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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-12 remain pending in the application. Claim 13 is new. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 10/30/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first optical system” in claims 1, 13 is interpreted as coupler as described in Fig. 1 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
“second optical system” in claims 1, 13 is interpreted as condensing lens as described in Fig. 1 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
“the first optical system and the second optical system are configured to, when a spherical aberration characteristic of the second optical system is under,” in claim 4 is interpreted as beam expander as described in paragraph [22, 58, 59, 60] of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
“the first optical system and the second optical system are configured to, when a spherical aberration characteristic of the second optical system is under,”
in claim 5 is interpreted as beam expander as described in paragraph [22, 61-63] of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
“the first optical system and the second optical system are configured to, when a spherical aberration characteristic of the second optical system is over,”
in claim 6 is interpreted as beam expander as described in paragraph [22, 94] of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
“the first optical system and the second optical system are configured to, when a spherical aberration characteristic of the second optical system is over,”
in claim 7 is interpreted as beam expander as described in paragraph [22, 93] of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai et al., US 20130215914 (hereafter Imai) and further in view of Takahiro, JP 2014024105 (hereafter Takahiro).
Regarding claim 1,
A laser device comprising: (Fig. 8)
PNG
media_image1.png
468
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 in Imai teaches a laser device
a first laser oscillator configured to emit a first laser light having a first wavelength;( 51 in Fig. 8)
a second laser oscillator configured to emit a second laser light having a second wavelength; (28 in Fig. 8)
a first optical system; (multi coupler 24 in Fig. 8)
a second optical system, (7 in Fig. 8)
….the first optical system is configured to couple the first laser light and the second laser light and transmit the first laser light and the second laser light to the second optical system; (Fig. 8)
the second optical system is configured to condense the first laser light transmitted from the first optical system at a first condensing position and the second laser light transmitted from the first optical system at a second condensing position; (Fig. 8)
and the first optical system is configured to transmit the first laser light and the second laser light such that a second maximum angle defined by an optical axis and an outermost component of the second laser light transmitted from the first optical system is larger than a first maximum angle defined by the optical axis and an outermost component of the first laser light transmitted from the first optical system (Fig. 8)
PNG
media_image2.png
416
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Part of Fig. 1 in Imai
Imai is silent about the first wavelength is shorter than the second wavelength; and a magnifying optical system, ..the magnifying optical system is in an optical path of the second laser light from the second laser oscillator toward the first optical system; with the magnifying optical system being configured to magnify a beam diameter of the second laser light emitted from the second laser oscillator.
Takahiro teaches and a magnifying optical system, ..the magnifying optical system is in an optical path of the second laser light from the second laser oscillator toward the first optical system; (Takahiro teaches beam expander 28, 36 in the path of beams LB1 and LB2 respectively in Fig. 1.)
PNG
media_image3.png
411
697
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Takahiro
with the magnifying optical system being configured to magnify a beam diameter of the second laser light emitted from the second laser oscillator. (Fig. 1 in Takahiro)
the first wavelength is shorter than the second wavelength; (Takahiro teaches “the first laser oscillator 12 oscillates the first laser beam LB1 having a wavelength in the ultraviolet region, and the second laser oscillator 14 has a wavelength in the infrared region” in page 6, paragraph 2.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the beam expander in the beam path to optimize beam diameters as taught in Takahiro in the laser device in Imai. It would have also been obvious to design the laser oscillators in Imai such that first wavelength is shorter than second wavelength as taught in Takahiro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The first condensing optical system 16 configured as described above changes the focal length (composite) of the first condensing optical system 16 by changing the interval between the first diameter-expanding lens 28 and the first condensing lens 30. Focal distance can be easily adjusted” as taught in page 2, paragraph 13- page 3, paragraph 1 in Takahiro.)
Regarding claim 4,
The laser device according to Claim 1, wherein the first optical system and the second optical system are configured to, when a spherical aberration characteristic of the second optical system is under, set the first condensing position and the second condensing position at an identical position. (Please see claim interpretation.
Imai is silent about beam expander.
Takahiro teaches beam expander 28, 36 in the path of beams LB1 and LB2 respectively in Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
411
697
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Takahiro
The limitation “ set the first condensing position and the second condensing position at an identical position” is interpreted as the beam diameters are optimized by beam expander. Mpep 2144.05-II teaches ““[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the beam expander in the beam path to optimize beam diameters as taught in Takahiro in the laser device in Imai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The first condensing optical system 16 configured as described above changes the focal length (composite) of the first condensing optical system 16 by changing the interval between the first diameter-expanding lens 28 and the first condensing lens 30. Focal distance can be easily adjusted” as taught in page 2, paragraph 13- page 3, paragraph 1 in Takahiro.)
Regarding claim 5,
The laser device according to Claim 1, wherein the first optical system and the second optical system are configured to, when a spherical aberration characteristic of the second optical system is under, make a difference between the second condensing position and the first condensing position larger than a value caused by chromatic aberration of the second optical system. (Please see claim interpretation.
Imai is silent about beam expander.
Takahiro teaches beam expander 28, 36 in the path of beams LB1 and LB2 respectively in Fig. 1.
The limitation “make a difference between the second condensing position and the first condensing position larger than a value caused by chromatic aberration of the second optical system” is interpreted as the beam diameters are optimized by beam expander. Mpep 2144.05-II teaches ““[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the beam expander in the beam path to optimize beam diameters as taught in Takahiro in the laser device in Imai.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The first condensing optical system 16 configured as described above changes the focal length (composite) of the first condensing optical system 16 by changing the interval between the first diameter-expanding lens 28 and the first condensing lens 30. Focal distance can be easily adjusted” as taught in page 2, paragraph 13- page 3, paragraph 1 in Takahiro.)
Regarding claim 6,
The laser device according to Claim 1, wherein the first optical system and the second optical system are configured to, when a spherical aberration characteristic of the second optical system is over, set the first condensing position and the second condensing position at an identical position.
(Please see claim interpretation.
Imai is silent about beam expander.
Takahiro teaches beam expander 28, 36 in the path of beams LB1 and LB2 respectively in Fig. 1.
The limitation “set the first condensing position and the second condensing position at an identical position” is interpreted as the beam diameters are optimized by beam expander. Mpep 2144.05-II teaches ““[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the beam expander in the beam path to optimize beam diameters as taught in Takahiro in the laser device in Imai.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The first condensing optical system 16 configured as described above changes the focal length (composite) of the first condensing optical system 16 by changing the interval between the first diameter-expanding lens 28 and the first condensing lens 30. Focal distance can be easily adjusted” as taught in page 2, paragraph 13- page 3, paragraph 1 in Takahiro.)
Regarding claim 7,
The laser device according to Claim 1, wherein the first optical system and the second optical system are configured to, when a spherical aberration characteristic of the second optical system is over, make a difference between the second condensing position and the first condensing position larger than a value caused by chromatic aberration of the second optical system.
(Please see claim interpretation.
Imai is silent about beam expander.
Takahiro teaches beam expander 28, 36 in the path of beams LB1 and LB2 respectively in Fig. 1.
The limitation “to make a difference between the second condensing position and the first condensing position larger than a value caused by chromatic aberration of the second optical system” is interpreted as the beam diameters are optimized by beam expander. Mpep 2144.05-II teaches ““[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the beam expander in the beam path to optimize beam diameters as taught in Takahiro in the laser device in Imai.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The first condensing optical system 16 configured as described above changes the focal length (composite) of the first condensing optical system 16 by changing the interval between the first diameter-expanding lens 28 and the first condensing lens 30. Focal distance can be easily adjusted” as taught in page 2, paragraph 13- page 3, paragraph 1 in Takahiro.)
Regarding claim 12,
A laser processing device comprising : the laser device according to Claim 1; and (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
a laser head configured to emit the first laser light and the second laser light toward a workpiece, wherein the second optical system is inside the laser head. (Fig. 8 in Imai teaches housing 8)
PNG
media_image4.png
468
689
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 in Imai
Regarding claim 13,
A laser device comprising: a first laser oscillator configured to emit a first laser light having a first wavelength; a second laser oscillator configured to emit a second laser light having a second wavelength; a first optical system; a second optical system; and a magnifying optical system, wherein: the first wavelength is shorter than the second wavelength; the first optical system is configured to couple the first laser light and the second laser light, and transmit the first laser light and the second laser light to the second optical system; the second optical system is configured to condense the first laser light transmitted from the first optical system at a first condensing position and the second laser light transmitted from the first optical system at a second condensing position; the magnifying optical system is in an optical path of the first laser light from the first laser oscillator toward the first optical system; and the first optical system is configured to transmit the first laser light and the second laser light such that a first maximum angle defined by an optical axis and an outermost component of the first laser light transmitted from the first optical system is larger than a second maximum angle defined by the optical axis and an outermost component of the second laser light transmitted from the first optical system with the magnifying optical system being configured to magnify a beam diameter of the first laser light emitted from the first laser oscillator. ( (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai and Takahiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito et al., US 20190084082 (hereafter Ito).
The laser device according to Claim 1, wherein: the first optical system includes a beam coupling optical element(24 in Fig. 8), a first condensing lens (53 in Fig. 8), and an optical fiber(22 in Fig. 8)
PNG
media_image5.png
430
670
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 in Imai
in which a core that is an optical waveguide is covered with a cladding made of a material having a refractive index that is lower than a refractive index of the core; (Paragraph [68] in Imai teaches core has a refractive index higher than cladding.)
the beam coupling optical element is configured to couple the first laser light and the second laser light; (coupler 24 in Fig. 8)
..the second optical system includes a collimating lens (5 in Fig. 8) and a second condensing lens (6 in Fig. 8);
the collimating lens is configured to convert each of the first laser light and the second laser light transmitted from the optical fiber into collimated light; and (lens 5 in Fig. 8)
the second condensing lens is configured to condense the first laser light that has passed through the collimating lens at the first condensing position and the second laser light that has passed through the collimating lens at the second condensing position. (lens 6 in Fig. 8)
the optical fiber is configured to transmit the first laser light and the second laser light that have entered the core(Fig. 4 in Imai)
PNG
media_image6.png
477
712
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 in Imai
to the second optical system; (Fig. 8 in Imai)
Primary combination of references is silent about the first condensing lens is configured to condense the first laser light and the second laser light coupled to each other and cause the first laser light and the second laser light to enter the core of the optical fiber;
Ito teaches the first condensing lens (1183 in Fig. 3) is configured to condense the first laser light and the second laser light coupled to each other and cause the first laser light and the second laser light to enter the core of the optical fiber; (Fig. 3 teaches condensing lens 1183 causes the laser lights to enter fiber 121.)
PNG
media_image7.png
366
800
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 in Ito
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the condensing lens as taught in Ito to the first optical system in the laser device in Imai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The focusing lens 1183 focuses the incident laser beams and allows the laser beams to be incident on the feeding fiber 121” as taught in paragraph [42] in Ito.
Claim(s) 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai and Takahiro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito, and Naoki et al., JP 2002301583 (hereafter Naoki).
Regarding claim 9,
The laser device according to Claim 1, wherein: the first optical system includes a beam coupling optical element, a first condensing lens, and an optical fiber in which a core that is an optical waveguide is covered with a cladding made of a material having a refractive index that is lower than a refractive index of the core; the beam coupling optical element is configured to couple the first laser light and the second laser light; the first condensing lens is configured to condense the first laser light and the second laser light coupled to each other and cause the first laser light and the second laser light to enter the core of the optical fiber; the optical fiber is configured to transmit the first laser light and the second laser light that have entered the core to the second optical system; (Similar scope to claim 8 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Primary combination of references is silent about the second optical system includes a galvanometer mirror and a third condensing lens; the galvanometer mirror is configured to reflect the first laser light and the second laser light transmitted from the optical fiber and scan the first laser light and the second laser light in a direction; and the third condensing lens is configured to condense the first laser light reflected by the galvanometer mirror at the first condensing position and the second laser light reflected by the galvanometer mirror at the second condensing position.
Naoki teaches the second optical system includes a galvanometer mirror and a third condensing lens, (Galvano scanner 3, and condensing lens 4 in Fig. 1 in Naoki)
PNG
media_image8.png
522
700
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Translated Fig. 1 in Naoki
the galvanometer mirror is configured to reflect the first laser light and the second laser light transmitted from the optical fiber and scan the first laser light and the second laser light in a direction; (Fig. 1 in Naoki)
and the third condensing lens is configured to condense the first laser light reflected by the galvanometer mirror at the first condensing position and the second laser light reflected by the galvanometer mirror at the second condensing position. (Fig. 1 in Naoki)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the galvanometer and condensing lens as taught in Naoki to the laser device in Imai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The work is irradiated with the main laser in the state where the object to be welded is put into a molten state by the sub-laser and the absorptivity to the laser is increased, and therefore the stable lap welding of the sheets over each other can be performed” as taught in abstract in Naoki.
Regarding claim 11,
The laser device according to Claim 1, wherein the laser device is configured to overlap, in whole or in part, a first period during which the first laser light is emitted from the first laser oscillator with a second period during which the second laser light is emitted from the second laser oscillator. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Naoki teaches “during a pulse width period of the main laser, on the welding target, The sub-laser is irradiated to a region including the portion irradiated with the main laser, the pulse width period of the sub-laser is ended before the end of the pulse width period of the main laser” in page 5, paragraph 5.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the pulse widths of two different lasers to overlap as taught in Naoki to the laser device in Imai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The work is irradiated with the main laser in the state where the object to be welded is put into a molten state by the sub-laser and the absorptivity to the laser is increased, and therefore the stable lap welding of the sheets over each other can be performed” as taught in abstract in Naoki.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai, Takahiro, and Ito as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Nagae et al., US 20210076921 (hereafter Nagae).
The laser device according to Claim 8, wherein the beam coupling optical element is a polarization beam combiner configured to couple the first laser light and the second laser light. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Nagae teaches in paragraph [199] “configure a beam splitter as a multiplexing member, the first laser light beam and the second laser light beam may be polarized and combined by the beam splitter.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the beam splitter as taught in Nagae to the laser device in Imai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “by using a multiplexing member that performs polarization and multiplex instead of the dichroic mirror, a first laser light source and a second laser light source arranged so that emission directions of laser light beams to be emitted therefrom are opposed to each other can be light sources of the same color, and the design range can be expanded” as taught in paragraph [200] in Nagae.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/28/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-13 have been considered but are not persuasive. The applicant amended claim 1 and argued that this makes the claimed invention distinguishable from prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art as discussed above.
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 FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights