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 .
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 Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 26, line 1, “claim 13” should be changed to —claim 25—.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 15 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.
The term “closely spaced” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closely spaced” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree “of the space”, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination and until Applicant either overcome or cures the deficiency above, the Examiner will interpret claim limitations “spectrum comprises bands of wavelengths which are closely spaced” as any space/distance/separation between wavelength bands and/or no space between wavelength bands, such as a continuous spectrum.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13, 21, 25, 27-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-15, 17, 19, 23-25 and 31-32 of U.S. Patent No. (US 12,085835 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the patented claims.
Instant application
USPAT (US 12,085835 B2)
Claim 13
Claim 2
Claim 21
Claim 3
Claim 25
Claim 11
Claim 27
Claim 7
Claim 28
Claim 12
Claim 29
Claim 13
Claim 30
Claim 17
Claim 31
Claim 31
Claim 32
Claim 32
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 13, 16, 22-23 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okuno et. al. (US 2011/0116282, included in IDS on 08/07/2024), hereafter Okuno.
Regarding claim 13, Okuno teaches a supercontinuum light source (Fig. 14 element 201a-b, [0183-0184]) comprising:
a pulse generator (Fig. 14 element 202 “pulse light source”) for providing a first sequence of light pulses (element P1), [0183-0184];
a manipulator (element 203 and/or 204) configured to generate a second sequence of light pulses from a single light pulse (P1) of the first sequence, [0186] wherein the second sequence comprises at least two light pulses, (the time division multiplexing processing section 203/204 generate a second sequence of light pulses by splitting the pulse P1 by the divider 231/242 and the second sequence of light pulses propagate in the optical waveguides 232 + 233 / 244 + 243 + 242 comprising at least two light pulses, [0188-0189]; and
a nonlinear optical element (Fig. 14 element 211) configured to receive the second sequence of light pulses, (element 211 received the second sequence of light generated by 204/203 + 231/241, [0184]), and generate a supercontinuum spectrum (Fig. 14 element P2) when said second sequence of light pulses propagates through the nonlinear optical element, [0184, 0204]
wherein the at least two light pulses in the second sequence have substantially the same peak power, (as shown in Fig. 18 (b), [0186, 0201-0202].
Regarding claim 16, Okuno teaches the supercontinuum light source of claim 13, wherein the first sequence of light pulses has a first pulse repetition rate, [0063, 0185], and wherein the second sequence of light pulses has a second repetition rate which is higher than the first repetition rate, (Fig. 18, [0188, 0201]).
Regarding claim 22, Okuno teaches the supercontinuum light source of claim 13, wherein the manipulator (Fig. 14 element 203/204) is a fiber-based optical device, [0186] configured for changing the number of light pulses present in the first sequence of light pulses within a predetermined time period, [0185-0186].
Regarding claim 23, Okuno teaches the supercontinuum light source of claim 13, wherein the manipulator (Fig. 14 element 203/204) comprises N optical fibers of different predetermined lengths (Fig. 14 elements 244 + 243 + 242) causing a predetermined time delay on a pulse that travels through the respective fiber, (Some of the optical waveguides 242 to 244, namely the optical waveguides 242 and 243 each comprise a delay path 242a and 243a”, [0189-0190]).
Regarding claim 30, Okuno teaches the supercontinuum light source of claim 13, wherein the nonlinear optical element (Fig. 14 element 211) is a nonlinear optical fiber, [0204] configured to generate a sequence of broadband light pulses from the second sequence of light pulses, [0183-0184].
Regarding claim 31, Okuno teaches a system (Fig. 14) for optical analysis of an object, Additionally the term " for analysis of an object" in the preamble merely designates an intended use which does not carry enough weight so as to patentably distinguish from the cited prior See MPEP 2111.02), comprising: the supercontinuum light source (Fig. 14 element 201a-b) of claim 13, wherein the supercontinuum light source (Fig. 34 element 301) is configured to illuminate the object (Fig. 34 element 3103) ; a detector (Fig. 34 element 3103) for detecting light received from the illuminated object, [0280]; and an analyzer configured to analyze the detected light and to derive therefrom at least one parameter of the object, [0281].
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 14-15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno, in view of Sahara et al. (US 2022/0276153 A1), hereafter Sahara.
Regarding claims 14-15, 24, Okuno teaches the supercontinuum light source of claim 13.
Okuno further teaches
(claim 14) wherein the supercontinuum spectrum generated by the nonlinear optical element (Fig. 14 element 211) constitutes a continuous spectrum, (as shown by Fig. 19, [0184, 0205]).
(claim 15) wherein the supercontinuum spectrum comprises bands of wavelengths which are closely spaced, (as shown by Fig. 19, [0184, 0205]).
(claim 24) wherein the pulse generator comprises a pulsed laser (Fig. 14 element 202, [0039, 0183])
Okuno fail to teach: (claim 24) a pulsed laser configured to provide a pulsed output at a wavelength range of 1020 nm to 1080 nm.
Additionally, in the arguendo that Okuno is silent about: (claim 14) wherein the supercontinuum spectrum constitutes a continuous spectrum, (Claim15) wherein the supercontinuum spectrum comprises bands of wavelengths which are closely spaced.
Sahara related to light source devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches:
(claim 14) wherein the supercontinuum spectrum generated by the nonlinear optical element constitutes a continuous spectrum, [0073, 0097]
(Claim15) wherein the supercontinuum spectrum comprises bands of wavelengths which are closely spaced, [0073, 0097].
(claim 24) a pulsed laser (Fig. 1 element 1) configured to provide a pulsed output at a wavelength range of 1020 nm to 1080 nm, (1064 nm, [0071]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Okuno by including wherein the supercontinuum spectrum constitutes a continuous spectrum, wherein the supercontinuum spectrum comprises bands of wavelengths which are closely spaced, a pulsed laser configured to provide a pulsed output at a wavelength range of 1020 nm to 1080 nm (as taught by Sahara) for several advantages such as: the device configuration allows to provide an optimized spectroscopic measurement apparatus with high intensity resolution, ([0042-0043], Sahara).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno, in view of Uebel et al. (US 2021/0026255 A1), hereafter Uebel.
Regarding claims 17-19, Okuno teaches the supercontinuum light source of claim 13.
Okuno is silent about:
(claim 17) wherein the supercontinuum light source is configured to deliver a power spectral density of at least 1 mW/nm measured at least over a range of 10 nm within a wavelength range of 350 to 850 nm.
(claim 18) wherein the supercontinuum light source is configured to deliver a power spectral density of more than 10 mW/nm measured over at least a range of 10 nm within a part of the supercontinuum spectrum.
(claim 19) wherein the generated supercontinuum spectrum has a total optical power of at least 1 W in the wavelength range from approximately 350 nm to 850 nm.
Uebel related to light source devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches:
(claim 17) wherein the supercontinuum light source (Fig. 8 element 134) is configured to deliver a power spectral density of at least 1 mW/nm measured at least over a range of 10 nm within a wavelength range of 350 to 850 nm, ([0137, 0139], Additionally See MPEP 2144.05).
(claim 18) wherein the supercontinuum light source (Fig. 8 element 134) is configured to deliver a power spectral density of more than 10 mW/nm measured over at least a range of 10 nm within a part of the supercontinuum spectrum, ([0137, 0139], Additionally See MPEP 2144.05).
(claim 19) wherein the generated supercontinuum spectrum has a total optical power of at least 1 W in the wavelength range from approximately 350 nm to 850 nm, ([0137, 0139],
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Okuno by including wherein the supercontinuum light source is configured to deliver a power spectral density of at least 1 mW/nm measured at least over a range of 10 nm within a wavelength range of 350 to 850 nm, wherein the supercontinuum light source is configured to deliver a power spectral density of more than 10 mW/nm measured over at least a range of 10 nm within a part of the supercontinuum spectrum, wherein the generated supercontinuum spectrum has a total optical power of at least 1 W in the wavelength range from approximately 350 nm to 850 nm, (as taught by Uebel) for several advantages such as: the radiation beam to be produced is useful for use within metrology apparatus as within a lithographic apparatus, thus increase the device versatility, ([0011-0012, Uebel).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno, in view of Krausz et al. (US 2019/0267767 A1, included in IDS on 08/07/2024), hereafter Krausz.
Regarding claims 20-21, Okuno teaches the supercontinuum light source of claim 13.
Even though Okuno teaches the nonlinear optical element, Okuno is silent about:
(claim 20) wherein the optical power delivered to the nonlinear optical element is distributed over several pulses, thereby increasing the total optical power while keeping the pulse peak power below a predefined maximum level.
(claim 21) wherein the peak power of the at least two light pulses in the second sequence is below a damage threshold of the nonlinear optical element.
Krausz related to light source devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches:
(claim 20) wherein the optical power delivered to the nonlinear optical element (optical non-linear crystal, [0045]) is distributed over several pulses, thereby increasing the total optical power while keeping the pulse peak power below a predefined maximum level, [0045, 0080].
(claim 21) wherein the peak power of the at least two light pulses in the second sequence is below a damage threshold of the nonlinear optical element(optical non-linear crystal, [0045, 0080].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Okuno by including wherein the optical power delivered to the nonlinear optical element is distributed over several pulses, thereby increasing the total optical power while keeping the pulse peak power below a predefined maximum level, wherein the peak power of the at least two light pulses in the second sequence is below a damage threshold of the nonlinear optical element, (as taught by Krausz) for several advantages such as: the peak power below the threshold allow to keep the operational stability of the pulse source device is improved, ([0045], Krausz).
Claims 25-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno, in view of Clowes et al. (US 2009/0097512 A1, included in IDS on 08/07/2024), hereafter Clowes.
Regarding claims 25-27 and 29, Okuno teaches the supercontinuum light source of claim 13.
Okuno is silent about:
(claim 25) wherein the pulse generator comprises a pulse picker configured to selectively pick pulses and thereby reduce the repetition rate of an initial sequence of light pulses emitted by the pulsed laser.
(claim 26) wherein the pulse picker is an acousto-optical or electro-optical modulator.
(claim 27) wherein the light source further comprises at least one amplifier for amplifying the pulses of the second sequence of light pulses, wherein the amplifier is arranged before the nonlinear optical element.
(claim 29) wherein the light source comprises a controller for controlling operation of at least one controllable element of the light source based on a signal obtained from a detection of a portion of the first or second sequence of light pulses.
Clowes related to irradiation system and thus form the same field of endeavor teaches:
(claim 25) wherein the pulse generator (Fig. 6 element 60) comprises a pulse picker (Fig. 3 element 63) configured to selectively pick pulses and thereby reduce the repetition rate of an initial sequence of light pulses emitted by the pulsed laser, [0052]
(claim 26) wherein a pulse picker is an acousto-optical or electro-optical modulator, (Fig. 4 element 42), [0013, 0039-0040]).
(claim 27) wherein the light source (Fig. 4 element 40) further comprises at least one amplifier (Fig. 4 elements 42 AND/OR 45) for amplifying the pulses of the second sequence of light pulses, wherein the amplifier (Fig. 4 elements 42 AND/OR 45) is arranged before the nonlinear optical element, (Fig. 4 element 44), (as shown in Fig. 4, [0039-0041]).
(claim 29) wherein the light source comprises a controller (on-board micro-processor controller, [0047]) for controlling operation of at least one controllable element of the light source based on a signal obtained from a detection of a portion of the first or second sequence of light pulses, (The micro-processor determine when the pulses are delivered and provide a signal to output a trigger signal, 0047-0048]),
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling day of the claimed invention to modify the device of Okuno by including wherein the pulse generator comprises a pulse picker configured to selectively pick pulses and thereby reduce the repetition rate of an initial sequence of light pulses emitted by the pulsed laser, wherein the pulse picker is an acousto-optical or electro-optical modulator, wherein the light source further comprises at least one amplifier for amplifying the pulses of the second sequence of light pulses, wherein the amplifier is arranged before the nonlinear optical element, wherein the light source comprises a controller for controlling operation of at least one controllable element of the light source based on a signal obtained from a detection of a portion of the first or second sequence of light pulses (as taught by Clowes) for several advantages such as: allowing to selectively control the launch of pump pulses into the nonlinear optical element at a variable, lower repetition rate, to thereby selectively control the generation of optical supercontinuum pulses within the nonlinear optical element and their repetition rate, ([0009], Clowes).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno, in view of Krupa, Katarzyna, et al. "Spatiotemporal light-beam compression from nonlinear mode coupling." Physical Review A 97.4 (2018): 043836.
Regarding claim 28, Okuno teaches the supercontinuum light source of claim 13.
Okuno fail to teach wherein the light source comprises a detector for detecting at least a portion of the light pulses of the second sequence of light pulses before the second sequence of light pulses is input into the nonlinear optical element.
However, Krupa related to nonlinear optical elements and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the light source (Fig. 1) comprises a detector (Fig. 1 element “photodetector 2”) for detecting at least a portion of the light pulses of the second sequence of light pulses before the second sequence of light pulses is input into the nonlinear optical element, (Fig. 1 element MM GRIN), [page 2, section II, first and second paragraphs]. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and the particular placement of parts has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04 Section VI-C).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling day of the claimed invention to modify the device of Okuno by including wherein the light source comprises a detector for detecting at least a portion of the light pulses of the second sequence of light pulses before the second sequence of light pulses is input into the nonlinear optical element, (as taught by Krupa) for several advantages such as: the device allows to generate spatial beam cleaning that leads to the suppression of modal noise or irregular intensity fluctuations in the transverse dimension, and to the reshaping of the beam towards the fiber fundamental mode. The associated nonlinear mode coupling dynamics also results in significant temporal reshaping and pulse shortening, which may enhance the peak power of the output pulses thus increase the device accuracy, ([page 5, section “conclusion”], Krupa).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno, in view of Yun et al. (US 2006/0055936 A1), hereafter Yun.
Regarding claim 32, Okuno teaches the system of claim 30.
Okuno fail to teach wherein the integration time of the detector is longer than the duration of a burst comprising the second sequence of light pulses
Yun related to optical illumination system and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the integration time of the detector (Fig. 1 element 50) is longer than the duration of a burst comprising the second sequence of light pulses, [0041, 0044].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling day of the claimed invention to modify the device of Okuno by including wherein the integration time of the detector is longer than the duration of a burst comprising the second sequence of light pulses, (as taught by Yun) for several advantages such as: it is possible to use a broadband source emitting a high output power, such as SLD and Ti:Sapphire mode-locked laser, and time-gate the output to decrease the duty cycle and therefore an effective exposure energy level to the sample, thus increase the device efficiency, ([0044], Yun).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877