DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 16 originally filed 25 February 2022. By preliminary amendment received 5 February 2022; claims 15 and 16 are amended. By amendments received 14 September 2023 and 4 October 2023; claim 1 is amended and claim 5 is cancelled. By amendment received 25 April 2024; claim 1 is amended. By amendment received 30 October 2024; claims 1, 2, and 4 are amended and claim 17 is added. By amendment received 14 April 2026; claims 1 and 17 are amended and claims 6 through 8 are cancelled. Claims 1 through 4 and 9 through 17 are addressed by this 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
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the previously cited art does not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein at least one of the GM and the SA is a ceramic crystalline material formed by sintering of powders" as required by the presently amended claims. Applicant's argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejections are withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, Ikesue (US Pub. 2008/0298407) has been located which, in combination with the previously cited art, renders this feature obvious. As such, a new rejection have been formulated as set forth below.
The subsequent arguments are addressed in light of the new rejection.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Eichenholz et al. (Eichenholz, US Pub. 2020/0076152), Thony et al. (Thony, US Patent 5,732,100), Molva et al. (Molva, US Patent 5,495,494), and Stultz et al. (Stultz, US Patent 5,654,973) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein the SA is made of cobalt-doped YAG (Co2+:YAG)" because, according to applicant, Stultz does not render obvious this limitation within the context of the other claimed requirements. To support this argument, applicant contends that experimentation was required to produce a working arrangement that employs a saturable absorber of this material.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the evidence of record (notably, the Declaration received 30 October 2024, hereafter "the Declaration") does not establish that the results are unexpected (MPEP §716.02(b)) or that the difficulties encountered represent a long-felt need and a failure of others to resolve that need (MPEP §716.04I). Specifically, the Declaration identifies that experimentation was needed to determine dimensions that produce a workable arrangement that includes this saturable absorber material. However, the Declaration does not allege that the results of this experimentation were unexpected or provide data from those experiments by which the unexpectedness of the ranges employed may be discerned (MPEP §716.02(b)I & 716.02(d)II). Further, the Declaration only identifies that initial attempts by the inventor were met with failure and that subsequent experimentation resolved this issue. This fact pattern does not establish any difficulty experienced by others in employing a saturable absorber made of Co2+:YAG. To the contrary, Stultz states that Co2+:YAG may be employed as a saturable absorber in a laser device and expresses no difficulty in doing so (see Stultz, col. 3-4, lines 63-1 describing saturable absorber 38 of Figure 1). Since the prior art directly teaches use of a Co2+:YAG saturable absorber and since the evidence of record does not establish unexpected results in relation to dimensions that produce an operational configuration, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a saturable absorber made of Co2+:YAG, as taught by Stultz, in a device according to the combined teachings of Eichenholz, Thony, Molva, and Ikesue. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein the SA is made of cobalt-doped YAG (Co2+:YAG)" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Eichenholz, Thony, Molva, Stultz, and Ikesue (see below). Applicant's argument that Stultz does not render obvious this limitation within the context of the other claimed requirements is not persuasive because the evidence of record does not establish that the results are unexpected (MPEP §716.02(b)) or that the difficulties encountered represent a long-felt need and a failure of others to resolve that need (MPEP §716.04I).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Eichenholz, Thony, Molva, and Stultz do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein the curvatures of the concave high reflectivity mirror and of the concave output coupler are such that the highest energy density is within the middle 60% of the optical resonator" because, according to applicant, Thony does not suggest a value that may be optimized to read on the claimed property. To support this argument, applicant contends that the arrangement of the claimed invention goes beyond the "beam shaping" of Thony by concentrating the highest energy intensity away from optical surfaces to avoid thermal damage to those surfaces.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the argued results are a direct result of altering the beam shape within the cavity in a manner consistent with the alteration described in Thony and because the evidence of record does not establish unexpected results related to altering the beam shape in the claimed manner (MPEP §716.02(b)). Specifically, Thony teaches the radii of curvature for terminal faces of a microlaser are result effective variables producing a recognized alteration in shaping beams present within the cavity defined by those terminal faces (col. 9, lines 48-56). The thermal damage to a surface occurs due to excessive heat at that surface. Heat is generated within a saturable absorber through absorption of light with regions of high energy density producing high heat. The energy density at any given cross section for an oscillating beam is correlated to the beam diameter at that cross section. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that surface damage may be avoided by shaping the beam, in the manner suggested by Thony, so as to locate portions of the beam producing the most heat away from the surfaces of the laser device. Further, the Declaration identifies that experimentation was needed to determine useful dimensions for achieving a "sweet-spot of performance". However, the Declaration does not allege that the results of this experimentation were unexpected or provide data from those experiments by which the unexpectedness of the ranges employed may be discerned (MPEP §716.02(b)I & 716.02(d)II). Since Thony teaches regulation of the beam shape produced by the cavity mirrors and since the problem to be solved directly relates to the shape of the beam within the cavity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the beam shape, in the manner of Thony, so as to optimize the operation of the laser device according to the combined teachings of Eichenholz, Thony, Molva, Stultz, and Ikesue. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein the curvatures of the concave high reflectivity mirror and of the concave output coupler are such that the highest energy density is within the middle 60% of the optical resonator" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Eichenholz, Thony, Molva, Stultz, and Ikesue (see below). Applicant's argument that Thony does not suggest a value that may be optimized to read on the claimed property is not persuasive because the argued results are a direct result of altering the beam shape within the cavity in a manner consistent with the alteration described in Thony and
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
Information Disclosure Statement
The statement on page 5 of the remarks received 14 April 2026 is treated as a concise explanation of relevance for all documents submitted in the IDS received 1 December 2026 that were not in English.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 through 4 and 10 through 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichenholz et al. (Eichenholz, US Pub. 2020/0076152), in view of Thony et al. (Thony, US Patent 5,732,100), in view of Molva et al. (Molva, US Patent 5,495,494), in view of Stultz et al. (Stultz, US Patent 5,654,973), and further in view of Ikesue (US Pub. 2008/0298407).
Regarding claim 1, Eichenholz discloses, "A gain medium (GM) having a stimulated emission cross section σSE" (p. [0104] and Fig. 11, pt. 410). "A saturable absorber (SA) having an absorption cross section (σa)" (p. [0104] and Fig. 11, pt. 420). "[The absorption cross section (σa)] is less than three times the σSE of the GM" (p. [0110] and [0125], where these properties are material properties and these materials have material properties that exhibit this relationship). "An optical resonator within which the GM and the SA are positioned" (p. [0141] and Fig. 11, pts. 470 and 480). "The optical resonator comprising a high reflectivity mirror and an output coupler" (p. [0141] and Fig. 11, pts. 470 and 480). "Wherein the high reflectivity mirror and the output coupler are rigidly coupled to the GM and to the SA" (p. [0141] and Fig. 11, pts. 470 and 480). "The passively Q-switched laser is a monolithic microchip passively Q-switched laser" (p. [0104] and Fig. 11, pts. 410 and 420). "Wherein at least one of the high reflectivity mirror and the output coupler directs light within the optical resonator" (p. [0141] and Fig. 11, pts. 470 and 480). Eichenholz does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein both of the high reflectivity mirror and the output coupler are concave mirrors." Thony discloses, "Wherein both of the high reflectivity mirror and the output coupler are concave mirrors" (col. 7, lines 15-30 and Fig. 2, pts. 14 and 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Eichenholz with the teachings of Thony. In view of the teachings of Eichenholz regarding a microchip laser with integrated reflectors, the alteration of the cavity to include curved mirrors as taught by Thony would enhance the teachings of Eichenholz by allowing improved stability of the operational mode and allowing for additional concentration of the pump light (as evidenced by Molva, col. 8, lines 60-65 and Fig. 2B, pts. 8, 12, 15, and 16).
The combination of Eichenholz, Thony, and Molva does not explicitly disclose, "An effective cross-section of a laser mode within the SA (ASA) is smaller than a cross-section of a laser mode within a Rayleigh length of a pump beam (AGM)." "Wherein the SA is made of cobalt-doped YAG (Co2+:YAG)." Stultz discloses, "An effective cross-section of a laser mode within the SA (ASA) is smaller than a cross-section of a laser mode within a Rayleigh length of a pump beam (AGM)" (Fig. 1, pts. 34 and 38, where the laser mode cross section is much larger in the gain medium 34 than the saturable absorber 38 which results in this configuration when the pump light is focused in the gain medium as in Thony). "Wherein the SA is made of cobalt-doped YAG (Co2+:YAG)" (Fig. 1, pt. 38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Eichenholz, Thony, and Molva with the teachings of Stultz. In view of the teachings of Eichenholz regarding a laser cavity including a gain medium and a saturable absorber, the alternate construction of the saturable absorber to employ Co2+:YAG and the configuration of the cavity to provide a greater concentration of light within the saturable absorber than the gain medium as taught by Stultz would enhance the teachings of Eichenholz, Thony, and Molva by providing a suitable material for a saturable absorber in the form of Co2+:YAG that is capable of providing operational properties uniquely associated therewith and by allowing improved operation of the saturable absorber.
The combination of Eichenholz, Thony, Molva, and Stultz does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein at least one of the GM and the SA is a ceramic crystalline material formed by sintering of powders." Ikesue discloses, "Wherein at least one of the GM and the SA is a ceramic crystalline material formed by sintering of powders" (p. [0156], [0181], and Fig. 11A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Eichenholz, Thony, Molva, and Stultz with the teachings of Ikesue. In view of the teachings of Eichenholz regarding a laser cavity including a gain medium and a saturable absorber formed of ceramic materials, the additional inclusion of steps for forming a ceramic material useful for a gain medium or saturable absorber as taught by Ikesue would enhance the teachings of Eichenholz, Thony, Molva, and Stultz by providing a suitable fabrication technique for forming the required ceramic components.
The combination of Eichenholz, Thony, Molva, Stultz, and Ikesue does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the curvatures of the concave high reflectivity mirror and of the concave output coupler are such that the highest energy density is within the middle 60% of the optical resonator." Thony teaches the radii of curvature for terminal faces of a microlaser are result effective variables producing a recognized alteration in shaping beams present within the cavity defined by those terminal faces (col. 9, lines 48-56). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the curvatures of the mirrors to adjust the location of the mode waist within the laser device so as to ensure adequate but not excessive concentration of energy in respective regions of the gain medium and the saturable absorber, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Eichenholz discloses, "Wherein the GM is made of neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG)" (p. [0110] and Fig. 11, pt. 410).
Regarding claim 3, Eichenholz discloses, "Wherein the GM is made of neodymium-doped yttrium orthovanadate (YVO4)" (p. [0110] and Fig. 11, pt. 410). "Wherein the SA is made of a three-valence vanadium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (V3+:YAG)" (p. [0125] and Fig. 11, pt. 420).
Regarding claim 4, Eichenholz discloses, "Wherein the GM is made of neodymium-doped yttrium orthovanadate (YVO4)" (p. [0110] and Fig. 11, pt. 410).
Regarding claim 10, Eichenholz discloses, "At least one end-pumping light source" (p. [0105] and Fig. 11, pt. 430). "Optics for focusing light of the end-pumping light source into the optical resonator" (p. [0106] and Fig. 11, pt. 430 and 450).
Regarding claim 11, Eichenholz discloses, "Wherein the GM and the SA are polycrystalline materials" (p. [0107], [0126], and Fig. 11, pts. 410 and 420).
Regarding claim 12, Eichenholz discloses, "Undoped YAG in addition to the GM and the SA for preventing heat from accumulating in an absorptive region of the GM" (p. [0147] and Fig. 12, pts. 410 and 500).
Regarding claim 13, Eichenholz discloses, "Wherein the GM and the SA are implemented on a single piece of crystalline material doped with neodymium and with at least one other material" (p. [0137] and Fig. 11, pts. 410, 420, and 490).
Regarding claim 14, Eichenholz discloses, "Wherein the passively Q-switched laser emits light through the output coupler within wavelengths range of 1,300nm and 1,500nm" (p. [0104]).
Regarding claim 15, Eichenholz discloses, "A short wave infrared (SWIR) electro-optical system" (p. [0038] and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 110). "A SWIR photodetector array sensitive to the wavelength of the passively Q-switched laser for detecting reflections of laser illumination off at least one illuminated object" (p. [0038] and Fig. 1, pts. 140 and 150).
Regarding claim 16, Eichenholz discloses, "A short wave infrared (SWIR) electro-optical system" (p. [0038] and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 110). "A time of flight (ToF) SWIR sensor sensitive to the wavelength of the passively Q-switched laser" (p. [0041] and Fig. 1, pts. 140 and 150). "A controller operable to synchronize operation of the ToF SWIR sensor and the passively Q-switched laser" (p. [0041] and Fig. 1, pts. 140 and 150). "A processor operable to process detection, by the ToF SWIR sensor, of reflections of laser illumination of the passively Q-switched laser, for determining a distance to at least one object in a field of view of the SWIR electrooptical system" (p. [0041] and Fig. 1, pts. 140 and 150).
Regarding claim 17, Eichenholz discloses, "A gain medium (GM) having a stimulated emission cross section σSE" (p. [0104] and Fig. 11, pt. 410). "A saturable absorber (SA) having an absorption cross section (σa)" (p. [0104] and Fig. 11, pt. 420). "[The absorption cross section (σa)] is less than three times the σSE of the GM" (p. [0110] and [0125], where these properties are material properties and these materials have material properties that exhibit this relationship). "An optical resonator within which the GM and the SA are positioned" (p. [0141] and Fig. 11, pts. 470 and 480). "The optical resonator comprising a high reflectivity mirror and an output coupler" (p. [0141] and Fig. 11, pts. 470 and 480). "Wherein the high reflectivity mirror and the output coupler are rigidly coupled to the GM and to the SA" (p. [0141] and Fig. 11, pts. 470 and 480). "The passively Q-switched laser is a monolithic microchip passively Q-switched laser" (p. [0104] and Fig. 11, pts. 410 and 420). "Wherein at least one of the high reflectivity mirror and the output coupler directs light within the optical resonator" (p. [0141] and Fig. 11, pts. 470 and 480). Eichenholz does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein both the high reflectivity mirror and the output coupler are concave mirrors." Thony discloses, "Wherein both the high reflectivity mirror and the output coupler are concave mirrors" (col. 7, lines 15-30 and Fig. 2, pts. 14 and 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Eichenholz with the teachings of Thony for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Eichenholz, Thony, and Molva does not explicitly disclose, "An effective cross-section of a laser mode within the SA (ASA) is smaller than a cross-section of a laser mode within a Rayleigh length of a pump beam (AGM)." Stultz discloses, "An effective cross-section of a laser mode within the SA (ASA) is smaller than a cross-section of a laser mode within a Rayleigh length of a pump beam (AGM)" (Fig. 1, pts. 34 and 38, where the laser mode cross section is much larger in the gain medium 34 than the saturable absorber 38 which results in this configuration when the pump light is focused in the gain medium as in Thony). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Eichenholz, Thony, and Molva with the teachings of Stultz for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Eichenholz, Thony, Molva, and Stultz does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein at least one of the GM and the SA is a ceramic crystalline material formed by sintering of powders." Ikesue discloses, "Wherein at least one of the GM and the SA is a ceramic crystalline material formed by sintering of powders" (p. [0156], [0181], and Fig. 11A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Eichenholz, Thony, Molva, and Stultz with the teachings of Ikesue for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Eichenholz, Thony, Molva, Stultz, and Ikesue does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the curvatures of the concave high reflectivity mirror and of the concave output coupler are such that the highest energy density is within the middle 60% of the optical resonator." Thony teaches the radii of curvature for terminal faces of a microlaser are result effective variables producing a recognized alteration in shaping beams present within the cavity defined by those terminal faces (col. 9, lines 48-56). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the curvatures of the mirrors to adjust the location of the mode waist within the laser device so as to ensure adequate but not excessive concentration of energy in respective regions of the gain medium and the saturable absorber, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichenholz, in view of Thony, in view of Molva, in view of Stultz, in view of Ikesue, and further in view of Baleras et al. (Baleras, US Pub. 2007/0102482).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Eichenholz, Thony, Molva, Stultz, and Ikesue does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a diameter of the SA is smaller than a diameter of the GM." "Wherein the SA is surrounded by another material for releasing heat from the optical resonator." Baleras discloses, "Wherein a diameter of the SA is smaller than a diameter of the GM" (p. [0060], [0086] and Figs. 2A and 5C, pts. 32 and 59', where the right portion of 59' is the saturable absorber in Figure 5C). "Wherein the SA is surrounded by another material for releasing heat from the optical resonator" (p. [0060], [0086] and Figs. 2A and 5C, pts. 32, 57', and 58', where the saturable absorber is surrounded by blocks 57' and 58' in Figure 5C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Eichenholz, Thony, Molva, Stultz, and Ikesue with the teachings of Baleras. In view of the teachings of Eichenholz regarding a microchip laser with an integrated Q-switch, the alteration of the Q-switch by removing a portion of the Q-switch and inserting heat dissipation blocks as taught by Baleras would enhance the teachings of Eichenholz, Thony, Molva, Stultz, and Ikesue by allowing for additional heat dissipation from the saturable absorber and the gain medium.
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 Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 at 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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights