DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 8/22/2024, in which claims 1-7 are currently pending. The Application is a Continuation of PCT/JP2023/006392, filed 02/22/2023 and claims foreign priority to 2022-026953, filed 02/24/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 8/22/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
5- 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.
6- 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:
Interference unit and Control unit in claims 1-7,
Acquisition unit in claim 2,
Measuring unit in claim 6,
Second interference unit in claim 7,
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 (MPEP 706.02(m)).
7- 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.
8- Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minoshima (PGPUB No. 2019/0086197)
As to claims 1, 3, Minoshima teaches an optical measurement device (Abstract, Figs. 1-6) comprising: a light source (1) generating an optical frequency comb having a predetermined carrier envelope offset frequency with respect to zero of a frequency axis and a plurality of frequency modes aligned at intervals of integer multiples of a predetermined repetition frequency with reference to the carrier envelope offset frequency on the frequency axis (Fig. 2, ¶51-53 for ex; since the zero is arbitrary claimed, f_CEO and f_rep are considered); a first optical path (from 1-3a-2-4 to sample S) guiding an optical pulse train having a pulse interval based on the repetition frequency of the optical frequency comb generated by the light source and an inter-pulse phase difference based on the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency to a measurement target (¶ 14, 29-35, 51; the interpulse phase and timing are controlled as a function of many parameters such as f CEP and f rep); a second optical path (from S to 4-2 to beamsplitter 3a) guiding measurement result light acquired from the measurement target to which the optical pulse train guided by the first optical path has been emitted (Figs. 5-6); a third optical path (path 13 from 3a to 14 and back) guiding delay light acquired by delaying the optical pulse train by a delay time corresponding to the pulse interval (¶ 54-59, 62-65 for ex.); an interference unit (3a-b/6/20 or /22-24) causing the measurement result light guided by the second optical path and the delay light guided by the third optical path to interfere with each other (¶ 12, 40-41, 62-65); and a control unit (such as 8/26 and equivalents and its corresponding processing/controlling means) performing variable control of at least one of the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency of the light source on the basis of a state of light after interference by the interference unit; (claim 3) wherein the control unit changes the pulse interval and the inter-pulse phase difference of the optical pulse train by performing sweep variable control of at least one of the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency of the light source (¶ 24-25, 34-35, 42-43, 45-46, 51, 59-63, 68).
(claims 2, 6) further comprising an acquisition unit and (claim 6) further comprising a measuring unit measuring light after interference by the interference unit as signal light (detector 20 or acquisition unit 40) acquiring at least one of an amplitude and a frequency of the light after the interference as the state of the light (¶ 62 for ex.), wherein the control unit performs variable control of at least one of the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency of the light source on the basis of an acquisition result of the state of the light acquired by the acquisition unit and information representing a reference of the state of the light (¶ 24-25, 34-35, 40, 42-43, 45-46, 51, 59-63, 68).
(claim 5) wherein the control unit changes the inter-pulse phase difference of the optical pulse train by changing a ratio between the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency (¶ 24-25, 34-35, 40, 42-43, 45-46, 51, 59-63, 68; by changing the two frequencies arbitrarily, the ratio between them needs to have different some different values).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9- 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
10- Claim 4 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minoshima.
As to claim 4, Minoshima teaches optical measurement device according to claim 1,
Minoshima does not teach expressly wherein the control unit changes the pulse interval of the optical pulse train by changing the repetition frequency without changing a ratio between the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency.
However, Minoshima teaches the control unit changes the pulse interval of the optical pulse train by changing the repetition frequency, with the possibility of changing a ratio between the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency (¶ 24-25, 34-35, 40, 42-43, 45-46, 51, 59-63, 68; by changing independently the two frequencies). One PHOSITA would find it obvious to keep the ratio between the two frequencies constant to eliminate one of the influencing frequency parameters and facilitate a thorough analysis of the interference results (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I/ B-D)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Minoshima so that the control unit changes the pulse interval of the optical pulse train by changing the repetition frequency without changing a ratio between the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency, with the advantage of effectively facilitating a thorough analysis of the interference results.
11- Claim 7 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minoshima in view of Kuramoto (PGPUB N. 20100225924)
As to claim 7, Minoshima teaches optical measurement device according to claim 1,
Minoshima does not teach expressly further comprising: a second interference unit causing reference light of the optical pulse train based on the optical pulse train and the measurement result light or light after interference by the interference unit to interfere with each other; and a second measuring unit measuring light interfered with by the second interference unit as signal light.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kuramoto teaches an optical interference measuring apparatus (Abstract, and Figs. 1-8) wherein two interferometers (5 and 6) where the second interferometer 6 interferes the first interference from 5 with a reference light through element 7 to be measured by module 9/10/11. One PHOSITA would consider such approach to analyze the phase distribution of Minoshima’s interference results (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Minoshima according to Kuramoto’s suggestions, so that comprising: a second interference unit causing reference light of the optical pulse train based on the optical pulse train and the measurement result light or light after interference by the interference unit to interfere with each other; and a second measuring unit measuring light interfered with by the second interference unit as signal light, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the phase measurements of the interference measurements.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877