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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/08/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. (US 12,085835 B2) has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filled on 06/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 13-14, 16-19 and 22-32 remain pending in the application.
Applicants’ arguments, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to claim objections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the claim objection of Claim 26 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) of Claim 15 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-7, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C § 102 and 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the claim rejection of 35 U.S.C § 102 and 35 U.S.C § 103 of Claims 13-14, 16, 18-19 and 22-32 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments under 35 U.S.C § 103 in pages 14-15, filed on 06/08/2026, regarding amended claim 17. Applicant argues that “Claim 17, now presented as an independent claim, recites a power spectral density of at least 1 mW/nm measured over at least a range of 10 nm within a wavelength range of 350 to 850 nm. The Office relies on Uebel for allegedly teaching these limitations. However, a careful review shows Uebel fails to do so. Uebel, at ,J[0139], discloses a power spectral density of "at least 0.01 mW/nm". The claimed value of "at least 1 mW/nm" in Claim 17 is 100 times greater than the 0.01 mW/nm value disclosed by Uebel. Not only is the claimed value of "at least 1 mW/nm" 100 times greater than what Uebel discloses, but Uebel's disclosure is for the "entire wavelength band" of the output radiation. Uebel does not disclose or suggest achieving the claimed power density specifically within the claimed 350 nm to 850 nm range. Achieving such a high-power spectral density in the lower wavelength visible and near-UV portion of the spectrum is a significant technical achievement not suggested by Uebel's general disclosure. Uebel discloses, in the same paragraph, that "[t]he power spectral density in the entire wavelength band of the broadband output radiation may be at least 3 mW/nm." The claimed value of "more than 10 mW/nm" is more than three times greater than the "at least 3 mW/nm" value disclosed by Uebel. These are not trivial differences; they represent a significant and non-obvious improvement in performance. The references provide no teaching or suggestion on how to bridge this substantial gap in power spectral density”.
In response to applicant’s arguments mentioned above regarding amended claim 17, the examiner respectfully disagrees since as cited in the previous office action Uebel in paragraph [0139] disclosed the power spectral density may be at least 3mW/nm. Such as “at least 3mW/nm” fully encompasses the claimed range of at least 1mW/nm, since at least 3mW/nm includes every value from 3 upward to infinity, which explicitly includes at least 1mW/nm and higher values. Also, paragraph [0139] discloses the power spectra density is in the entire wavelength band of the output radiation 124, that paragraph [0137] further includes wavelength ranges that embrace the range of 350 to 850 nm as claimed. Additionally, as cited in the previous office action “see MPEP 2144.05” even though is not necessary since the Uebel teaches the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05 discloses a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (Titanium Metals Corporation of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); See MPEP 2144.05), such as the values form an overlapping or continuous range, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to optimize.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 17 is maintained.
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.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno et. al. (US 2011/0116282, included in IDS on 08/07/2024), hereafter Okuno in view of Uebel et al. (US 2021/0026255 A1), hereafter Uebel.
Regarding claim 17, 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].
Okuno is silent about 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.
Uebel related to light source devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches 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).
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, (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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14, 16, 18-19 and 22-32 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious
“A supercontinuum light source comprising:
a pulse generator for providing a first sequence of light pulses;
a manipulator configured to generate a second sequence of light pulses from a single light pulse of the first sequence, wherein the second sequence comprises at least two light pulses; and
a nonlinear optical element configured to receive the second sequence of light pulses and generate a supercontinuum spectrum when said second sequence of light pulses propagates through the nonlinear optical element;
wherein the at least two light pulses in the second sequence have substantially the same peak power, wherein the optical power delivered to the nonlinear optical element is distributed over the at least two light pulses of the second sequence, thereby increasing the total optical power while keeping a pulse peak power of each of the at least two light pulses below a predefined maximum level associated with a damage threshold of the nonlinear optical element.”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claims 14-15, 17, 18-19, 22-24, 27-32 are directly/indirectly dependent on claim 13 and are allowable based on their dependencies.
Regarding Claims 25, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious
“A supercontinuum light source comprising:
a pulse generator for providing a first sequence of light pulses;
a manipulator configured to generate a second sequence of light pulses from a single light pulse of the first sequence, wherein the second sequence comprises at least two light pulses; and
a nonlinear optical element configured to receive the second sequence of light pulses and generate a supercontinuum spectrum when said second sequence of light pulses propagates through the nonlinear optical element;
wherein the at least two light pulses in the second sequence have substantially the same peak power,
wherein the pulse generator comprises a pulsed laser,
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.”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 26 is directly/indirectly dependent on claim 25 and are allowable based on their dependencies.
The closest art Okuno et. al. (US 2011/0116282) discloses 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, [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]).
Krausz et al. (US 2019/0267767 A1, included in IDS on 08/07/2024), regarding claim 13, discloses 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].
However, Krausz cannot be combined with Okuno since this combination would be improper. Such as the device of Krausz is a pulse shortening device that is contrary of the purpose of the device of Okuno that is to maintain a pulse duration constant. The operational principle of Okuno's time-division multiplexing is to change the repetition rate while preserving the characteristics of the individual pulses, including their duration. An ordinarily skilled artisan, seeking to modify Okuno's device, would therefore have not been motivated to look to a pulse-shortening technology, as this would have led away from the established purpose of Okuno's system.
Clowes et al. (US 2009/0097512 A1, included in IDS on 08/07/2024), regarding claim 25, discloses 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].
However, Clowes cannot be combined with Okuno since this combination would be improper. Such as the device of Clowes is gating device or "pulse picker" whose express purpose is to reduce the repetition rate of pulses from a pump laser that is contrary of the purpose of the device of Okuno comprises a manipulator that is a time-division multiplexer designed to increase the pulse repetition rate by generating multiple pulses from a single pulse. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the rate reducing teachings of Clowes with the rate-increasing system of Okuno. Such a combination would have required a substantial reconstruction and redesign of Okuno's device, fundamentally changing its principle of operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ota et al. (US 20200244047 A1), discloses a pulsed light array output from a seed light source is received by an optical modulator that controls the attenuation of the light intensity of the pulsed light. Here, as the optical modulator (pulse picker) thins out pulsed light components from the pulsed light array at a predetermined period by on/off control to decrease the repetition frequency of the pulsed light array.
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 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.
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights