DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 10 May 2022. By amendment received 21 November 2025; claims 1, 3, 4, and 18 are amended and claims 2, 7, 12, 16, and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3 through 6, 8 through 11, 13 through 15, and 18 through 20 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 amendments to the abstract overcomes the previous objection thereto. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding objection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the amendments to the drawings and disclosure overcome the previous objections to the specification and drawings. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding objection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Okazaki et al. (Okazaki, US Pub. 2005/0100074), Zaky (US Patent 3,900,247), and Rapoport et al. (Rapoport, US Patent 4,630,275) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein the Q switch is configured such that, after the seed light source outputs the injection synchronization light to the first of the mirrors, when power of light amplified by the semiconductor laser medium has reached a predetermined level, the Q switch lowers a Q factor of the resonator from a first level to a second level that is lower than the first level to output a light pulse" because, according to applicant, Zaky does not teach this limitation. To support this contention, applicant argues that Zaky is silent as to the Q-switch lowering the Q factor of the resonator from a first level to a second level when power of light amplified by the semiconductor laser medium has reached a predetermined level.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the operation set forth in Zaky causes the device thereof to operate in the described manner. Specifically, Zaky teaches a laser device having a cavity that is composed of a gain medium, a polarizer, a splitter, and a Q-switch between reflective ends of the cavity (Zaky, col. 2, lines 53-63 describing gain medium 15, polarizer 16, splitter 10, and Q-switch 11 depicted in Figure 1). In operation and prior to actuation of the Q-switch, Zaky oscillates vertically polarized light within the cavity thereof (Zaky, col. 3, lines 5-17 describing this operational state). In operation and after actuation of the Q-switch, Zaky causes oscillating light to be switched to horizontally polarized light that is dumped from the cavity (Zaky, col. 3-4, lines 66-16 describing the process by which light is extracted from the cavity). The manner of outputting light carried out by Zaky causes the cavity to switch from a high Q state in which light is returned to the gain medium to a low Q state in which light is not returned to the gain medium. Further, the of Zaky Q-switch is operated to generate pulsed light that is "amplitude modulated" which is only possible when the timing of switch actuation is coordinated in a manner that allows an oscillating pulse to have built up. This necessary consideration to produce the operation set forth in Zaky requires the oscillating light to have reached some sort of "predetermined amplitude" within the cavity. Finally, Rapoport teaches operation of a Q-switched laser with injection locking to produce pulses of a desired timing (Rapoport, col. 2, lines 16-24). This manner of operation set forth in Rapoport would benefit the device according to the combined teachings of Okazaki and Zaky by providing additional pulse control and by allowing the laser device to be frequency locked in like manner to how injection seeding is used for this purpose in Rapoport. Since Zaky teaches a Q-switched laser arrangement that naturally performs the argued aspects of this claim limitation and since Rapoport teaches the further features of this claim limitation, this claim limitation is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Okazaki, Zaky, and Rapoport. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein the Q switch is configured such that, after the seed light source outputs the injection synchronization light to the first of the mirrors, when power of light amplified by the semiconductor laser medium has reached a predetermined level, the Q switch lowers a Q factor of the resonator from a first level to a second level that is lower than the first level to output a light pulse" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Okazaki, Zaky, and Rapoport (see below). Applicant's argument that Zaky does not teach this limitation is not persuasive because the operation set forth in Zaky causes the device thereof to operate in the described manner.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Okazaki, Zaky, and Rapoport do not teach or render obvious the limitation "Wherein the Q switch is configured such that, after the seed light source outputs the injection synchronization light to the first of the mirrors, when power of light amplified by the semiconductor laser medium has reached a predetermined level, the Q switch lowers a Q factor of the resonator from a first level to a second level that is lower than the first level to output a light pulse" because, according to applicant, Rapoport operates opposite to the claimed operation.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because Zaky resolves the argued deficiency of Rapoport (MPEP §2145IV). As noted above, Zaky teaches operation of the Q-switch in the described manner while Rapoport teaches operation relative to injection synchronization. Since the combined teachings of Zaky and Rapoport teach operation of a Q-switch in the time and manner claimed, the combined teachings of Okazaki, Zaky, and Rapoport render obvious this limitation. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "Wherein the Q switch is configured such that, after the seed light source outputs the injection synchronization light to the first of the mirrors, when power of light amplified by the semiconductor laser medium has reached a predetermined level, the Q switch lowers a Q factor of the resonator from a first level to a second level that is lower than the first level to output a light pulse" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Okazaki, Zaky, and Rapoport (see below). Applicant's argument that Rapoport operates opposite to the claimed operation is not persuasive because Zaky resolves the noted deficiency of Rapoport (MPEP §2145IV).
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
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, 3 through 6, 8 through 11, 13 through 15, and 18 through 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki et al. (Okazaki, US Pub. 2005/0100074), in view of Zaky (US Patent 3,900,247), and further in view of Rapoport et al. (Rapoport, US Patent 4,630,275).
Regarding claim 1, Okazaki discloses, "A resonator comprising at least two mirrors" (p. [0044] and Figs. 2 and 3, pts. 32, 38, and 46). "A semiconductor laser medium disposed in the resonator" (p. [0040] and Fig. 2, pt. 34). Okazaki does not explicitly disclose, "A Q switch provided in the resonator." "Wherein the Q switch is configured such that… the Q switch lowers a Q factor of the resonator from a first level to a second level that is lower than the first level to output a light pulse." "[The Q switch lowers the Q factor] when power of light amplified by the semiconductor laser medium has reached a predetermined level." Zaky discloses, "A Q switch provided in the resonator" (col. 3, lines 5-13 and Fig. 1, pt. 11). "Wherein the Q switch is configured such that… the Q switch lowers a Q factor of the resonator from a first level to a second level that is lower than the first level to output a light pulse" (col. 3-4, lines 66-16 and Fig. 1, pts. 10, 11, 12, 17, and 18, where the operation of crystal 11 necessarily causes reduction in Q factor because the oscillating light is caused to exit the cavity by splitter 10 rather than return to source 15 when crystal 11 is activated). "[The Q switch lowers the Q factor] when power of light amplified by the semiconductor laser medium has reached a predetermined level" (col. 3-4, lines 66-16 and Fig. 1, pts. 10, 11, 12, 17, and 18, where this modulation emits light after a predetermined time which corresponds to a predetermined degree of amplification that necessarily produces a particular level of output light). 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 Okazaki with the teachings of Zaky. In view of the teachings of Okazaki regarding an external cavity laser, the additional inclusion of a Q-switch for providing cavity dumping as taught by Zaky would enhance the teachings of Okazaki by providing a configuration in which high energy pulses may be generated by the laser device.
The combination of Okazaki and Zaky does not explicitly disclose, "A seed light source configured to output injection synchronization light." "[The synchronization light injected] to a first of the mirrors constituting the resonator." "[The synchronization light injected] via a surface on a side opposite to a surface facing the semiconductor laser medium." "[The Q switch lowers the Q factor] after the seed light source outputs the injection synchronization light to the first of the mirrors." Rapoport discloses, "A seed light source configured to output injection synchronization light" (col. 2, lines 16-24 and Fig. 1, pt. 18). "[The synchronization light injected] to a first of the mirrors constituting the resonator" (col. 2, lines 16-24 and Fig. 1, pts. 13 and 18). "[The synchronization light injected] via a surface on a side opposite to a surface facing the semiconductor laser medium" (col. 2, lines 16-24 and Fig. 1, pts. 10, 13, and 18). "[The Q switch lowers the Q factor] after the seed light source outputs the injection synchronization light to the first of the mirrors" (col. 2, lines 16-24 and Fig. 1, pts. 14 and 18). 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 Okazaki and Zaky with the teachings of Rapoport. In view of the teachings of Okazaki regarding an external cavity laser and the teachings of Zaky regarding the provision of a Q-switch for providing cavity dumping, the additional inclusion of a seed laser for injection locking as taught by Rapoport would enhance the teachings of Okazaki and Zaky by providing a mechanism for locking the emission wavelength of the laser device.
Regarding claim 3, Okazaki does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the Q switch is configured such that, when the power approaches or reaches a steady-state value, the Q switch switches the Q factor to the second level." Zaky discloses, "Wherein the Q switch is configured such that, when the power approaches or reaches a steady-state value, the Q switch switches the Q factor to the second level" (col. 3-4, lines 66-16 and Fig. 1, pts. 10, 11, 12, 17, and 18, where the intensity within the resonator must approach or reach a steady state while the Q switch is not set to output light). 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 Okazaki with the teachings of Zaky for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Okazaki does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the Q switch is configured to switch the Q factor mechanically, acoustically, or electro-optically." Zaky discloses, "Wherein the Q switch is configured to switch the Q factor mechanically, acoustically, or electro-optically" (col. 3, lines 5-13 and Fig. 1, pt. 11). 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 Okazaki with the teachings of Zaky for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Okazaki does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the Q switch is configured to switch the Q factor mechanically, acoustically, or electro-optically." Zaky discloses, "Wherein the Q switch is configured to switch the Q factor mechanically, acoustically, or electro-optically" (col. 3, lines 5-13 and Fig. 1, pt. 11). 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 Okazaki with the teachings of Zaky for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Okazaki discloses, "Wherein (i) a first of the mirrors constituting the resonator, and (ii) the semiconductor laser medium, are formed on an identical chip" (p. [0040] and Fig. 2, pts. 32, 34, and 38).
Regarding claim 8, Okazaki discloses, "Wherein (i) a first of the mirrors constituting the resonator, and (ii) the semiconductor laser medium, are formed on an identical chip" (p. [0040] and Fig. 2, pts. 32, 34, and 38).
Regarding claim 9, Okazaki discloses, "Wherein (i) a first of the mirrors constituting the resonator, and (ii) the semiconductor laser medium, are formed on an identical chip" (p. [0040] and Fig. 2, pts. 32, 34, and 38).
Regarding claim 10, Okazaki discloses, "Wherein (i) a first of the mirrors constituting the resonator, and (ii) the semiconductor laser medium, are formed on an identical chip" (p. [0040] and Fig. 2, pts. 32, 34, and 38).
Regarding claim 11, Okazaki discloses, "Wherein the semiconductor laser medium is an active layer joined to said one of the mirrors constituting the resonator" (p. [0040] and Fig. 2, pts. 32, 34, and 38).
Regarding claim 13, Okazaki discloses, "Wherein the semiconductor laser medium is an active layer joined to said one of the mirrors constituting the resonator" (p. [0040] and Fig. 2, pts. 32, 34, and 38).
Regarding claim 14, Okazaki discloses, "Wherein the semiconductor laser medium is an active layer joined to said one of the mirrors constituting the resonator" (p. [0040] and Fig. 2, pts. 32, 34, and 38).
Regarding claim 15, Okazaki discloses, "Wherein the semiconductor laser medium is an active layer joined to said one of the mirrors constituting the resonator" (p. [0040] and Fig. 2, pts. 32, 34, and 38).
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Okazaki, Zaky, and Rapoport does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a resonator length of the resonator is an integral multiple of a wavelength of the injection synchronization light." The examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it was known in the art to design a laser cavity to employ an integer multiple of the oscillation wavelength so as to cause the laser cavity to promote that wavelength. 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 length of the cavity to be an integer multiple of the seed wavelength so as to configure the laser cavity to support the seeded wavelength, 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 19, Okazaki discloses, "An excitation light source configured to excite the semiconductor laser medium" (p. [0044] and Fig. 3, pt. 24).
Regarding claim 20, Okazaki discloses, "A current source configured to excite the semiconductor laser medium" (p. [0038] and Figs. 1 and 3, pts. 20, 21, and 24, where a current source is necessary to operate light source 24 so as to excite laser 38).
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