Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/783,236

DEVICE WITH A HOLLOW OUTPUT BEAM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 07, 2022
Examiner
NGUYEN, DUNG T
Art Unit
2871
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Daylight Solutions Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
1297 granted / 1577 resolved
+14.2% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+0.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1616
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.4%
+1.4% vs TC avg
§102
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§112
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1577 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment dated 12/08/2025 has also been received and entered. By the amendment, claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-18, 20-29 and newly added claim 30 are now pending in the application. Applicant’s arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as following: 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 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. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-14, 16-17 and 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s submitted prior art, Moffatt et al., US 2013/016309 A1, in view of Shekel, US 2013/0107343 A1. Regarding claims 1 and 11, Moffatt et al. figures 1-3 and accompanying text disclose a device 100 comprising: . a laser including an optical amplifier array system 102 that generates a plurality of laser beams 104 (fig. 1A) . a beam combiner 108 that coherently combines the plurality of laser beams to form a combination beam having a hollow center ([0026]) . wherein the combination beam 108 has a combination axis 122, wherein each of the laser beams 104 has a separate beam axis that parallel to each other and the combination axis and spaced apart from each other and the combination axis (fig 1A); . an on-axis beam expander 122 that adjusts the combination beam to provide an assembly beam that has a hollow center in the near field (e.g., low energy) ([0026]) and characteristics of a solid beam in a far field ([0007]). Moffatt et al., however, do not disclose the optical amplifier array system includes a seed laser that generates a seed output beam, a splitter that splits the seed output beam into a plurality of seed split beams, and an amplifier assembly that amplifies each of the seed split beams to generate the plurality of laser beams, wherein each of the laser beams has the same wavelength and approximately the same phase. Shekel does disclose an optical amplifier array system (figs. 5-7) including a seed laser 500/700 that generates a seed output beam, a splitter 508/708 that splits the seed output beam into a plurality of seed split beams, and an amplifier assembly 506/706 that amplifies each of the seed split beams to generate the plurality of laser beams, wherein each of the laser beams has the same wavelength and approximately the same phase (e.g., same configuration, [0125]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an optical amplifier array system, as shown by Shekel, over the Moffatt et al laser device to maximize the total output intensity of the laser system as sensed by the total output intensity sensor ([0008]). Re claims 2-3, wherein the optical amplifier array system generates at least six laser beams ([0022]) which have the same wavelength and approximately the same phase (same emitter 102) and at least six of laser beams in the combination beam are positioned side- by-side (fig. 1A). Re claim 5, wherein the on-axis beam expander OA includes a plurality of reflective elements 110 that expand the combination beam. Re claim 6, although Moffatt et al. do not explicitly disclose the combination beam has a power of at least six kilowatts, Nagai et al do disclose providing a laser beam combining device which can realize high emission performances such as a high energy density or a high power density [0005]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a Moffatt et al. combination beam having a power of at least six kilowatts, since it is a known practice in the art to obtain a high power laser for high power applications. Re claim 9, Moffatt et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for the beam combiner including a plurality of combiner fibers for transmitting and launching the plurality of laser beams, wherein each combiner fiber has a fiber outlet, and wherein the fiber outlets are spaced apart and arranged in an outlet pattern having a hollow center. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ combiner fibers for transmitting and launching the plurality of laser beams as claimed over the Moffatt et al. device, since it is generally known in the art, to provide a plurality of amplified beams that are mutually coherent. Re claim 10, wherein the beam combiner coherently combines the plurality of laser beams so that the combination beam has a substantially annular shaped cross-section with a substantially circular outer diameter and a substantially circular inner diameter ([0031]). Re claims 24-26, wherein the on-axis beam expander includes a diverging element ([0031]) and a collimating element 106 and functional as claimed (figs. 1, 3). Re claim 27, wherein the plurality of laser beams are arranged such that there are one or more gaps in the combination beam (e.g., ring gaps)(fig. 1B). Re claims 12-14, 16-17 and 20-23, since the method for generating a laser beam is merely a list of forming each functional component and each of the such component must be formed to make the device, the method would be inherent to the device. Re claims 28, wherein the optical amplifier array system generates at least six laser beams ([0022]) which have the same wavelength and approximately the same phase (same emitter 102). Re claim 29, the modification to Moffatt et al. would result a phase controller that controls a phase of each of the seed split beams and wherein the laser beams are fiber coupled prior to being launched by the beam combiner ([0153]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2297. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00. 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached on 571-272-9791. 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. /DUNG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 07, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 22, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 14, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
May 14, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 22, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 09, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 04, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 08, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 10, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601936
Polarization Modulator With Separate Optical Sections
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601943
DISPLAY PANEL, PREPARATION METHOD OF DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596249
OPTICAL PATH CONTROL APPARATUS, DISPLAY APPARATUS, AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING OPTICAL PATH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596328
HOLOGRAPHY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591136
Hologram Calculation
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
82%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+0.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1577 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