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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been maintained as there is insufficient antecedent basis what the parameters are.
The rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) has been withdrawn and are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in light of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant argues that claim 7 depends on allowable claim 1 and is therefore allowable. The Examiner is not persuaded. Claims directed to the structure of a device must structurally distinguish from prior art. Applicant has not identified what the structural distinction is. The recitation that the system is "configured to perform the method…according to claim 1" also does not clearly establish a structural distinction.
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 and 8 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 is drawn to the structure of a system and it is unclear what structure is imposed by the limitation of "the system is configured to perform the method for performance evaluation of a high-power semiconductor laser chip according to claim 1." It is not clear if the limitation requires some unidentified structure, is reciting the intended use of the system, or if some structure found in the specification is to be imported into the claim (See claim 1's acts such as "calculating" and "obtaining a two-dimensional distribution…" for which structure is not found in claim 7). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what structure is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason by virtue of its dependence on claim 7.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "identical parameters." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A lens has many recognized parameter (e.g., diameter, thickness, material, refractive index, compound lens, color, refraction profile, dispersion, diffractive, etc.) and so it is unclear which parameters is being referred to. For examination purposes, any property of a lens will be taken to be the parameter.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 8, as interpreted by the Examiner, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vakhshoori et al. (US 2019/0368939).
Vakhshoori shows a device for spectroscopy as follows:
7. A system (e.g. Figure 33) for performance evaluation of a high-power semiconductor laser chip, applying the method for performance evaluation of a high-power semiconductor laser chip according to claim 1, (the recitations "for…" and "applying" are taken to be the purpose or intended use of the system and the limitations do not impart any particular structure to the claimed system) wherein the system comprises:
a thermostatic device, configured to maintain a temperature of the chip to be tested so that the chip to be tested is able to operate at a predetermined temperature (The recitation to the chip does not impart structure. The chip is not an element of the claimed system but rather an object intended to be operated on by the claimed system. See MPEP 2115. As to the thermostatic device, see para. [0292]: "Cavity 3805 allows for circulation of a temperature regulation material 3806 (such as any suitable liquid, or gas) to control the temperature of the solution 3802.");
a lens device, comprising a first lens (VIS-NIR front group), a beam splitter (Dichroic Beamsplitter), a second lens and (Visible Optical Group) a third lens (NIR Optical Group), wherein the first lens is provided in a radiation path of spontaneous radiation of the chip to be tested, the beam splitter is provided in an exit direction of the first lens, the beam splitter is
PNG
media_image1.png
382
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
configured to split emergent light from the first lens into two beams, and the second lens and the third lens are provided in two exit directions of the beam splitter respectively;
a spectrometer (Spectrometer), comprising a signal collection element, wherein the signal collection element of the spectrometer is provided in an exit direction of the second lens;
a CCD camera (Para. [0312]: "camera sensor (CCD, CMOS)"), provided in an exit direction of the third lens;
a two-dimensional displacement device, on which the lens device, the signal collection element of the spectrometer and the CCD camera are provided, wherein the two-dimensional displacement device is capable of driving the lens device, the signal collection element of the spectrometer and the CCD camera to move, so as to change the relative position between the first lens and the chip to be tested without changing a perpendicular distance between the first lens and an exit surface of the spontaneous radiation of the chip to be tested (Para. [0314]: "motion controller 3350 is disposed external to a casing of the system 3300, and controls collective movement of the system 3300, including the subassembly 3300a, with respect to a stationary sample such as via, for example, control of an actuator.")
wherein the system is configured to perform the method for performance evaluation of a high-power semiconductor laser chip according to claim 1 (as interpreted by the Examiner, the limitation is taken to be stating the intended use and does not serve to structurally distinguish from VAkshoori. Furthermore, the system can be used to evaluate high-power semiconductor laser chip since it is identical in structure as claimed and is thus configured to perform evaluation of a high-power semiconductor laser chip).
8. The system for performance evaluation of a high-power semiconductor laser chip according to claim 7, wherein the second lens and the third lens use lenses with the same parameters (both allow light to pass, both focus), and a distance between the signal collection element of the spectrometer and the second lens is equal to a distance between the CCD camera and the third lens (both have adjustable focus and can be operated to have distance equal to the effective distance between the third lens and the spectrometer, i.e. MEMS).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowed for reasons stated in the Office action of April 29, 2026.
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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights