other (see Takahashi paragraph [0021], “SLM14 is an example of a phase mask that simultaneously performs phase modulation and intensity modulation of optical Lb in order to generate optical pulses P21 to P23, which have a
time difference between them and different central wavelengths, from a single optical pulse P1” and paragraph [0088], “As described above, in the data creation unit 17 of this embodiment, a second waveform function (h) in the time domain is generated by performing a Fourier transform on the first waveform function (g) in the frequency domain, and then the second waveform function (h) is replaced with a time intensity waveform function Target<sub>0</sub>(t) based on a desired waveform”).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi in view of Nakano and Dantus teaches all the limitations of claim 10, but does not expressively teach wherein a center wavelength difference between the plurality of optical pulses in the target intensity spectrogram is set to be larger than a center wavelength difference between the plurality of optical pulses as a target.
However, Takahashi in view of Nakano and Dantus does teach this as a design factor (see Takahashi paragraph [0101]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to create the target intensity spectrogram in such a way to create the desired central wavelength difference based on needs in the system.
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi in view of Nakano and Dantus teaches all the limitations of claim 10, but does not expressively teach wherein a center wavelength difference between the plurality of optical pulses in the target intensity spectrogram is set to be larger than 1.1 times a center wavelength difference between the plurality of optical pulses as a target.
However, Takahashi in view of Nakano and Dantus does teach this as a design factor (see Takahashi paragraph [0101]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to create the target intensity spectrogram in such a way to create the desired central wavelength difference based on needs in the system.
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi in view of Nakano and Dantus teaches all the limitations of claim 10, but does not expressively teach wherein a center wavelength difference between the plurality of optical pulses in the target intensity spectrogram is set to be smaller than a value obtained by dividing a wavelength band of input light to the spatial light modulator by a value obtained by subtracting 1 from number of pulses in the optical pulse train.
However, Takahashi in view of Nakano and Dantus does teach this as a design factor (see Takahashi paragraph [0101]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to create the target intensity spectrogram in such a way to create the desired central wavelength difference based on needs in the system.
Regarding claim 14, Takahashi in view of Nakano and Dantus teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches wherein the second transform unit includes:
a unit for transforming the second waveform function into an intensity spectrogram and a phase spectrogram; a unit for replacing the intensity spectrogram with the target intensity spectrogram and constraining the phase spectrogram (see Takahashi paragraph [0064], “Next, the waveform function modification unit 27 of the phase spectrum design unit 22 modifies the second waveform function (j) so that the spectrogram of the replaced second waveform function (j) approaches the target spectrogram that was previously generated according to the desired wavelength band” and paragraph [0065], “In this embodiment, the conversion result (time, frequency, spectral intensity) is defined as a "spectrogram."”); and
a unit for transforming replaced intensity spectrogram and constrained phase spectrogram into the third waveform function (see Takahashi paragraph [0068]. The units are each the processor running code described in paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 15, Takahashi in view of Nakano and Dantus teaches all the limitations of claim 9, and further teaches wherein the second transform unit includes:
a unit for performing, for the second waveform function, replacement of the temporal intensity waveform function based on a target waveform corresponding to the target intensity spectrogram (see Takahashi paragraph [0058], “This yields a frequency-domain waveform function (b) that includes the time-intensity waveform function b<sub>n</sub>(t) and the time-phase waveform function Θ<sub>n</sub>(t) (process number (3) in the figure). Next, the time-intensity waveform function b<sub>n< /sub>(t) included in the above function (b) is replaced with the time-intensity waveform function Target<sub>0</sub>(t) based on the desired waveform (processing numbers (4) and (5) in the figure)”);
a unit for modifying the second waveform function so that a spectrogram of the second waveform function approaches the target intensity spectrogram; and a unit for generating the third waveform function from modified second waveform function (see Takahashi paragraph [0064], “Next, the waveform function modification unit 27 of the phase spectrum design unit 22 modifies the second waveform function (j) so that the spectrogram of the replaced second waveform function (j) approaches the target spectrogram that was previously generated according to the desired wavelength band”. The units are each the processor running code described in paragraph [0054]).
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635