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 because the y-axis in replacement sheet figure 7 is still in French. 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikami (U.S. PGPub No. 2017/0307530 A1) in view of Thomsen et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0154993 A1).
As to claims 1 and 15, Mikami discloses and shows in figure 1, a multiplex CARS microscopy device for analyzing a sample (Ech) comprising ([0031]):
a laser source (10) adapted to emit a primary beam having a first wavelength λ.sub.1 (i.e. 1064 nm), in the form of pulses with a primary power (200 mW) ([0049], ll. 1-7);
an optical fiber (103) having less than ten modes (i.e. single mode), said pulses propagating in the optical fiber i to generate, from the primary beam, an output beam having a plurality of second wavelengths forming a supercontinuum wherein the optical fiber has a modal area such that the optical fiber presents an additional zero-dispersion wavelength for a fundamental mode of the optical fiber, said additional zero-dispersion wavelength being separated by more than 3500 cm−1 from the first wavelength λ.sub.1 (([0049], ll. 1-8; where the second wavelengths are inherent in the light being a supercontinuum, as explicitly shown in figure 7; [0061], where the examiner is interpreting that Mikami is capable of the noted result as applicant has failed to clearly define any actual structural different to the optical fiber as claimed).
an optical system (106) adapted to focus the output beam onto said sample (107), so as to generate an anti-Stokes beam (i.e. CARS light) by stimulated Raman effect induced by at least one of the second wavelengths and the first wavelength λ.sub.1 present in the output beam ([0049], ll. 16-22);
a photodetector (110) adapted to detect the anti-Stokes beam (i.e. CARS light) ([0049], ll. 16-28).
Tamada does not explicitly disclose where the pulsed propagating in the optical fiber are in an abnormal dispersion regime or and said first wavelength λ.sub.1, the second wavelengths being generated by non-linear conversion of the first wavelength λ.sub.1.
However, Thomsen does disclose in ([0004], ll. 1-10; [0029]; [0044]; [0095]) the use of a similar non-linear element (i.e. fiber as disclosed) that discloses that either a normal or anomalous (i.e. abnormal) dispersion regime can be used for creating the supercontinuum spectrum. Further Thomsen discloses that the non-linear medium used for supercontinuum generation is a similar photonic crystal fiber (PCF) as used also in Mikami. As such it is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the PCF used in Mikami can clearly be non-linear to achieve the predicted result of output supercontinuum light as already desired and used in Mikami.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tamada where the pulsed propagating in the optical fiber are in an abnormal dispersion regime or and said first wavelength λ.sub.1, the second wavelengths being generated by non-linear conversion of the first wavelength λ.sub.1 in order to provide the advantage of increased versatility in doing so as noted by Thomsen allows for efficient transfer of the pump wavelength into the spectrally broadened light, allowing also for the ability to further modulate that output spectra shape and further achieving the expected result of using a nonlinear medium PCF to achieve the expected result of efficient supercontinuum output as desired by Mikami for CARS analysis.
The subject matter of claims 1 and 15 relate in that the technical features of apparatus claim 1 are in each case suitable for implementing the method of claim 11, therefore the method is obvious in view of the above apparatus rejection.
As to claims 2 and 16, Mikami discloses and shows in figure 7, a device wherein the optical fiber is adapted so that a power of the output beam at the first wavelength λ.sub.1 is higher than or equal to 10% or 20% of the primary power ([0037]; [0061]; where the examiner is interpreting that the supercontinuum light which explicitly included the pump light, is at least 25% of the primary pump light power).
As to claim 3, Mikami disclose a device, wherein the optical fiber is a single-mode fiber with microstructured sheath ([0012], ll. 15-20; as disclosed the PCF, is a microstructure fiber, with the microstructure being interpreted as a sheath).
As to claim 4, Mikami does not explicitly disclose a device, wherein the optical fiber has a zero-dispersion wavelength λ.sub.ZDW,i associated with each i-th mode, said first wavelength being higher than all zero-dispersion wavelengths λ.sub.ZDW,i by at least 10 nm.
However, Thomsen does disclose in ([0044]) the concept that the optical fiber can have a zero dispersion wavelength of higher than 10 nm (e.g. 150nm as disclosed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mikami with a device, wherein the optical fiber has a zero-dispersion wavelength λ.sub.ZDW,i associated with each i-th mode, said first wavelength being higher than all zero-dispersion wavelengths λ.sub.ZDW,i by at least 10 nm in order to provide the advantage of increased versatility in using the dispersion knowledge as claimed one can varying the shape of the output supercontinuum more freely.
As to claim 9, Mikami discloses a device, wherein said non-linear conversion includes self-shifting solitons generated by the propagation of each pulse within the optical fiber by Raman effect ([0061], where the examiner is interpreting that the Mikami is capable of this intended result, as applicant has failed to claim any particular structural distinction that results in the noted result).
As to claim 10, Mikami discloses a device, comprising an upstream spectral filter (SF) (105) arranged on an optical path of the output beam upstream of the sample and adapted to spectrally filter wavelengths less than the first wavelength ([0049], ll. 8-16).
As to claim 11, Mikami does disclose a device, comprising a processor (11) adapted to analyze frequency information of the anti-Stokes beam detected by the photodetector ([0068], ll. 9-11; [0076]),
Mikami in view of Thomson does not explicitly disclose where the upstream spectral filter being controllable and adapted to additionally filter a spectral range of the output beam as a function of said frequency information.
However, Mikami does disclose in ([0055]) that the filter is related to the detected light of the spectroscope and need to be correctly selected for correct data acquisition. The examiner takes Office Notice that a controllable filters are known, and would optimize the efficiency of the system in the desired way already disclosed by Mikami.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mikami in view of Thomson where the upstream spectral filter being controllable and adapted to additionally filter a spectral range of the output beam as a function of said frequency information in order to provide the advantage of expected results and increased efficiency as obviously using a variable filter makes it easier to have the correct filtering selected based on varying samples under test.
As to claim 12, Mikami disclose a device, comprising a so-called downstream spectral filter (109) arranged on an optical path of the anti-Stokes beam and adapted to filter the output beam co-propagating with the anti-Stokes beam ([0049], ll. 22-28).
As to claim 13, Mikami disclose a device according to claim 12, wherein the downstream filter is adapted to spectrally filter a range of wavelengths exceeding the first wavelength ([0049], ll. 8-16).
Claim(s) 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikami in view of Thomsen et al. further in view of Perez Millan et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0343681 A1).
As to claims 5-8, Mikami in view of Thomsen does not explicitly disclose a device comprising an amplifier (Amp) arranged on an optical path of the output beam upstream of the sample and adapted to selectively amplify the power of the output beam at the first wavelength λ.sub.1 wherein the amplifier comprises an amplifying fiber with a core doped with rare earth elements, said amplifying fiber being joined or welded or coupled to a downstream end of the optical fiber or wherein the amplifying fiber is pumped by second wavelengths of the output beam which are lower than the first wavelength λ.sub.1 or wherein the amplifying fiber is pumped by a portion of the primary beam.
However, Perez Millan does disclose an show in figure 2 and in ([0064]-[0065]) the use of amplification (vial amplifying fiber 131 which is doped with rare earth elements as disclosed, and fusion spliced to the optical fiber prior) after wavelength stretching (i.e. the output beam of Mikami and Thomsen). Further, where the amplification is pumped via a second set of wavelengths from laser diode 123. The examiner further argues that obviously the fiber can also be pumped by the primary beam for efficiency as known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mikami in view of Thomsen does not explicitly disclose a device comprising an amplifier (Amp) arranged on an optical path of the output beam upstream of the sample and adapted to selectively amplify the power of the output beam at the first wavelength λ.sub.1 wherein the amplifier comprises an amplifying fiber with a core doped with rare earth elements, said amplifying fiber being joined or welded or coupled to a downstream end of the optical fiber or wherein the amplifying fiber is pumped by second wavelengths of the output beam which are lower than the first wavelength λ.sub.1 or wherein the amplifying fiber is pumped by a portion of the primary beam in order to provide the advantage of increasing the peak power of the stretched pulse for higher accuracy when measuring a sample under test ([0063]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s argument that the prior art fails to disclose the amended limitation to the independent claims 1 and 15, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner as previously noted which applicant has failed to argue is merely an intended result of the fiber as claimed. However, the fiber is simply claimed as exactly that just an optical fiber having less than ten modes. Applicant has constructed the entire optical fiber claim element as a result based limitation without providing any details regarding the structure of the fiber itself. As such it is unclear how the result can be relied upon to distinguish the fiber from the prior art of record, as the prior in matching the claimed structure of the fiber as claimed should be capable of the intended result. Applicant has failed to identify with evidence how the optical fiber of the prior art is incapable of the result as claimed. The examiner further notes that applicant’s only disclosure relative to modal area of a fiber is one disclosed as prior art “The smaller the modal area of the fiber F, the more the wavelengths λ.sub.ZDW,i decrease. For a silica core fiber with a microstructured sheath, the diameter of the core will typically be 3-4 μm for a wavelength λ.sub.ZDW at about 1000 nm for the fundamental mode”. This does describe specific structure detail of the fiber (it having a silica core, and a diam of 3-4 mu.m). However applicant explicitly discloses this as a typical configuration and as such obviously cannot be relied upon for novelty. The only disclosure regarding the actual limitation (i.e. 3500 cm-1 separation) as claimed merely replicates the claim limitation. In other words applicants disclosure fails to actually link the 3500 cm-1 limitation to a particular fiber configuration. The examiner notes that the instant disclosure does provide additional disclosure for particular fiber core configurations, however none are linked to the noted limitation in any clear manner. The examiner suggest for compact prosecution that in order to overcome the prior art, it would seem that claiming the actual structural configurations (i.e. diameter, core material, core profile) could be relied upon in place of an intended result. Further the examiner would like to note that the instant limitation is setup relative to a first wavelength which applicant has put no limits on. As such it is further found the prior art capable of the noted result as if the laser source can be any known wavelength. It is also found that the noted more than 3500 cm-1 result is possible with such an open constraint on wavelength. As such the rejection has been maintained at this time until which point applicant can provide evidence that the prior art is incapable of the intended result. Further how that result is the direct function of the fiber as claimed. The examiner lastly notes that an enablement rejection has not been written at this time due to the broad nature of the claim and it being interpreted as a result. If however applicant argues that the structure of the prior art is incapable of the result, it is likely that an enablement rejection will be required as again applicant has failed to disclose what specific type of fiber/wavelength would be required to achieve the result. For claim 15, the same logic is applied, as the actual active steps as claimed have been taught, and the result of the fiber is found inherent in providing the same claimed fiber/wavelength range.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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 P LaPage/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877