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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 24, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but all lined through citations are to documents that fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), and that information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is more than one paragraph in length and exceeds the maximum allowable length of 150 words. Applicant is reminded of the suggested content of a patent abstract below.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As for claim 3, in line 5 of the claim, the phrase “and emit the second signal light” should be amended to read “emits the second signal light”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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:
“A pump light splitting element” in claim 4.
“An optical path length changing mechanism that changes an optical path length for the signal light” in claim 5.
“An optical path length changing mechanism that changes an optical path length for the idler light” in claim 6.
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 § 112
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.
Claims 5, 7, and 9 are 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "an optical path length for the signal light" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which signal light is being referred to here? Claim 1, the claim on which claim 5 depends, recites first and second signal lights, so the claiming of “the signal light” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 7 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 7, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which it depends.
As for claim 9, the claim recites that the analysis device acquires the interferogram from a difference between values of light intensities, where one of the values is obtained by multiplying a constant. However, it is unclear what the constant is multiplied by in order to obtain the value of the light intensity that is obtained through multiplying that constant. Without knowing what the constant is multiplied by to generate the value, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, and the claim is rejected as indefinite.
The examiner notes that because the claim gives no idea as to what the constant is being multiplied by, there is uncertainty as to what the proper interpretation of the limitation of the claim is. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. As a result, treatment of claim 9 under prior art is precluded at this time. See MPEP 2173.06.
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 1, 3-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steinlechner et al (2021/0270671).
Regarding claim 1, Steinlechner (Fig. 1) discloses a spectroscopic device comprising a light source 2 that emits pump light 3 (see paragraph 0128); a quantum optical system including one or more nonlinear optical elements 10, 20 (first and second field generation means, see paragraph 0128; see also paragraph 0036 disclosing the field generation means are non-linear mediums, and paragraph 0045 which states the idler and signal fields are entangled photon pairs) on which the pump light is incident to generate a photon pair of idler light and signal light from the pump light in an entangled photon pair generation process (for instance, generation means 10 generates a signal field 11 and an idler field 12 in paragraph 0129), and a sample placement tool (inherent; something must hold the sample) that places a sample 30 on an optical path of the idler light (see paragraph 0131); a detection unit 7, 8 that detects a light intensity of light output from the quantum optical system (see paragraph 0134); and an analysis device (see the control device that is connected to the detection unit in paragraphs 0121 and 0122) that acquires an interferogram based on the light intensity (see paragraph 0134), wherein the quantum optical system is configured to emit first and second signal lights along different optical paths (the quantum optical system includes a dichroic mirror 5b that separates the first signal light 11 into its own optical path and first idler light 12 which then passes through the second field generation means 20 and generates a second signal light 21 on a second optical path), the detection unit includes a beam splitter 7 that receives the first and second signal lights from the quantum optical system (see paragraphs 0130 and 0132-0134), and detects a light intensity of each of two lights emitted from the beam splitter using a pair of detectors 8 (CCD cameras in paragraph 0134), and the analysis device acquires the interferogram from the two lights detected by the detection unit (see paragraph 0134 which states the detectors detect an intensity pattern of an interfered signal field 40, with the analysis or control device acquiring the interferogram from the two different interfered lights 40, each of which is detected by a different detector 8).
As for claim 3, Steinlechner discloses that the nonlinear optical elements include first and second nonlinear optical elements 10, 20, and the quantum optical system emits the first signal light 11 along an optical path of the pump light 3a incident on the first nonlinear optical element 10 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0129) and emits the second signal light 21 along the pump light 3b incident on the second nonlinear optical element 20 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0132).
As for claim 4, Steinlechner discloses a pump light splitting element 6 at a stage before the nonlinear optical elements (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0128), wherein one pump light 3a split by the pump light splitting element is incident on the first nonlinear optical element 10 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0129), and the other pump light 3b is incident on the second nonlinear optical element 20 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0132).
As for claim 5, Steinlechner disclose an optical path length changing mechanism (the piezo element that is connected to second mirror 4b, see paragraph 0135) that changes an optical path length for the first signal light 11.
As for claim 8, Steinlechner discloses that the analysis device acquires the interferogram from a difference between light intensities of the two lights detected by the detection unit (see paragraph 0134).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinlechner et al (2021/0270671).
