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 .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 05/01/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application, where the independent claim has been amended. New claims 8-20 have been added.
Response to Arguments
2- Examiner has considered Applicants’ proposed amendments and acknowledges they moot/overcome the 35 USC 112 interpretation of the pending claims as set forth in the non-final office action mailed on 2/04/2026. The above rejections are therefore withdrawn.
3- Applicants’ amendments and their corresponding arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC §102 and 103 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive to overcome the prior art used in the previous office action, despite the fact that the amendments have changed the scope of the invention and overcome the rejection as written in the previous office action.
4- Therefore, the amendments necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection using additional teachings from the same references used in the previous office action. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections here under in more details.
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)).
5- 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.
6- Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 14 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minoshima (PGPUB No. 2019/0086197)
As to amended claims 1/20, 3, Minoshima teaches an optical measurement device, and its method of use (Abstract, Figs. 1-6) comprising: a light source (1) configured to generate 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 CEO 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 optical combiner (3a-b/6/20 or /22-24) configured to interfere the measurement result light guided by the second optical path and the delay light guided by the third optical path with each other (¶ 12, 40-41, 62-65); and control circuitry (such as 8/26 and equivalents and its corresponding processing/controlling means) configured to variably control at least one of the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency of the light source based on a state of light after interference by the optical combiner such that the measurement result light guided by the second optical path and the delay light guided by the third optical path interfere with each other; and (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; the optical signals from S-> 4 -> 2 and from 14 -> 15 are combined and interfere at 3a, then are measured by 6/22).
(claims 2, 6) further comprising circuitry and (claim 6) further comprising an optical detector configured to measure light after interference by the optical combiner 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 circuitry is configured to variably control 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 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 circuitry is configured to change 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 the frequencies gets different values with the changing frequencies values).
(claims 8-9, 11) wherein the control circuitry is configured to perform variable control of at least one of the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency of the light source to adjust the inter-pulse phase difference (See rejection of claim 1) such that the measurement result light and the delay light have opposite phases to eliminate background light and (claim 11) wherein the control circuitry is configured to perform sweep variable control of at least one of the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency to change the pulse interval and the inter-pulse phase difference (see rejection of claim 3) to eliminate background light having a dispersion effect caused by the measurement target (this is considered as a mere intended result that necessary occurs when destructively interfering two coherent signals with a phase difference of P with the particular instance where the phase of the target light signal presents dispersion effects); (claim 9) further comprising an optical detector configured to detect, as signal light, light after interference by the optical combiner (see rejection of claim 6) in which background light has been cancelled by the control circuitry (necessary when sweeping the frequency/phase of either interfering signals and reaching opposition of phase that causes destructive interference).
(claim 10) wherein the third optical path includes an optical delay circuit including at least one of a multi-pass cavity, an optical fiber, and an arrayed waveguide grating (¶ 59 for ex.; flat surfaces of 14 and 15 provided multiple delayed reflections).
(claim 14) wherein the inter-pulse phase difference corresponds to a delay time of the third optical path representing a phase difference between non-adjacent pulses in the optical pulse train (during the frequency/phase sweeping, the (-Pi, +Pi) bound inter-pulse phase difference necessary reaches any arbitrary value, e.g. the phase difference between pulses of pulse train, as no specificities are claimed about the pulses).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7- 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.
8- Claims 4, 15-19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minoshima.
As to claims 4, 15-19, Minoshima teaches optical measurement device according to claim 1,
Moreover, Minoshima teaches (claim 15) wherein the light source includes a first light source and a second light source each configured to generate an optical frequency comb (¶ 52).
Minoshima does not teach expressly wherein the control circuitry is configured to change 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; (claim 15) the repetition frequency of the first light source and the repetition frequency of the second light source being different from each other, and wherein the optical combiner is configured to cause the measurement result light derived from the first light source and reference light derived from the second light source to interfere with each other; (claim 16) wherein the delay time of the third optical path corresponds to an integer multiple N of the pulse interval, wherein N > 1, and wherein the inter-pulse phase difference corresponds to N times a single-pulse phase advance; (claim 17) wherein the control circuitry is configured to monitor the state of light after interference by the optical combiner and to adjust at least one of the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency in a closed feedback loop until the measurement result light and the delay light achieve a target interference condition; (claim 18) wherein the acquisition circuitry is further configured to acquire the state of the light with reference to an absolute frequency reference, and the control circuitry is configured to stabilize at least one of the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency based on the absolute frequency reference; (claim 19) wherein the control circuitry is configured to compare the acquisition result of the state of the light with the information representing the reference of the state of the light and to adjust at least one of the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency in a closed feedback loop based on a difference between the acquisition result and the reference until the measurement result light and the delay light achieve a target interference condition
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). As to claim 15, one PHOSITA would find it obvious to vary the parameters of the light sources similarly to the light source in claim 1, for scalability and more flexibility in setting the measurements parameters (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I/ B-D). As to claim 16, during the frequency/phase sweeping, any arbitrary value for the frequency/phase, i.e. time delay, can be reached and particularly to reach an integer value N of any inter pulse delay, with its corresponding phase delay. As to claim 17, one PHOSITA would find it obvious to consider the controller of Minoshima to include an interference monitoring means and a closed loop feedback to automatically adjust the frequency parameters to achieve any arbitrary result that optimizes the signal measurements (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I/ B-D). As to claims 18-19, Minoshima teaches controlling the optical comb with respect to a reference frequency f_CEO in order to stabilize the light frequency parameters; ¶ 51, and achieve any arbitrary result with the light measurements.
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 circuitry is configured to change 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; the repetition frequency of the first light source and the repetition frequency of the second light source being different from each other, and wherein the optical combiner is configured to cause the measurement result light derived from the first light source and reference light derived from the second light source to interfere with each other; wherein the delay time of the third optical path corresponds to an integer multiple N of the pulse interval, wherein N > 1, and wherein the inter-pulse phase difference corresponds to N times a single-pulse phase advance; wherein the control circuitry is configured to monitor the state of light after interference by the optical combiner and to adjust at least one of the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency in a closed feedback loop until the measurement result light and the delay light achieve a target interference condition; wherein the acquisition circuitry is further configured to acquire the state of the light with reference to an absolute frequency reference, and the control circuitry is configured to stabilize at least one of the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency based on the absolute frequency reference; wherein the control circuitry is configured to compare the acquisition result of the state of the light with the information representing the reference of the state of the light and to adjust at least one of the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency in a closed feedback loop based on a difference between the acquisition result and the reference until the measurement result light and the delay light achieve a target interference condition, with the advantage of effectively facilitating a thorough analysis of the interference results, and a more wide flexibility in the measurements parameters.
9- Claim 7, 12 are 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 optical combiner configured to cause 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 optical detector configured to measure light interfered [[with]] by the second optical combiner as signal light; (Claim 12) wherein the third optical path further includes dispersion compensation optics configured to compensate for a dispersion effect introduced by the measurement target.
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). As to claim 12, Kuramoto teaches, ¶ 60, the need to compensate for a dispersion that occurs in the target medium to increase the accuracy of the measurements.
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 optical combiner configured to cause 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 optical detector configured to measure light interfered by the second optical combiner as signal light; wherein the third optical path further includes dispersion compensation optics configured to compensate for a dispersion effect introduced by the measurement target, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the phase measurements of the interference measurements, and the accuracy of the target measurements.
Allowable Subject Matter
10- Claim 13 is allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
As to apparatus claim 13, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious:
… wherein the control circuitry is configured to perform feedback control by changing the repetition frequency while keeping a ratio between the carrier envelope offset frequency and the repetition frequency constant to cancel a state change caused by environmental variations.
in combination with the other limitations.
The closest prior art found that pertains to the invention, with emphasis added, is Minoshima, Kuramoto, and Fermann. However, the prior art fail to teach, suggest or render obvious the entire invention as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED 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
Prosecution Insights