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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 17 and 18, “plurality passes” Should be “plurality of passes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 22, “wherein the nonlinear medium is comprised at least partially at the focus plane” should be “wherein the nonlinear medium is located or positioned at least partially at the focus plane”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: fig. 10 erroneously assigns the reference numeral “CM1” to both reflecting mirrors, where one should be assigned the reference numeral “CM2”. The error is contradicted by the specification at paragraph [0072]: “The multipass radiation device MPC may comprise a first reflecting mirror CM1 and a second reflecting mirror CM2”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 mode-matching arrangement” 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 § 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 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "the intra-cavity focus plane". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The phrase “the intra-cavity focus plane” appears for the first time in claim 6. However, claim 7 does not depend on claim 6, but depends on claim 1. For examination purposes, claim 7 would be assumed to depend on claim 6.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russbueldt (US2017125964A) in view of Liang (Liang, 2015. Three-octave-spanning supercontinuum generation and sub-two-cycle self-compression of mid-infrared filaments in dielectrics. Optics letters, 40(6), pp.1069-1072).
Regarding claim 1, Russbueldt teaches a radiation device (Abstract) comprising: an oscillating cavity comprising a first reflecting surface (mirror element 2) and a second reflecting surface (mirror element 2) (fig. 2, [0069]); and a nonlinear medium (3) located between the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface ([0069]), wherein the oscillating cavity is configured to receive and to oscillate therewithin pulsed input radiation ([0001], [0069]) such that the pulsed input radiation undergoes a plurality of passes through the nonlinear medium such that it is spectrally broadened by the nonlinear medium to form broadband output radiation (claim 1, [0024]), but fails to disclose such that the pulsed input radiation undergoes a filamentation process resulting in formation of one or more filaments in the nonlinear.
Liang, from the same field of endeavor (Abstract: spectral broadening of pulses via propagation through a nonlinear optical medium) teaches the pulsed input radiation undergoes a filamentation process resulting in formation of one or more filaments in the nonlinear medium (Page 1069, Abstract: The formation of stable and robust filaments with several microjoules of pulse energy is observed; page 1072: we systematically investigated the mid IR SCG from filaments in bulk dielectrics with normal and anomalous GVD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russbueldt by incorporating such that the pulsed input radiation undergoes a filamentation process resulting in formation of one or more filaments in the nonlinear in order to increase the efficiency and extent of spectral broadening.
Regarding claim 2, Russbueldt, when modified by Liang, teaches the radiation device as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of passes through the nonlinear medium follows a different path (Russbueldt: [0066] multiple reflexes may be arranged on the mirrors in a circle (or an ellipse) about the optical axis, wherein one reflex extends beyond the previous reflex by angle ψ in the circle).
Regarding claim 3, Russbueldt, when modified by Liang, teaches the radiation device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pulsed input radiation undergoes the filamentation process during two or more of the plurality of passes through the nonlinear medium (Russbueldt: [0088]).
Regarding claim 4, Russbueldt, when modified by Liang, teaches the radiation device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the spectral broadening comprises a self- phase modulation process ([0046]-[0047])
Regarding claim 6, Russbueldt, when modified by Liang, teaches the radiation device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface each define a common intra-cavity focus plane (Russbueld: fig. 3 shows focus in the middle) at which the pulsed input radiation is focused following each pass within the oscillating cavity (Russbueld: fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Russbueldt, when modified by Liang, teaches a method for configuring the radiation device as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising: determining an amount of spectral broadening required for broadening an input spectrum of pulsed input radiation to a target output spectrum via the spectral broadening by the radiation device (Russbueldt: [0020],[0037]) ; determining a total number of passes through the nonlinear medium for achieving the determined amount of spectral broadening (Russbueldt: [0016], [0020]); determining an input direction for the pulsed input radiation to enter into the oscillating cavity so as to achieve the determined total number of passes through the nonlinear medium (Russbueldt: [0066], [0068]).
Regarding claim 16, Russbueldt, when modified by Liang, teaches the method of claim 15, but fails to disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to perform at least the method of claim 15.
However, converting a known method to a computer-implemented version stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium is a routine in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russbueldt and Liang by incorporating a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to perform at least the method of claim 15 in order to automate the determination steps.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 incorporates all the limitations of claims 1 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejections of claim 1 apply to claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, Russbueldt, when modified by Liang, teaches the method as claimed in claim 17, wherein each reflection of the repeatedly reflecting comprises compensating a dispersion of the pulsed input radiation during the plurality passes through the nonlinear medium ([0023]).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 incorporates all the limitations of claims 2 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejections of claim 2 apply to claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Russbueldt, when modified by Liang, teaches the method as claimed in claim 17, wherein the pulsed input radiation undergoes the filamentation process during each of the plurality of passes through the nonlinear medium (Russbueldt: [0088],[0016] The pulse power of the laser pulses is selected to be greater than the critical power of the medium with non-linear optical properties; Liang: page 1070 we were still able to maintain a very stable filament with an input energy of 11 μJ, which corresponds to ∼1000 times the critical power for self-focusing.).
