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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant makes the following arguments Damzen in view of Lee and Grace fails to disclose or suggest the recitations of Claim 13.
To support that argument Applicant points first to Damzen saying that Damzen has a gain that resides outside of the interferometer and Damzen does not disclose an interferometric optical implication arrangement where one arm has an active gain region and one arm does not have an amplification. Applicant argues that reclocating the gain into one interferometer arm would change Damzen’s principle of operation. Examiner disagrees with this argument. No where in Damzen does it teach away from moving the gain into different areas of the device. In addition it is the combination of Damzen with Lee that puts the gain within the interferometer as Lee teaches an interferometer with a gain structure within only one arm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to affect the constructive and destructive interference at the recombination point of the interferometer.
Applicant also argues that Lee is not a ring laser and does not address in cavity power management. In response to applicant's argument that Lee is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Lee is being used to teach an interferometer with a gain within one arm of the interferometer that is found in a laser device. This is within the field of the inventor’s endeavor which is a laser device. In response to applicant's argument that Lee does not address in cavity power management, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Finally applicant argues that the combination does not tie the ratio to avoiding SOA saturation in a ring laser interferometric amplifier stating the division ratio is selected as a function of preventing saturation so that the gain arm operates away from saturation. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the division ratio is selected as a function of preventing saturation so that the gain arm operates away from saturation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claims 13, 14, 17, 18, 20-22, 24 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Damzen et al. US 20210376552 in view of Lee et al. US 20050047797 and Grace US 20190015157.
Regarding Claim 13, Damzen teaches A laser device configured to emit a coherent optical radiation, comprising:
an amplifier system, comprising a single interferometric optical amplification arrangement or a plurality of interferometric optical amplification arrangements in series (See annotated Fig. 10 below), wherein each interferometric optical amplification arrangement comprises input beam splitters (Fig. 10, 340) adapted to spatially separate an incident optical beam into a first beam portion and a second beam portion (Paragraph 0066 “The forwards direction laser mode 50 is input at first beamsplitter 340 and the two split sub-beams traveling via mirrors 341 and 343”), downstream of which an first arm of the first beam portion (See annotated Fig. 10 below), and a propagation arm without amplification of the second beam portion extend (See annotated Fig. 10 below. The propagation does not have amplification), which meet at an output of the interferometric optical amplification arrangement (Fig. 10 shows these beams meet at 360);
beam combining means (Fig. 10, 360) different from said input beam splitters and adapted to gather the first beam portion amplified in the active gain region and the second beam portion propagated without amplification of the single interferometric optical amplification arrangement or of the last interferometric optical amplification arrangement of the plurality of interferometric optical amplification arrangements, into an optical beam emerging from the amplifier system; (Paragraph 0066 “The forwards direction laser mode 50 is input at first beamsplitter 340 and the two split sub-beams traveling via mirrors 341 and 343, have their paths directed to recombine at second beamsplitter 360 and form a feedback output 52 to complete the laser cavity path. The two beams also when combining at beamsplitter 360 create a mode transformed output 51.”)
a return optical path (Fig. 10, 52) for the optical beam emerging from the amplifier system, comprising optical reflectors (Fig. 10, 122, 124, 126, 120) and configured to conduct said optical beam emerging from the amplifier system at an input to the amplifier system forming an optical ring resonant structure therewith (Fig. 10 shows the return optical path forms an optical ring resonant stucture); and
a radiation output (Fig. 10, 51) for extracting a portion of the optical beam emerging from the amplifier system and deliver said portion of the optical beam emerging from the amplifier system as output laser radiation of the laser device,
Damzen does not teach the first beam comprises an amplification arm comprising an active gain region capable of emitting photons coherent with the first beam portion and wherein power of the first beam portion routed in the amplification arm is less than power of the second beam portion routed in the propagation arm without amplification.
However,
Lee teaches an amplification arm comprising an active gain region capable of emitting photons coherent with the first beam portion (Fig. 4, 113 is shown as a gain region within the first beam portion. Paragraph 0037 “the carrier wave generated/output from the laser source 101 is applied to the SOA 113 arranged at one arm of the interferometer 112”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser device as taught by Lee by having the gain be located in the first beam path as disclosed by Damzen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to affect the constructive and destructive interference at the recombination point of the interferometer. (Lee Paragraph 0037)
Damzen in view of Lee does not teach power of the first beam portion routed in the amplification arm is less than power of the second beam portion routed in the propagation arm without amplification.
Grace teaches a beam splitter with a 40/60 split (Paragraph 0071 “Accordingly, 60 percent of the amount of energy entering the beam splitter 525 is in the split beam entering the time delay loop.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the beam splitter as taught by Lee by having the beam splitter have a 40/60 split where the first arm receives less power than the second arm as disclosed by Grace. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adjust the peak energy of the light. (Grace Paragraph 0071 “Using other ratios of beam splitters will adjust the peak energy of the resulting signal.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
512
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
576
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, Damzen in view of Lee and Grace teaches the amplification arm comprises an active gain region of semiconductor material capable of emitting photons coherent with the first beam portion following attainment of a population inversion condition of a population of charge carriers confined therein and consequent radiative recombination (Lee Paragraph 0034 “a semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) 113” “light outputted from the SOA 113.”), said active gain region being associated with an electrical excitation system configured to alter a thermodynamic equilibrium of the population of charge carriers to determine said population inversion condition. (Lee Paragraph 0037 “The amplified encoded signal is combined with a bias direct current IDC, and the combined signal is applied to the SOA 113 arranged at one arm of the interferometer 112.”)
Regarding Claim 17, Damzen in view of Lee and Grace teaches said portion of the optical beam emerging from the amplifier system and delivered as output laser radiation of the laser device is a loss beam of said beam combining means adapted to bring together the first beam portion amplified in the active gain region and the second beam portion propagated without amplification into the optical beam emerging from the amplifier system. (Fig. 10 of Damzen show the beam leaving the interferometer is a loss beam of the beam combing means)
PNG
media_image3.png
573
765
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Damzen in view of Lee and Grace teaches said portion of the optical beam emerging from the amplifier system and delivered as output laser radiation of the laser device is a loss beam of one of said optical reflectors of the return optical path. (Fig. 10 of Damzen show the beam leaving the interferometer is a loss beam of the beam combing means)
PNG
media_image3.png
573
765
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Damzen in view of Lee and Grace teaches the propagation arm without amplification comprises a catoptric system or a dioptric system configured to control addressing or distribution of transverse power of the second beam portion. (Damzen Fig. 10, 180 “For the lateral displacement, two glass plates 180 and 185 can be used to provide a symmetric displacement in opposite directions of the two sub-beams by rotating the plates in opposite relative senses to cause one sub-beam to go up (out of plane dimension, say) and the other sub-beam down by equal but opposite amount.”)
Regarding Claim 21, Damzen in view of Lee and Grace teaches said optical reflectors include a plurality of totally reflective catoptric systems. (Fig. 10 of Damzen shows mirrors 122, 124, 126 and 120 which are totally reflective)
Regarding Claim 22, Damzen in view of Lee and Grace teaches said return optical path comprises optical elements configured to shape distribution of transverse power of the beam emerging from the amplifier system. (Damzen Fig. 10, 190 Paragraph 0067 “A plane wavefront can be substantially created at the interferometer, by way of example, by addition of a suitable cavity optic such as a lens 190 whose location and focal length is appropriately chosen using standard laser cavity design analysis.”)
Claims 15, 16 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Damzen, Lee and Grace in view of Andrews, Interferomtric Power amplifiers, Optics Letters, January 1, 1989, pages 33-35, Vol. 14, No. 1, Optica Publishing Group, Optical Society of America, US.
Regarding Claim 15, Damzen in view of Lee and Grace does not teach the plurality of interferometric optical amplification arrangements the input beam splitters are adapted to spatially separate interfering first beam portion and second beam portion of a preceding interferometric optical amplification arrangement.
However,
Andrews teaches the plurality of interferometric optical amplification arrangements the input beam splitters are adapted to spatially separate interfering first beam portion and second beam portion of a preceding interferometric optical amplification arrangement. (Fig. 2c shows a plurality of interferometric optical amplification arrangements where the inputs are split into first and second beams portions.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser device as taught by Damzen in view of Lee and Grace by adding the plurality of interferometric optical amplification arrangements as disclosed by Andrews. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to efficiently scale up power of the device. (See description of Fig. 2 of Andrews)
Regarding Claim 16, Damzen in view of Lee and Grace does not teach intermediate interferometric optical amplification arrangement of said plurality of interferometric optical amplification arrangements comprises input beam splitters adapted to spatially split only the first beam portion of a preceding interferometric optical amplification arrangement, and not a recombined beam of the preceding interferometric optical amplification arrangement.
However,
Andrews teaches the plurality of interferometric optical amplification arrangements the input beam splitters are adapted to spatially separate interfering first beam portion and second beam portion of a preceding interferometric optical amplification arrangement. (Fig. 2c shows a plurality of interferometric optical amplification arrangements where there are intermediate interferometric optical amplification arrangement where the inputs are split into first and second beams portions into the next beams.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser device as taught by Damzen in view of Lee and Grace by adding the plurality of interferometric optical amplification arrangements as disclosed by Andrews. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to efficiently scale up power of the device. (See description of Fig. 2 of Andrews)
Claim 19 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Damzen, Lee and Grace in view of Filgas et al. US 20030161375.
Regarding Claim 19, Damzen in view of Lee and Grace does not teach the amplification arm comprises an input beam coupling stage and an output beam collimation stage coupled to said active gain region, comprising a pair of dioptric systems arranged respectively to focus the first beam portion entering the active gain region and to collimate the first beam portion amplified in the active gain region and exiting the active gain region.
However,
Filgas teaches the amplification arm comprises an input beam coupling stage and an output beam collimation stage coupled to said active gain region, comprising a pair of dioptric systems arranged respectively to focus the first beam portion entering the active gain region and to collimate the first beam portion amplified in the active gain region and exiting the active gain region. (Fig. 4h shows an active gain between two lenses where the first lens focuses the first beam into the active region and the second lens collimates the light after it leaves the active region)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified laser device as taught by Lee by adding the two lenses in front of the active region and behind the active region as disclosed by Filgas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve beam quality (Filgas Paragraph 0090)
Claim 23 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Damzen, Lee and Grace in view of Almeida et al. US 20200280164.
Regarding Claim 23, Damzen in view of Lee and Grace does not teach said optical ring resonant structure comprises an optical isolator configured to allow propagation of a beam in a single predetermined direction.
However,
Almeida teaches said optical ring resonant structure comprises an optical isolator configured to allow propagation of a beam in a single predetermined direction. (Fig. 15, 11 Paragraph 0148 “The optical isolator 11”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser device as taught by Damzen in view of Lee and Grace by adding the optical isolator as disclosed by Almeida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent back reflection. (Almeida Paragraph 0148)
Claim 24 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Damzen, Lee and Grace in view of Skolnick et al. US 3700309.
Regarding Claim 24, Damzen in view of Lee and Grace does not explicitly teach an optical length of the amplification arm and an optical length of the propagation arm without amplification of each interferometric optical amplification arrangement are equivalent. (Fig. 10 Damzen shows the optical lengths of the arms that appear to be the same for the interferometer.)
However,
Skolnick teaches an optical length of the amplification arm and an optical length of the propagation arm without amplification of each interferometric optical amplification arrangement are equivalent. (Col. 3 Lines 26-29 “an optical length of the amplification arm and an optical length of the propagation arm without amplification of each interferometric optical amplification arrangement are equivalent”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser device as taught by Damzen in view of Lee and Grace by having the optical length of both arms be equal of the interferometer as disclosed by Skolnick. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the phase relationship be insensate to the frequency of the input beam (Skolnick Col. 3 Lines 18-26)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Delfyett et al. US 20150086151 teaches many features found in Claim 13.
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 STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, 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.
/STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828