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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-15, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility.
1) Claims 1 and 17 disclose limitations “beam switchover device is configured:
a) to feed at least one GHz laser pulse train of the high frequency laser pulse source to the amplifier for amplification in the high-frequency functional position, and
b) to feed at least one low-frequency laser pulse train of the excitation laser to the amplifier for amplification in the low-frequency functional position”. However, the claims also disclose “the beam switchover device comprises a beam distributor configured to split laser light of the excitation laser temporally or spatially or both temporally and spatially between two beam sections comprising a section of the high frequency laser pulse source and an individual pulse section”.
Applicant’s specification and Fig 2 clearly disclose that device comprises two beam switchover devices 31 and 33, the first one is a beam distributor 31 for splitting the laser beam into two sections and the second one is a beam selector 33 for combining the beams together. The beam selector 33 is configured to feed the selected beam to the amplifier. It is not physically possible for beam switchover device which is the beam distributor 31 to perform both functions of splitting the laser light into two beams and then feeding both beams to the amplifier.
2) Claims 7 and 20 disclose the limitation “beam switchover device comprises a beam selector”. However, claims 1 and 17 already disclose that “beam switchover device comprises a beam distributor”. It is not physically possible for the beam distributor to also be a beam selector.
Furthermore, the examiner points out that the entire device illustrated in Fig 2 is the mode change device 30, while the individual elements 31 and 33 are the beam switchover devices, beam switchover device 31 is a beam distributor and beam switchover device 33 is a beam selector. Applicant appears to be using the terms “beam switchover device” and “mode change device” interchangeably in the claims, which is inconsistent with the disclosure.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-15, 17-21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for their dependence on claims 1 and 17. For the purpose of examination, the limitations as presented have been searched and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 already discloses “the beam distributor”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Admitted Prior Art
The rejection of claims 5 and 6 (repetition rate multiplier) based on the well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (hereinafter APA) because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate, see MPEP 2144.03.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the references cited on form PTO-892 in the previous office action which lists other references with similar features as the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims filed on 11/26/25 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Contact Info
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. A. GOLUB-MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached on (571) 272-1835. 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. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M. A. Golub-Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828