As for claim 2, Steinlechner discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 1, but fails to disclose, in the embodiment of Fig. 1, that the number of nonlinear optical elements is one, and the quantum optical system emits the first and second signal lights along an optical path of the pump light that travels back and forth through the one nonlinear optical element.
Steinlechner, in an alternative embodiment (Fig. 2) discloses a system where only a single nonlinear optical element 10 is present, and the quantum optical system emits the first and second signal fields 11, 21 as a result of pump beam 3 passing through the nonlinear optical element to generate signal field 11, the pump beam reflects off of mirror 4a, then passes back through the nonlinear optical field to generate signal field 21 (see paragraphs 0137-0140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Mach-Zehnder embodiment of Steinlechner with multiple nonlinear optical elements for the Fizeau embodiment with only a single nonlinear optical element, the motivation being that the Fizeau arrangement is less complex due to requiring fewer optical elements than the Mach-Zehnder embodiment while still providing identical results of detection of interference of the first and second signal lights.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinlechner et al (2021/0270671) in view of Takeuchi et al (2023/0020945).
As for claim 6, Steinlechner discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 1, but fails to disclose an optical path length changing mechanism that changes an optical path length for the idler light.
Steinlechner, however, suggests this option in paragraphs 0078 and 0081, where he states that the phase shift is created by “changing the path length of one or more field/s” or “by spatial displacement or change of the optical path length in one or both interferometer arms”. In that light, Takeuchi (Fig. 1) discloses a quantum absorption spectroscopy system where idler light Li that is generated by a nonlinear optical crystal 23 is reflected by a dichroic mirror 222 and passes through a sample SP on sample holder 24. This light then reflects off of a moving mirror 25 to pass back through the sample to be reflected again by the dichroic mirror 222. The moving mirror is movable along the propagation direction of the idler light, thereby changing the path length of the idler light (for the above see paragraphs 0073 and 0075-0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an optical path length changing mechanism to Steinlechner that changes an optical path length for the idler light as taught by Takeuchi, the motivation being that Steinlechner recognizes the possibility of having an optical path length changing mechanism for the idler light (see paragraphs 0078 and 0081 as discussed above), and Takeuchi teaches that mechanism allows for changing a phase of the idler signal, thereby allowing the photodetector to detect the signal when the phase of the idler photon is changed in order to output a quantum interference signal corresponding to the detected number of photons (see the Takeuchi abstract).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinlechner et al (2021/0270671) in view of Piestun et al (2021/0080484).
As for claim 7, Steinlechner discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 5, and discloses the optical path length changing mechanism includes a movable mirror 4b (see paragraph 0135), and discloses that the analysis device acquires the interferogram from the two lights 40 detected by the detection unit 8 (see paragraph 0134), but fails to disclose performing that detection when the mirror is moved at a constant speed.
However, Piestun, in a related field of scanning probe sample measurement using interferometric spectroscopy and Fourier transforms, discloses that it is well known in Fourier transform interferometry to move the scanning mirror with a constant speed with measurements being periodically performed while the mirror continually scans (see paragraph 0076). The examiner considers Piestun analogous to the claimed invention as the instant application discloses Fourier transform analysis on the interferogram in order to spectrally analyze the sample (see paragraph 0035 of the instant specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the movable mirror of Steinlechner move at a constant speed as taught by Piestun, the motivation being that Piestun discloses constant movement of the scanning mirror in Fourier transform interferometry to be a known practice in order to get regularly spaced delays for accurate interferogram acquisition (see paragraph 0141 of Piestun).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2005/0243324 to Freeling et al. discloses entangled photon spectroscopy where idler photons 155 are passed through an adjustable delay 140 including movable mirror set 150 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0025); US 2015/0077734 to Habif discloses biphoton ranging using Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) interference (see paragraph 0015); US 2016/0041032 to Matthews et al. discloses an spectroscopy using signal and idler photon pairs (see abstract) including a pair of photon detectors 14, 16 and counting electronics to count detected photons (see paragraph 0114 and Fig. 2a); US 2024/0152026 to Takeuchi et al. teaches a quantum absorption spectroscopy system featuring a photon pair source 204 and uses idler light Li to pass through a sample SP and signal light that reflects off of a stationary reflector 209 (see Fig. 1); and “Quantum Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy in the fingerprint region” by Mukai et al. teaches quantum interference using photon-pair generation processes (see Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 September 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights