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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod et al (US 2018/0286631 hereinafter “Axelrod” in view of Kub et al (US 2013/0121362 hereinafter “Kub”).
Regarding claim 1; Axelrod discloses a device (figures 4 and 8-9 and paragraphs [09123], [0154]-[157], and 184]) for measuring nanoscale displacements of an object, comprising:
a body (800 @ figure 8); and
at least one optical cavity (802, 804, 806 @ figure 8) formed in the body (800 @ figure 8), each optical cavity (802, 804, 806 @ figure 8) being positioned to receive light from a direction corresponding to a respectively different dimension of the object to be measured (paragraphs [0143] and [0156]-[0158]). See figures 1-13
Axelrod discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for an optical absorber positioned in the respective each cavity. However, Kub teaches that it is known in the art to provide an optical absorber (130 @ figures 9-11) positioned in the respective each cavity (100 @ figures 9-11 and paragraph [0040]: e.g., graphene saturable absorber 130 is provided in the laser optical cavity or resonator or linear cavity laser device 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine device of Axelrod with an optical absorber positioned in the respective each cavity as taught by Kub for the purpose of improving laser devices with absorbs low-intensity light, while transmitting or reflecting light which is of sufficiently high intensity.
Regarding claim 2; Axelrod discloses the at least one optical cavity (800 @ figure 8) comprises three optical cavities (802, 804, 806 @ figure 8), each optical cavity (802, 804, 806 @ figure 8) positioned for alignment with a respectively different one of three orthogonal axes of the object to the measured (paragraph [0143]).
Regarding claim 3; Axelrod discloses the three optical cavities (802, 804, 806 @ figure 8) define an overlap portion for receiving the object (figure 8 and paragraph [0154]), the overlap portion being common to all three optical cavities (802, 804, 806 @ figure 8).
Regarding claim 4; Axelrod discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a light source aligned with each cavity, for emitting light towards the object such that the light passes from the object to the optical absorber in the respective cavity. However, Kub teaches that it is known in the art to provide a light source (190 @ figures 10, 14) aligned with each cavity (100 @ figures 10, 14), for emitting light towards the object (160 @ figures 10, 14) such that the light passes from the object (160 @ figure 14) to the optical absorber (130 @ figure 10) in the respective cavity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine device of Axelrod with limitation above as taught by Kub for the purpose of improving laser devices with absorbs low-intensity light, while transmitting or reflecting light which is of sufficiently high intensity.
Regarding claim 5; Axelrod discloses each optical cavity (110 @ figures 1 and 4) comprises a pair of mirrors (114, 116 @ figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 6; Axelrod discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for each pair of mirrors comprises a first mirror and a second mirror and, for each cavity, the optical absorber is positioned closer to the first mirror than the second mirror, the device comprising at least one light source aligned with each cavity, for emitting light through the respective second mirror towards the respective first mirror. However, Kub teaches that it is known in the art to provide each pair of mirrors (110, 120 @ figures 7-14) comprises a first mirror (110 @ figures 7-14) and a second mirror (120 @ figure 7-14) and, for each cavity (100 @ figures 7-14), the optical absorber (130 @ figures 7-9) is positioned closer to the first mirror (110 @ figures 7-9) than the second mirror (120 @ figures 7-9), the device (figure 14) comprising at least one light source (190 @ figure 14) aligned with each cavity (110 @ figure 14), for emitting light through the respective second mirror (120 @ figure 14) towards the respective first mirror (110 @ figure 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine device of Axelrod with limitation above as taught by Kub for the purpose of improving laser devices with absorbs low-intensity light, while transmitting or reflecting light which is of sufficiently high intensity.
Regarding claim 7; Axelrod discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the pair of mirrors is a pair of Bragg grating mirrors. However, Kub teaches that it is known in the art to provide the pair of mirrors (110, 120 @ figures 6-7) is a pair of Bragg grating mirrors (paragraphs [0007], [0050], and [0053]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine device of Axelrod with limitation above as taught by Kub for the purpose of improving laser devices with absorbs low-intensity light, while transmitting or reflecting light which is of sufficiently high intensity.
Regarding claim 8; Axelrod discloses forming a cavity (802, 804, 806 @ figure 8) for receiving the object (808 @ figure 8).
Regarding claim 11; Axelrod discloses a system (figure 5 and paragraph [0020]: e.g., the contrast transfer function (CTF) of a TEM with a cavity-based laser phase plate) for measuring nanoscale displacements of an object, comprising: a device (800 @ figure 8); a light source (522 @figure 5) for alignment with each cavity (110 @ figure 5), for emitting light towards the object (808 @ figure 8); a detector system (516, 524 @ figure 5) for detecting an oscillation frequency of each optical cavity (110 @ figure 5); and a processor (518 @ figure 5) for converting each detected oscillation frequency to a displacement along the respective dimension corresponding to the respective optical cavity (110 @ figure 5 and paragraphs [0051]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 15; Axelrod discloses further comprising an amplifier (502 @ figure 5) for amplifying the light emitted from the light source (522 @ figure 5).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod in view of Kub as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Landry et al (US Patent No. 3,675,155 hereinafter “Landry”).
Regarding claim 10; Axelrod in view of Kub combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for each optical absorber comprises an Er3+- doped quartz crystal. However, Landry teaches that it is known in the art to provide each optical absorber in the optical cavity (10 @ figure 1) comprises an Er3+- doped quartz crystal (col.3 lines 17-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine device of Axelrod with limitation above as taught by Landry for the purpose of improving in order to excite enough ions into the higher metastable energy level.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod in view of Kub as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Reasenberg et al (US Patent No. 5,412,474 hereinafter “Reasenberg”).
Regarding claim 12; Axelrod in view of Kub combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the detector system detects two oscillation frequencies of each cavity and the processor determines the displacement along each respective dimension by determining a frequency shift between the two oscillation frequencies. However, Reasenberg teaches that it is known in the art to provide the detector system (figure 4 and 5a-5d, 11a-11b) detects two oscillation frequencies of each cavity (8,9 @ figure 4-5a) and the processor (13a, 13 @ figure 4) determines the displacement along each respective dimension by determining a frequency shift between the two oscillation frequencies (col.2 lines 37-42, col.12 lines 14-23, and col.15 line 61 to col.16 line 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine device of Axelrod with limitation above as taught by Reasenberg for the purpose of improving interferometric distance measuring systems for measurement of a change in the difference between the distances from one point to each of two other points.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod in view of Kub and Reasenberg as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lehmann (US 2014/0110599).
Regarding claim 13; Axelrod in view of Kub combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the detector system comprises an Indium Gallium Arsenide (InGaAs) detector. However, Lehmann teaches that it is known in the art to provide the detector system (100 @ figure 7) comprises an Indium Gallium Arsenide (InGaAs) detector (126 @ figure 7 and paragraph [0042]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine device of Axelrod with limitation above as taught by Lehmann for the purpose of improving detected light in cavity-enhanced spectroscopy.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod in view of Kub as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Selker et al (US 2006/0123884 hereinafter “Selker”).
Regarding claim 16; Axelrod in view of Kub combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a collimator for focusing rays from the light source such that they exit the collimator, towards the respective optical cavity, in parallel. However, Selker teaches that it is known in the art to provide a collimator (4.2, 4.3 @ figure 4) for focusing rays from the light source (4.1 @ figure 4) such that they exit the collimator (4.2, 4.3 @ figure 4), towards the respective optical cavity (4.6 @ figure 4), in parallel (paragraph [0058]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine device of Axelrod with limitation above as taught by Selker for the purpose of determining accuracy the sensitivity of the acoustic cavity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a device for measuring nanoscale displacement of an object comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including wherein the cavity for receiving the object is 3 cm long in set forth of claim 9.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a device for measuring nanoscale displacement of an object comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including wherein the detector system converts light, modulated by the object, to an electrical signal corresponding to the oscillation frequency of each optical cavity, the processor processing each electrical signal to determine the displacement along the respective dimension corresponding to the respective optical cavity in set forth of claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Wise et al (US 2016/0352064) discloses, figures 1-2, a divided pulse laser 100 includes a first mirror 102, a gain medium (i.e., optical amplifier) 104, and dividing and combining elements 106. In some embodiments, the dividing and combining elements 106 are configured in a double-pass configuration for both pulse dividing and recombining operations. DPL 100 also includes a second mirror 108 and a dispersive delay module (DD) 110, such that the optical cavity 112 is formed between the first mirror 102 and second mirror 108.
2) Jain (US 2014/0055845) discloses, figures 1-2, a light-emitting system 100 that includes at least one optical resonator 104 and at least one light source 108 that provides input light 112 to, or pumps, the optical resonator(s) and results in each optical resonator outputting output light 116. The optical resonator 104 include its having multiple optical resonator cavities 120 and at least one photoluminescent material 124.
3) Kane (US 2006/0268950) discloses, figures 1-5, the system 300 includes a seed laser 302 an optional timing control 304 and Q-switched laser 310. The Q-switched laser 310 has an optical cavity 311 defined between reflecting surfaces 314, 316. A non-linear material 326, a gain medium 312 and Q-switch 324 are located within the cavity 311.
4) Birnbaum (US Patent No. 5,802,083) discloses of a laser resonator M(1) total reflector (100% reflectivity) at the laser output wavelength; M(2) partial reflector at the laser output wavelength; laser crystal (3) of Tm,Cr:YAG; a flash lamp (4) to pump or energize the laser material; a lens (5) which focusses the intracavity laser output into the saturable absorber Q-switch and the saturable absorber Q-switch (6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/SN/
August 12, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights