Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/597,262

MULTIPLE LASER PULSE OSCILLATION METHOD AND APPARATUS USING MULTIPLE-Q SWITCHING

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 30, 2021
Examiner
CAMACHO ALANIS, FERNANDA ADRIANA
Art Unit
2828
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Ltraglobal Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
51%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 51% of resolved cases
51%
Career Allow Rate
19 granted / 37 resolved
-16.6% vs TC avg
Strong +48% interview lift
Without
With
+48.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
55
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
§112
34.6%
-5.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 37 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/08/20255 has been entered. Response to Amendment Examiner acknowledges amended claims 1, 4-8 and 10. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Drawings Previous objection has been withdrawn. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, peak power of first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh laser pulse must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Previous rejection has been withdrawn. 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Gillet (Foreign Patent FR-2713836-A1) in the view of Tankovich (US Patent US-20110313408-A1). Regarding claim 1, Guillet teaches a multiple laser pulse oscillation method using multiple Q- switching (Fig. 4), the method comprising: forming one period of light energy (Fig. 4 shows repeated burst #15, each period with a duration time of 10ns, see translated document page 4 paragraph 2 corresponding to page 4 line 4 of the foreign patent); exciting electrons of a gain medium by the light energy (Fig. 1 lamp#2 excites active medium #1); performing first Q-switching (annotated Fig. 3 below shows first Q-switching) during one period of the light energy (annotated Fig. 3 shows oscillations #10 performed in one period of time); oscillating a first laser pulse (annotated Fig. 4, 1st pulse) from the excited electrons of the gain medium (Fig. 1 lamp #2 excites electrons of the gain #1) by the first Q- switching (annotated Fig. 4 shows 1st pulse being oscillating by 1st Q-switching in annotated Fig. 3); performing second Q-switching (annotated Fig. 3 below shows 2nd Q-switching) during the one period of the light energy (annotated Fig. 3 shows oscillations #10 performed in one period of time); and oscillating a second laser pulse (annotated Fig. 4, 2nd pulse) from the excited electrons of the gain medium (Fig. 1 lamp #2 excites electrons of the gain #1) by the second Q-switching (annotated Fig. 4 shows 2nd pulse being oscillating by 2nd Q-switching in annotated Fig. 3), wherein peak power of the first laser pulse oscillated by the first Q-switching and peak power of the second laser pulse oscillated by the second Q-switching are respectively within a range (Annotated Fig. 3 below show the peak power 14 of each pulse per each period; hence the peak power of the first or second laser pulse are respectively within a range). PNG media_image1.png 760 1088 media_image1.png Greyscale Guillet failed to teach the peak power range used for skin treatment. However Tankovich teaches a laser pulse oscillation method (equation 1; [0051] states “The dependences of pulse energy (and, consequently, average power) of the laser can be estimated using the following formula for output energy of the laser operating in the passive Q switch mode” ) having peak power range ([0051] states “maxima of the pulses' energy and peak power are observed close to the middle point of the passive Q switch mode. This fact allows one to manipulate with the output parameters of the laser by simply changing the pump rate”) use for skin treatment (the manipulation of the pump rate, see [0051], to control peak power range is used for skin treatment, see abstract ). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Gullet’s method by manipulating the pump rate as taught by Tankovich so that the range of peak power for first and second laser pulse is in a range of skin treatment because having a the range of the skin treatment would to produce skin tissue modification but below skin tissue damage threshold (from Tankovich see abstract). Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillet (Foreign Patent Patent FR-2713836-A1) in the view of Tankovich (US Patent US-20110313408-A1), as per claim 1, in further view of Cook (Foreign Patent WO-2016193727-A1) hereinafter Cook. Regarding claim 2, Gillet’s modified method teaches the first Q-switching (from Guillet annotated Fig. 3 in claim 1 1st Q-switching). Gillet’s modified method fails to teach the first Q-switching has a delay time ranging from 80 ms to 150 ms directly after the light energy is formed. However, Cook teaches a delay time of the first Q- switching (for example Fig. 4 shows Q-switch pulses 305a-d each pulse separated by time T2; the start of first pulse 305b occurs at T3 which is larger than T2; T3 is defined by the pump period #341a). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gillet’s device with a delay time as taught by Cook because a delay time would allow to avoid cross-talk between set of pulses. Gillet’s modified method in the view of Cook also fails to teach the first Q-switching has a delay time ranging from 80 ms to 150 ms. However, a delay time from 80 ms to 150 ms directly after the light energy is formed can be achieved through routine optimization (for example Cook teaches a delay time of the first Q-switching in Fig. 4 time T3), see MPEP 2144.05 IIA. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gillet’s method in the view of Tankovich with a delay time ranging from 80 ms to 150 ms directly after the light energy is formed because having a delay time ranging from 80 ms to 150 ms passes after the third Q-switching is a result of routine optimization which would allow to avoid cross-talk between set of Q-switching pulses, see MPEP 2144.05 IIB. Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillet (Foreign Patent Patent FR-2713836-A1) in the view of Tankovich (US Patent US-20110313408-A1), as per claim 1, in further view of Yessik (US Patent US-5621745-A this reference has been cited in the IDS) hereinafter Yessik. Regarding claim 3, Gillet’s method teaches first and second Q-switching (from Guillet annotated Fig. 3 in claim 1 shows 1st and 2nd Q-switching); a delay time between first and second Q-switching (from Guillet page 4 paragraph 2 of the translated document states “a burst -15- of 20 pulses of 10 ns each -Fig. 4-, spread over a millisecond, repeated 10 times per second”; the delay time between pulses being calculated considered the values in page 4 paragraph 2 is ~50ms per pulse). Gillet’s modified method fails to teach the second Q-switching has a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms from the first Q-switching. However, Yessik teaches the second Q-switching (Fig. 5 second Q-switching from annotated figure below) has a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms from the first Q-switching (Fig. 2 shows a delay time of 25ms between three pulses; column 6 lines 41-47 the period the flashlamp discharge pulse 11 is approximately 100 ms, comprising a multi-pulsed burst of between 2 and 50 sub-pulses is produced from each flashlamp pump pulse 11 ). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Gillet’s method in the view of Tonkovich by with a second Q-switching having a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms from the first Q-switching as taught by Yessik because having a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms would allow to increase the number of pulses per period without cross-talk between set of Q-switching pulses. PNG media_image2.png 450 1280 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, Gillet’s modified method teaches performing third Q-switching (from Guillet annotated Fig. 3 in claim 1 shows 3rd Q-switching), during the one period of the light energy (from Guillet annotated Fig. 3 in claim 1 shows one period during which 3rd Q-switching is performed); and oscillating a third laser pulse by the third Q-switching (from Guillet annotated Fig. 4 in claim 1, 4th pulse), wherein peak power of the third laser pulse (from Guillet annotated Fig. 4 shows the peak power in the y-axis of 3rd pulse) oscillated by the third Q-switching (from Guillet annotated Fig. 3, 3rd Q-switching) is within the range (from Guillet Annotated Fig. 3 below show the peak power 14 of each pulse per each period; hence the peak power of the first or second laser pulse are respectively within a range) used for skin treatment (from Tankovich equation 1; [0051] states “maxima of the pulses' energy and peak power are observed close to the middle point of the passive Q switch mode. This fact allows one to manipulate with the output parameters of the laser by simply changing the pump rate”. the manipulation of the pump rate, see [0051], to control peak power range is used for skin treatment, see abstract). Gillet’s modified method failed to teach performing third Q-switching when a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the second Q-switching is performed, during the one period of the light energy. However, Yessik teaches performing third Q-switching (annotated Fig. 5 in claim 5 shows the third Q-switching) when a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the second Q-switching is performed (Fig. 2 shows a delay time of 25ms between three pulses; column 6 lines 41-47 the period the flashlamp discharge pulse 11 is approximately 100 ms, comprising a multi-pulsed burst of between 2 and 50 sub-pulses is produced from each flashlamp pump pulse 11), during the one period of the light energy (Fig. 5 shows a third laser pulse generated in one flash pump source). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Gillet’s method in the view of Tankovich with a third Q-switching having a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms from the second Q-switching as taught by Yessik because having a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms would allow to increase the number of pulses per period without cross-talk between set of Q-switching pulses. Regarding claim 5, Gillet’s modified method teaches oscillating a fourth laser pulse (from Guillet annotated Fig. 4 in claim 1 shows 4th pulse) by the fourth Q-switching (from Guillet annotated Fig. 3 in claim 1 shows 4th Q-switching), wherein peak power of the fourth laser pulse (annotated Fig. 4 shows the peak power in the y-axis of 4th pulse) oscillated by the fourth Q-switching (annotated Fig. 4th Q-switching) is within the range (from Guillet Annotated Fig. 3 below show the peak power 14 of each pulse per each period; hence the peak power of the first or second laser pulse are respectively within a range) used for skin treatment (from Tankovich equation 1; [0051] states “maxima of the pulses' energy and peak power are observed close to the middle point of the passive Q switch mode. This fact allows one to manipulate with the output parameters of the laser by simply changing the pump rate”. the manipulation of the pump rate, see [0051], to control peak power range is used for skin treatment, see abstract). Gillet’s modified method fails to teach performing fourth Q-switching when a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the third Q-switching is performed. However, a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the third Q-switching is performed can be achieved through routine optimization (for example Gillet teaches a delay between pulses ~50 ms, see page 4 paragraph 2; hence, a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the third Q-switching can be optimized), see MPEP 2144.05 IIA. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gillet’s method in the view of Tankovich and Yessik with a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the third Q-switching because it is a result of routine optimization which would allow increase the number of pulses in a period of time avoiding cross-talk between set of Q-switching pulses, see MPEP 2144.05 IIB. Regarding claim 6, Gillet’s modified method teaches oscillating a fifth laser pulse (from Guillet annotated Fig. 4 in claim 1 shows 5th pulse) by the fifth Q-switching (from Guillet annotated Fig. 3 in claim 1 shows 5th Q-switching), wherein peak power of the fifth laser pulse (from Guillet annotated Fig. 4 shows the peak power in the y-axis of 5th pulse) oscillated by the fifth Q-switching (from Guillet annotated Fig. 5th Q-switching) is within the range (from Guillet Annotated Fig. 3 below show the peak power 14 of each pulse per each period; hence the peak power of the first or second laser pulse are respectively within a range) used for skin treatment (from Tankovich equation 1; [0051] states “maxima of the pulses' energy and peak power are observed close to the middle point of the passive Q switch mode. This fact allows one to manipulate with the output parameters of the laser by simply changing the pump rate”. the manipulation of the pump rate, see [0051], to control peak power range is used for skin treatment, see abstract). Gillet’s modified method failed to teach performing fifth Q-switching when a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the fourth Q-switching is performed. However, a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the fourth Q-switching is performed can be achieved through routine optimization (for example Gillet teaches a delay between pulses ~50 ms, see page 4 paragraph 2; hence, a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the fourth Q-switching can be optimized), see MPEP 2144.05 IIA. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gillet’s method in the view of Tankovich and Yessik with a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the fourth Q-switching because it is a result of routine optimization which would allow increase the number of pulses in a period of time avoiding cross-talk between set of Q-switching pulses, see MPEP 2144.05 IIB. Regarding claim 7, Gillet’s modified method teaches oscillating a sixth laser pulse by the sixth Q-switching (from Guillet page 4 paragraph 2 states “a burst -15- of 20 pulses of 10 ns each -Fig. 4-”; hence a sixth pulse is generated by sixth Q-switching not shown in figures but it is inherent to have their respective laser pulse and Q-switching), wherein peak power of the sixth laser pulse oscillated by the sixth Q-switching during the one period of the light energy (from Guillet annotated Fig. 4 shows the peak power in the y-axis and the period of time during pulses are generated; page 4 paragraph 2 states “a burst -15- of 20 pulses of 10 ns each -Fig. 4-”; hence the sixth laser has a peak power oscillated by the sixth Q-switching in a period of time) is within the range (from Guillet Annotated Fig. 3 below show the peak power 14 of each pulse per each period; hence the peak power of the first or second laser pulse are respectively within a range) used for skin treatment (from Tankovich equation 1; [0051] states “maxima of the pulses' energy and peak power are observed close to the middle point of the passive Q switch mode. This fact allows one to manipulate with the output parameters of the laser by simply changing the pump rate”. the manipulation of the pump rate, see [0051], to control peak power range is used for skin treatment, see abstract). Gillet’s modified method fails to teach performing sixth Q-switching when a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the fifth Q-switching is performed. However, a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the fifth Q-switching is performed can be achieved through routine optimization (for example Gillet teaches a delay between pulses ~50 ms, see page 4 paragraph 2; hence, a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the third Q-switching can be optimized), see MPEP 2144.05 IIA. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gillet’s modified method in the view of Tankovich and Yessik with a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the fifth Q-switching because it is a result of routine optimization which would allow increase the number of pulses in a period of time avoiding cross-talk between set of Q-switching pulses, see MPEP 2144.05 IIB. Regarding claim 8, Gillet’s modified method teaches oscillating a seventh laser pulse by the seventh Q-switching (from Guillet page 4 paragraph 2 states “a burst…of 20 pulses of 10 ns each…”; hence a seventh pulse is generated by seventh Q-switching not shown in figures but it is inherent to have their respective laser pulse and Q-switching), wherein peak power of the seventh laser pulse oscillated by the seventh Q-switching during the one period of the light energy (from Guillet annotated Fig. 4 shows the peak power in the y-axis and the period of time during pulses are generated; page 4 paragraph 2 states “a burst -15- of 20 pulses of 10 ns each -Fig. 4-”; hence a seventh laser pulse is generated, the seventh laser pulse has a peak power oscillated by a seventh Q-switching in a period of time) is within the range (from Guillet Annotated Fig. 3 below show the peak power 14 of each pulse per each period; hence the peak power of the first or second laser pulse are respectively within a range) used for skin treatment (from Tankovich equation 1; [0051] states “maxima of the pulses' energy and peak power are observed close to the middle point of the passive Q switch mode. This fact allows one to manipulate with the output parameters of the laser by simply changing the pump rate”. the manipulation of the pump rate, see [0051], to control peak power range is used for skin treatment, see abstract). Gillet’s modified method fail to teach performing seventh Q-switching when a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the sixth Q-switching is performed. However, a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the sixth Q-switching is performed can be achieved through routine optimization (for example Gillet teaches a delay between pulses ~50 ms, see page 4 paragraph 2; hence, a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the sixth Q-switching can be optimized), see MPEP 2144.05 IIA. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gillet’s method in the view of Tankovich and Yessik with a delay time ranging from 10 ms to 30 ms passes after the sixth Q-switching because it is a result of routine optimization which would allow increase the number of pulses in a period of time avoiding cross-talk between set of Q-switching pulses, see MPEP 2144.05 IIB. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillet (Foreign Patent FR-2713836-A1) in the view of Tankovich (US Patent US-20110313408-A1), as per claim 1, in further view of Chun (US Patent US-3818373-A) hereinafter Chun. Regarding claim 9, Gillet’s modified method teaches one period of light energy (from Guillet annotated Figs. 4 shows the period of light energy). Gillet’s modified method does not teach the one period of the light energy ranges from 200 ms to 350 ms. However, Chun teaches one period of the light energy ranges from 200 ms to 350 ms (Fig. 3a curve #53 & column 8 and lines 2-5 states “The flash lamp produces a high intensity flash of short duration -several hundred microseconds, for example-). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gillet’s method in the view of Tankovich with a period of light of several hundreds microseconds as taught by Chun because having a period of light of several hundred microseconds would allow to have the desired delay in between laser pulses. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yessik (US Patent US-5621745-A this reference has been cited in the IDS) in the view of Tankovich (US Patent US-20110313408-A1) hereinafter Tankovich. Regarding claim 10, Yessik teaches a multiple laser pulse oscillation apparatus (for example Fig. 3 modulated pulsed laser #1) comprising a Q-switching portion (for example Fig. 3 Q-switch #24), a gain medium portion (for example Fig. 3 amplification medium #2), a first control portion (for example Fig. 3 # S1; column 6 lines 3-5 “the first signal S1 controls the amount of energy which is delivered from the power source 22 to the flashlamp 4”; hence S1 can be considered as a first control portion), and a second control portion (for example Fig. 3 #S3; column 6 lines 35-45 states “the microprocessor simultaneously delivers an RF driver signal S3 to the RF driver 26 and the RF driver signal S3 switches -or gates- the RF driver ON and OFF at predetermined intervals during the period of the flashlamp pump pulse 11 ”), the apparatus performing: forming one period of light energy (for example Fig. 5 a flashlamp pulse where laser pulses are output during the duration of the flashlamp pulse ) in the gain medium portion (for example Fig. 3 light energy is produced in the gain medium #2) as the first control portion (for example Fig. 3 S1) applies an electrical control signal (for example column 6 lines 3-7 states “The first signal S1 controls the amount of energy which is delivered from the power source 22 to the flashlamp 4 and, in turn, the amount of energy which is delivered from the flashlamp 4 to the Nd:YAG rod 2”); exciting electrons of the gain medium of the gain medium portion by the light energy (for example Fig. 3 gain medium #2 & flashlamp #4; column and lines states “a conventional flashlamp, is disposed adjacent the amplification medium 2 for delivering pulses of pump energy to the amplification medium 2 and exciting the atoms which comprise the amplification medium 2 to elevated quantum-mechanical energy levels.”); performing first Q-switching in the Q-switching portion (for example Fig. 5 shows the first Q-switching as seen in the annotated figure from claim 3 which is formed in the Q-switch #24 from Fig. 3) as the second control portion applies an electrical control signal during one period of the light energy (for example Fig. 3 #S3; column 6 lines 35-45 states “the microprocessor simultaneously delivers an RF driver signal S3 to the RF driver 26 and the RF driver signal S3 switches -or gates- the RF driver ON and OFF at predetermined intervals during the period of the flashlamp pump pulse 11 ”; hence, S3 an electrical control signal during a flashlight pump pulse); oscillating a first laser pulse by the first Q-switching (for example Fig. 3 shows the oscillation of the beam #14; column 5 lines 1-2 states “A number of the stimulated emissions will then form a beam 14 which oscillates between the mirrors 8 and 10”; therefore a first oscillating pulse is oscillating); performing second Q-switching in the Q-switching portion during the one period of the light energy (for example Fig. 5 shows a second Q-switching see annotated figure below during a flashlamp pump pulse which is formed in Q-switch 24 from Fig. 3); and oscillating a second laser pulse by the second Q-switching (for example Fig. 3 shows the oscillation of the beam #14; column 5 lines 1-2 states “A number of the stimulated emissions will then form a beam 14 which oscillates between the mirrors 8 and 10”; therefore a second pulse is oscillating); wherein peak power of the first laser pulse oscillated by the first Q-switching and peak power of the second laser pulse oscillated by the second Q-switching are respectively within the range ( Annotated Fig. 5 1st and 2nd Q-switching; column 6 lines 24-27 states “ In this manner, a laser output 15 comprising one or more multi-pulsed bursts having peak powers in the range of 10-1000 kilowatts may be readily generated”) PNG media_image3.png 412 815 media_image3.png Greyscale Yessik fails to teach the peak power range used for skin treatment. However Tankovich teaches a laser pulse oscillation apparatus (Fig. 4 laser system) having peak power range ([0051] states “maxima of the pulses' energy and peak power are observed close to the middle point of the passive Q switch mode. This fact allows one to manipulate with the output parameters of the laser by simply changing the pump rate”) use for skin treatment (the manipulation of the pump rate, see [0051], to control peak power range is used for skin treatment, see abstract ). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Yessik’s device by manipulating the pump rate as taught by Tankovich so that the range of peak power for first and second laser pulse is in a range of skin treatment because having a range of the skin treatment would to produce skin tissue modification but below skin tissue damage threshold (from Tankovich see abstract). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDA ADRIANA CAMACHO ALANIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm Friday off. 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, 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 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. /FERNANDA ADRIANA CAMACHO ALANIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 30, 2021
Application Filed
Aug 06, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jan 13, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 08, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597758
TWO-SEGMENT DBR LASER AND MONOLITHICALLY INTEGRATED ARRAY LIGHT SOURCE CHIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12567718
SEMICONDUCTOR LASER DRIVING APPARATUS, ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT, AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF SEMICONDUCTOR LASER DRIVING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12566294
Optical Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12542423
SEMICONDUCTOR LASER, OPTICAL TRANSMITTER COMPONENT, OPTICAL LINE TERMINAL, AND OPTICAL NETWORK UNIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12531395
LASER DIODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
51%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+48.2%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 37 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month