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 06/01/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended. New claims 11-12 have been added.
Response to Arguments
2- Applicants’ amendments and their corresponding arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC §102 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 mailed 02/24/2026.
3- 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 § 103
4- 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.
5- Claims 1-12 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii et al. (JP 2011187947, cited by Applicants)
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
As to claim 1, Yoshii teaches a light source apparatus (Abstract and Figs. 1-16) comprising: an optical amplifier (101) configured to amplify and release light (¶ 28-29, 34, 60, 245-248 for ex.); a spectroscopic element (106/107 or 166/167) configured to separate the light released from the optical amplifier according to wavelengths (Figs. 1-2, 6-7 and 13); a spatial phase modulating element including a base part including an electrode and a plurality of grating elements (109/108 or 303/301, and their necessary electrodes to control the electro-optics), each of the plurality of grating elements including a light reflecting surface configured to reflect the light separated by the spectroscopic element, each of the plurality of grating elements being configured to be relatively displaced with respect to the base part according to a potential difference with the electrode (Figs.1, 3 for ex.); wherein the spectroscopic element is located so that the light released from the optical amplifier is separated by the spectroscopic element according to wavelengths and is incident on the spatial phase modulating element at different angles according to wavelengths (Figs. 1-3, 6-7 and 13; ¶ 28-36, 73, 92-97, 245-249 for ex.; Fig. 3 light 350 is diffracted at different angles according to its wavelengths), and displacement of the plurality of grating elements with respect to the base part is controlled so that one or more of the plurality of grating elements are relatively displaced with respect to the base part to perform phase modulation on the light separated by the spectroscopic element (Fig. 3b; by changing the path length between the elements and the base, the phase of the respective diffracted light is modulated/varied), and diffracted light for a part of the wavelengths is emitted from the spatial phase modulating element toward the spectroscopic element along an incident optical path from the spectroscopic element for the part of the wavelengths within a wavelength range of the light separated by the spectroscopic element (each mirror or ribbon diffracts back light diffraction orders back according to Fig. 3b and towards the spectroscopic element 106/107 according to Fig. 1; see ¶ 12, 91, 94-95, 101-102), wherein the diffracted light emitted from the spatial phase modulating element generates the light having the part of the wavelengths in the spectroscopic element, and the light having the part of the wavelengths is amplified by the optical amplifier and is subsequently released toward the spectroscopic element (Figs. 1, 13 and ¶29, 142, 179-182 for ex.), and the light having the part of the wavelengths, after being amplified a plurality of times of amplification by the optical amplifier, is output (Figs. 1, 13 and ¶29, 142, 179-182, 226-227, 248 for ex.)
Yoshii does not teach expressly wherein the apparatus comprises a processor; and a storage medium that stores a program, that performs the previous actions when executed.
However, Yoshii teaches, in ¶ 12, 101-102, 104, controlling the electrooptics and diffraction elements 301, necessarily by a controller and a code of operation thereof, such as in the computer 1496 with its memory.
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 Yoshii in view of the suggestions in the multiple embodiments therein, so that the apparatus comprises a processor; and a storage medium that stores a program, that performs the previous actions when executed, with the advantage of effectively automating the operation of the electro-optical systems of the light source.
(claim 2) wherein the optical amplifier includes a semiconductor optical amplifier, a booster optical amplifier, or a semiconductor laser (¶ 120-124).
(claim 3) wherein the spectroscopic element includes a diffraction grating (¶28, 31, 61 for ex).
(claim 4) wherein the processor, by executing the program, changes a pattern of displacement of the plurality of grating elements with respect to the base part using the spatial phase modulating element from a first pattern to a second pattern, and thereby switches from a state in which the part of the wavelengths includes a first wavelength to a state in which the part of the wavelengths includes a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (Fig. 3, ¶ 92-103 for ex.)
(claims 5-6) wherein the part of the wavelengths includes a plurality of wavelengths being different and apart from each other; (claim 6) wherein the processor, by executing the program, changes a pattern of displacement of the plurality of grating elements with respect to the base part using the spatial phase modulating element from a first pattern to a second pattern, and thereby switches from a state in which the plurality of wavelengths include a first-A wavelength and a first-B wavelength to a state in which the plurality of wavelengths include a second-A wavelength different from the first-A wavelength and a second-B wavelength different from the first-B wavelength. (Figs. 2-3, ¶ 20-23, 33-37, 58-61, 92-103, 144-145 for ex.)
(claim 7) further comprising: a first light guide part; an optical path change optical system; and a second light guide part, wherein the first light guide part guides the light released from the optical amplifier toward the optical path change optical system, the optical path change optical system guides the light that has been released from the optical amplifier and has passed through the first light guide part toward the spectroscopic element, and guides the light having the part of the wavelengths generated in the spectroscopic element according to the diffracted light emitted from the spatial phase modulating element to the second light guide part, and the second light guide part includes a first light output part configured to output a part of the light out of the light guided to the second light guide part by the optical path change optical system to an outside of the second light guide part, and a light guide portion configured to guide a rest of the light except the part of the light out of the light guided to the second light guide part by the optical path change optical system toward the optical amplifier (Fig. 13 with the different sections of optical fiber 1335 and the circulators 1332/1334, where parts of light are transmitted in a given direction, and other parts are reflected towards a different direction).
(claim 8) further comprising: a third light guide part configured to guide the light released from a first end surface of the optical amplifier toward the spectroscopic element, and guide the light having the part of the wavelengths generated in the spectroscopic element according to the diffracted light emitted from the spatial phase modulating element toward the first end surface of the optical amplifier; and a partially reflecting optical system configured to allow a part of the light out of the light released from a second end surface of the optical amplifier to be transmitted through the partially reflecting optical system and output the part of the light, and reflect a rest of the light except the part of the light out of the light released from the second end surface of the optical amplifier toward the second end surface (Figs. 13, 15, with the different sections of optical fiber 1335 and the circulators 1332/1334, where parts of light are transmitted in a given direction, and other parts are reflected towards a different direction. Beam splitters 1534 are also considered in Fig. 15 as a replacement to the circulators).
(claim 9) wherein the plurality of grating elements include a plurality of ribbon-like parts, each of the plurality of ribbon-like parts has an elongated ribbon-like shape extending along a first direction and flexibility, and includes a reflection part including the light reflecting surface on an opposite side of the base part, the plurality of ribbon-like parts are arrayed along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, the reflection part of each of the plurality of ribbon-like parts faces the base part across a space, each of the plurality of ribbon-like parts includes a-two connection parts connected to the base part at both end portions in the first direction, the base part includes the electrode facing the reflection part of each of the plurality of ribbon-like parts, and the processor, by executing the program, adjusts a potential difference to be applied between the reflection part of each of the plurality of ribbon-like parts and the electrode, and thereby controls deflection amounts the plurality of ribbon-like parts using an electrostatic force between the reflection part of each of the plurality of ribbon- like parts and the electrode, and controls a displacement amount of the reflection part of each of the plurality of ribbon-like parts with respect to the base part (Fig. 3, ¶ 92-103 for ex., the electrostatic metal foils/ribbons are necessarily controlled by a potential controlling mechanism).
(claim 10) wherein the spatial phase modulating element includes a plurality of reflective elements arrayed in a matrix shape, each of the plurality of reflective elements includes a movable reflection part facing the base part across a space and including the light reflecting surface on an opposite side of the base part, and a support part being configured to support each of a plurality of portions of the movable reflection part, being connected to the base part, and having flexibility, the plurality of grating elements include the movable reflection part of each of the plurality of reflective elements, the base part includes the electrode facing the movable reflection part of each of the plurality of reflective elements, and in each of the plurality of reflective elements, the processor, by executing the program, adjusts a potential difference to be applied between the movable reflection part and the electrode and thereby controls deflection amount of the support part using an electrostatic force between the movable reflection part and the electrode, and controls a displacement amount of the movable reflection part with respect to the base part (Fig. 3, ¶ 92-103 for ex., the electrostatic metal foils/ribbons, correspond to the claimed reflective elements disposed in a matrix shape, and are necessarily controlled by a potential controlling mechanism).
As to claims 11, 12, Yoshii teaches the light source apparatus according to claims 9 and 10, wherein the processor, by executing the program, adjusts the potential difference applied between the reflection part of each of the plurality of ribbon-like parts, or reflective elements and the electrode to form a diffractive structure (see rejection of claim 1), and an angle formed by a light of the part of the wavelengths entering into the blazed diffraction grating from the spectroscopic element with respect to the blazed diffraction grating is equal to an angle formed by a diffracted light of the part of the wavelengths emitted from the diffraction grating with respect to the diffraction grating (beams 111 in Fig. 1).
Yoshii does not teach expressly wherein the diffractive structure such that at least a part of the plurality of the ribbon-like parts, or reflective elements, forms a blazed diffraction grating, but rather displays a regular grating with surface grooves (Fig. 3b) as the grating reflective elements/ribbon-like parts. Moreover, Yoshii does teach using a glazed diffraction grating as the spectroscopic element (106/107) as another species of possible diffractive grating. One PHOSITA would find it obvious to use Yoshii’s teachings and replace the grating in Fig. 3b with a blazed diffraction grating, as a mere suitable alternative in the limited genus of gratings (MPEP § 2144.07. See also MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e)).
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 Yoshii in view of the suggestions in the multiple embodiments therein, so that wherein the diffractive structure such that at least a part of the plurality of the ribbon-like parts, or reflective elements, forms a blazed diffraction grating, with the advantage of effectively diffracting the light beams back to the spectroscopic element.
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