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 incorporates all the limitations of claims 4 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejections of claim 4 apply to claim 21. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 22, Russbueldt, when modified by Liang, teaches the method as claimed in claim 17, wherein each reflection of the repeatedly reflecting comprises focusing the pulsed input radiation to a focus plane (Russbueld: fig. 3 shows focus in the middle), and wherein the nonlinear medium (3) is comprised at least partially at the focus plane (fig. 4c shows the non-linear medium 3 at the focus plane).
Claims 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russbueldt (US2017125964A) in view of Liang (Liang, 2015. Three-octave-spanning supercontinuum generation and sub-two-cycle self-compression of mid-infrared filaments in dielectrics. Optics letters, 40(6), pp.1069-1072), further in view of Du (US20230296959A1)
Regarding claim 5, Russbueldt, when modified by Liang, teaches the radiation device as claimed in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface are both curved concavely.
Du teaches wherein the first reflecting surface (717) and the second reflecting surface (718) are both curved concavely ([0069], fig. 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russbueldt by incorporating disclose wherein the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface are both curved concavely providing predictable results of refocusing onto the nonlinear medium on each pass so the intensity remains sufficient for spectral broadening.
Regarding claim 8, Russbueldt, when modified by Liang, teaches the radiation device as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first reflecting surface has a first radius of curvature and the second reflecting surface has a second radius of curvature, and wherein the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface are symmetrical about a common longitudinal axis and are separated along the common longitudinal axis by a distance equal to one half of a sum of the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature.
However, Du teaches , wherein the first reflecting surface (717) has a first radius of curvature and the second reflecting surface (718) has a second radius of curvature ([0069], fig. 15), and wherein the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface are symmetrical about a common longitudinal axis and are separated along the common longitudinal axis (fig. 14, [0069]) by a distance equal to one half of a sum of the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature ([0069] the two mirrors have the same radius of curvature. The mirrors 717 and 718 are advantageously arranged confocally, therefore their separation is equal to the radius).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russbueldt by incorporating wherein the first reflecting surface has a first radius of curvature and the second reflecting surface has a second radius of curvature, and wherein the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface are symmetrical about a common longitudinal axis and are separated along the common longitudinal axis by a distance equal to one half of a sum of the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature to provide compact multipass cell (Du: [0011]).
Regarding claim 9, Russbueldt, when modified by Liang and Du, teaches the radiation device as claimed in claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature are such that upon being reflected by either of the first reflecting surface and the second reflecting surface, the pulsed input radiation is focused to a spot (Du: [0069]-[0070]) having a sufficient peak intensity (Russbueldt: ) for enabling the filamentation process (Russbueldt: [0016]”The pulse power of the laser pulses is selected to be greater than the critical power of the medium with non-linear optical properties” therefore, there is inherently a filamentation process as evidenced by Bergh (US 20140340730 A1): [0083]-[0084]).
Claims 7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russbueldt (US2017125964A) in view of Liang (Liang, 2015. Three-octave-spanning supercontinuum generation and sub-two-cycle self-compression of mid-infrared filaments in dielectrics. Optics letters, 40(6), pp.1069-1072), further in view of Pronin ( US20230152663A1)
Regarding claim 7, Russbueldt, when modified by Liang, teaches the radiation device as claimed in claim 6, further comprising a mode-matching arrangement configured to adjust a beam size and/or a divergence of the pulsed input radiation such that a focus position of the pulsed input radiation in the oscillating cavity is substantially at the intra- cavity focus plane.
However, Pronin teaches a mode-matching arrangement (a Galilean beam expander) configured to adjust a beam size and/or a divergence of the pulsed input ([0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russbueldt by incorporating further comprising a mode-matching arrangement configured to adjust a beam size and/or a divergence of the pulsed input radiation such that a focus position of the pulsed input radiation in the oscillating cavity is substantially at the intra- cavity focus plane to ensure efficient coupling.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 incorporates all the limitations of claims 7 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejections of claim 7 apply to claim 23. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russbueldt (US2017125964A) in view of Liang (Liang, 2015. Three-octave-spanning supercontinuum generation and sub-two-cycle self-compression of mid-infrared filaments in dielectrics. Optics letters, 40(6), pp.1069-1072), further in view of Ravensbergen (US20220187680A1)
Regarding claims 13-14, Russbueldt, when modified by Liang, teaches the radiation device as claimed in claim 1, but fails to disclose a metrology device comprising the radiation source device as claimed in claim 1 and comprising a scatterometer metrology apparatus, a level sensor or an alignment sensor.
However, Ravensbergen teaches a metrology device comprising a radiation source device and comprising a scatterometer metrology apparatus, a level sensor or an alignment sensor ([0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Russbueldt by incorporating a metrology device comprising the radiation source device as claimed in claim 1 and comprising a scatterometer metrology apparatus, a level sensor or an alignment sensor in order to provide the broadband supercontinuum illumination to improve measurement robustness and accuracy (Ravensbergen: [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MOHAMED DOUMBIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights