DETAILED 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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9, applicant contends that the rejection is improper because Targsdorf synchronizes the pulse output from the circuits and thus teaches away from the claimed invention. However, “independently” cannot mean non-synchronized as applicant contends. Claim 3 specifically requires the timing of the circuits to be synchronized. Claim 3 recites “control a second timing of the second pulsed powertrain based on the first timing of the first pulsed powertrain”. Accordingly, applicant’s claims specifically require synchronization and a reference teaching synchronization cannot teach away from applicant’s claims.
Additionally, applicant points to nothing in Targsdorf that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. MPEP 2123II. Accordingly, Targsdorf does not appear to teach away from the claimed invention.
On page 9, applicant contends that “Mead cannot be used to counter” the limitations of claim 2. The Office disagrees for the same reasons discussed above.
On pages 9-10, applicant contends that Mead does not control the timing based on delay. Again the Office disagrees, Mead discloses “The pulse delay between the first and second laser system is selected to be comparable to the pulse width”. That is Mead controls the timing of the second laser based on the delay with respect to the first system to result in a comparable pulse width.
On page 10, applicant contends Targsdorf does not disclose “a first communications interface” and “a second communications interface”. Targsdorf discloses trigger-A and trigger-B connected to the independent first and second circuits. Applicant contends that “there is no reasonable sense in which these trigger voltages can properly be regarded as first and second communication interfaces”. Applicant provides no explanation why “there is no reasonable sense in which these trigger voltages” should not be regarded as communication interfaces. However, these triggers are the interface that communicate with the circuit. Applicant is free to further define what they mean by “communication interface”, but the broadest reasonable interpretation is “communication interface” is a point of communication between different systems or different parts of a system.
On page 11, applicant contends that Mead does not disclose the interleaved pulses of claim 18. The Office cited [0011] which discloses a delay between the first and second pulse. This is shown in Fig. 5 of Mead which clearly shows that the pulses 401 and 403 and interleaved. Accordingly, this argument is also not persuasive.
On page 12, applicant further contends the combination of Targsdorf, Mead, and Rylov do not disclose “the delay is based on a light propagation time between the first laser discharge chamber and the second laser discharge chamber”. To support this argument, applicant misstates the teachings of Rylov. Rylov explicitly discloses performance is greatly enhanced if the discharge is delayed and part of this delay must consider the time it takes the pulse to travel from the oscillator to the amplifier. [0111] considers the time it takes for “the laser beam from the oscillator to reach the amplifier” as part of the delay. Accordingly, Rylov explicitly considers the propagation time in setting the delay.
On page 12, applicant again misstates the teachings of Rylov with regard to claim 7. Applicant states “Rylov…says nothing about basing a delay between the first timing and the second timing on the desired bandwidth of light”. Rylov [0111] states “that narrower bandwidth and longer pulses can be obtained at the expense of pulse energy by increasing the delay between MO trigger and PA trigger (emphasis added).” Accordingly, Rylov explicitly teaches that changing the delay can control the bandwidth of the output light.
Applicants’ other arguments rely on the propriety of the arguments addressed above. Since these arguments were not persuasive, applicants remaining arguments on dependency are also unpersuasive.
All rejections are maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Targsdorf et al. (US20120033689A1), hereafter Targsdorf, in view of Mead et al. (US20020000426A1), hereafter Mead.
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Targsdorf discloses a laser control system (Fig. 2) comprising: a first pulsed powertrain comprising a first independent circuit configured to generate a first resonant charging supply (RCS) output voltage (Fig. 2 element 18A), wherein the first RCS output voltage is configured to drive a first laser discharge chamber (Fig. 2 element Laser-A); and a second pulsed powertrain comprising a second independent circuit configured to generate a second RCS output voltage from the first RCS output voltage (Fig. 2 element 18B), wherein the second RCS output voltage is configured to drive a second laser discharge chamber independent from the first laser discharge chamber (Fig. 2 element Laser-B). Targsdorf does not explicitly disclose that the second voltage is independent of the first voltage. However, Mead discloses applying independent voltages to first and second lasers (Figs. 4 and 12) in order to achieve greater processing parameter flexibility (Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Targsdorf with that the second voltage is independent of the first voltage as disclosed by Mead in order to achieve greater processing parameter flexibility.
Regarding claim 2, Mead further discloses the laser control system is configured to: control independently a first voltage of the first pulsed powertrain and a second voltage of the second pulsed powertrain (Figs. 4 and 12; Abstract); and control independently a first timing of the first pulsed powertrain and a second timing of the second pulsed powertrain (Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Targsdorf further discloses control a first timing of the first pulsed powertrain ([0029]); and control a second timing of the second pulsed powertrain based on the first timing of the first pulsed powertrain ([0029]). Additionally, Mead further discloses the laser control system is configured to: control independently a first voltage of the first pulsed powertrain and a second voltage of the second pulsed powertrain (Figs. 4 and 12; Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Mead further discloses the laser control system is configured to: control the second timing of the second pulsed powertrain based on a delay with respect to the first timing of the first pulsed powertrain ([0011]).
Regarding claim 6, Mead further discloses the delay is a controllable parameter ([0011] and [0012]).
Regarding claim 8, Mead further discloses the laser control system is configured to: with a first operating mode, trigger the second pulsed powertrain to be simultaneous with the first pulsed powertrain ([0012]); and with a second operating mode, trigger the first pulsed powertrain to be delayed with respect to the second pulsed powertrain ([0011]).
Regarding claim 12, Targsdorf further discloses a first communications interface configured to be electrically coupled to the first independent circuit (Fig. 2 element Trigger-A); and a second communications interface configured to be electrically coupled to the second independent circuit (Fig. 2 element Trigger-B).
Regarding claim 15, Targsdorf further discloses the first laser discharge chamber comprises a first laser device configured to generate a first set of photons based on the first RCS output voltage (Fig. 2 element Laser A), and wherein the second laser discharge chamber comprises a second laser device configured to generate a second set of photons based on the second RCS output voltage (Fig. 2 element Laser B).
Regarding claim 16, Mead further discloses altering all the parameters of the laser system, such as output power, based on the desired application ([0008]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Targsdorf in view of mead with the laser control system is configured to provide a single pulsed powertrain operation of the first pulsed powertrain or the second pulsed powertrain, since Mead discloses altering all the parameters of the laser system, such as output power, based on the desired application and running only a single laser would reduce the output power.
Regarding claim 17, Mead further discloses the laser control system is configured to provide a synchronized dual pulsed powertrain operation for the first pulsed powertrain and the second pulsed powertrain ([0012]).
Regarding claim 18, Mead further discloses the laser control system is configured to provide an interleaved dual pulsed powertrain operation for the first pulsed powertrain and the second pulsed powertrain ([0011]).
Claims 5, 7, 9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Targsdorf in view of Mead in further view of Rylov et al. (US20030138019A1), hereafter Rylov.
Regarding claim 5, Targsdorf in view of Mead do not explicitly disclose the delay is based on a light propagation time between the first laser discharge chamber and the second laser discharge chamber. However, Rylov discloses the delay is based on a light propagation time between the first laser discharge chamber and the second laser discharge chamber ([0111]). An advantage is to control the bandwidth of an output pulse ([0111]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Targsdorf in view of Mead with the delay is based on a light propagation time between the first laser discharge chamber and the second laser discharge chamber as disclosed by Rylov in order to control the bandwidth of an output pulse.
Regarding claim 7, Rylov further discloses the delay is based on a desired bandwidth of light produced by the second discharge light chamber ([0111]).
Regarding claim 9, Rylov further discloses a common RCS (Fig. 5C1 elements RC) comprising the first independent circuit (Fig. 5C1 element 50A), the second independent circuit (Fig. 5C1 element 50B), and a common reservoir capacitor configured to be electrically coupled to the first independent circuit and the second independent circuit (Fig. 5B elements 42); and a high voltage power source (HVPS) configured to transmit a high voltage signal to the common reservoir capacitor (Fig. 5B element DC Power Supply).
Regarding claim 13, Rylov further discloses the second laser discharge chamber is configured to receive and amplify light from the first laser discharge chamber (Fig. 1 elements MO and PA). An advantage is to provide increased power output with good beam quality ([0146]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Targsdorf in view of Mead with t the second laser discharge chamber is configured to receive and amplify light from the first laser discharge chamber as disclosed by Rylov in order to provide increased power output with good beam quality.
Regarding claim 13, Rylov further discloses the first laser discharge chamber is a master oscillator (MO) laser discharge chamber, and wherein the second laser discharge chamber is power amplifier (PA) discharge chamber or a power ring amplifier (PRA) discharge chamber (Fig. 1 elements MO and PA). An advantage is to provide increased power output with good beam quality ([0146]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Targsdorf in view of Mead with the first laser discharge chamber is a master oscillator (MO) laser discharge chamber, and wherein the second laser discharge chamber is power amplifier (PA) discharge chamber or a power ring amplifier (PRA) discharge chamber as disclosed by Rylov in order to provide increased power output with good beam quality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10am-5pm MT.
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, Min Sun 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.
/Joshua King/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 03/31/2026
Prosecution Insights