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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has filed an affidavit traversing the rejection. In the affidavit, applicant contends that the thickness described in Xuan should not apply to the cylindrical sleeve description. However, even if this affidavit is taken as true, it does not address the deposition embodiment.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite “a flexible metal foil”. On page 6, applicant contends that Xuan does not disclose “a flexible metal foil” and further asserts that “providing the cooling jacket 160 in the form of a coating that is applied by dipping or chemical vapor deposition would not result in a jacket formed as a ‘flexible metal foil.’” The Office disagrees. First, the Office notes that all materials will have some degree of flexibility (e.g. the ability to deform/bend without breaking) that is determined by the type and thickness of the material. Xuan discloses that the jacket may be made of metals such as silver, gold, and/or copper alloy. Applicant discloses that the claimed metal may include these materials (See, e.g., [0025] of PGPub 20230029200A11). Additionally, Xuan discloses that the thickness of this jacket is 0.002-0.020 inches (i.e. 50.8-508 micrometers). Applicant further discloses that the thickness of the foil should be 200 micrometers or less (See, e.g., [0025] of PGPub 20230029200A1). Additionally, applicant discloses that the thickness of the metal determines the flexibility of the foil. [0025] “As compared to a solid metal block, metal foil 130 is flexible and therefore conforms better to the surface of gain medium 110.” The Office notes that the upper limit of the thickness disclosed by Xuan is larger than applicant’s preferred thickness. However, metals in the entire range disclosed by Xuan retain flexibility. For instance, 20 gauge wire has a diameter of 0.032 inches but remains flexible2. Finally, applicant has not provided any evidence that “providing the cooling jacket 160 in the form of a coating that is applied by dipping or chemical vapor deposition would not result in a jacket formed as a ‘flexible metal foil.’” Applicant indicates that plating processes may be used to form the metal film. [0025] “The copper (or copper alloy) foil may be plated with nickel and/or gold.”. Applicant has also not provided any evidence or reasoning as to why these processes would change a flexible material to an inflexible material while plating processes do not. The Office notes that the art generally recognizes that deposited metals can create a flexible foil (See, e.g., US5834140A). Accordingly, it is the Office’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the jacket disclosed by Xuan to be flexible, because Xuan discloses similar materials, similar thicknesses, and similar manufacturing processes of the jacket to those disclosed by applicant of the foil and it has been held that “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
On pages 6-8, applicant addresses the rejection of claim 12. he Office does not rely on the specific configurations of McCordic, because these configurations of coolant flow channels are inside a heat sink and not around a laser rod. The Office relies on the general teachings of McCordic regarding coolant flow speed in areas of higher heat generation and applying those teachings to Xuan, because Xuan discloses that the laser crystal has higher heat generation on the first end compared to the second end. As explained on pages 9 and 10 of the previous rejection, McCordic discloses "The channel is configured to vary the velocity of coolant along the length of the fluid channel to vary the coolant's heat transfer coefficient and thereby compensate for the coolant's temperature rise along the length of the fluid channel" and "This variable tapered body 38' may be used, for example, where there are a number of heat sources 50 on cooling wall 42 only near the second one-third of tapered body 38' and greater cooling is required in this region in order to minimize thermal gradients." Xuan discloses that the first end (i.e. the pumped end) is hotter than the second, unpumped, end ([0030]). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art when applying the general teachings of McCordic to allow for faster coolant flow and correspondingly smaller channel size where greater cooling is required would form the channel-height at the first, hotter, end of Xuan to be smaller than the second end. The Office notes that the heat generating elements (50) in Fig. 5 of McCordic are located where the channel size is smaller.
The rejections are maintained. Applicant has not traversed any takings of Official Notice. Accordingly, any notices taken in the previous action are considered applicant admitted prior art. MPEP 2144.03C.
Priority
This application claims priority to Provisional U.S. Application No. 63/203,438 filed 07/22/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xuan et al. (US20130250984A1), hereafter Xuan.
Regarding claim 1, Xuan discloses an actively cooled end-pumped solid-state laser gain device (Fig. 2), comprising: a solid-state gain medium (Fig. 2 element 158; [0031]) having opposite first (Fig. 2 element 154) and second ends (Fig. 2 element 156) and a first face extending between the first and second ends (Fig. 2 element 162), the first end being configured to receive a pump laser beam incident thereon and propagating in the direction toward the second end (Fig. 2 elements 116 and 118); a flexible metal foil disposed over the first face of the gain medium (Fig. 2 element 160; [0037]-[0038]3) and a housing (Fig. 2 element 140) that cooperates with the metal foil to form a coolant channel from the first end of the gain medium towards the second end of the gain medium (Fig. 2 element 142), the coolant channel having an inlet (Fig. 2 element 152; [0028]) and an outlet (Fig. 2 element 152; [0028]) configured to conduct a flow of coolant along the metal foil from the first end towards the second end (Fig. 2 element 150); wherein the metal foil is secured between the gain medium and portions of the housing running adjacent to the coolant channel in a direction between the first and second ends (Fig. 2 element 144).
Regarding claim 7, Xuan further discloses the metal foil is secured between the first face of the gain medium and two walls of the housing (Fig. 2 element 140 at 144), each of the two walls extending between the first and second ends of the gain medium on a respective side of the coolant channel ([0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Xuan further discloses the metal foil is coupled to the portions of the housing via a compliant seal (Fig. 2 element 144; [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Xuan further discloses the metal foil includes copper ([0037]).
Regarding claim 19, Xuan further discloses the gain medium has a length L from the first end to the second end, and the portion of the metal foil sandwiched between the gain medium and the coolant channel extends from a location that is within 1 millimeter of the first end to a location that is within 0.25L of the second end (Fig. 2 element 260 is shown to extend to end faces 154 and 156 accordingly, they are within 1 mm and 0.25L of the ends).
Regarding claim 20, Xuan further discloses a pump laser for generating the pump laser beam (Fig. 2 element 118); and a coolant delivery system for pumping the coolant into the coolant channel via the inlet ([0028]).
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 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xuan in view of Myers et al. (US20200251874A1), hereafter Myers.
Regarding claim 2, Xuan further discloses the metal foil is clamped onto the housing to form a cooling element therewith (Fig. 2 elements 160, 144, and 140); and the laser further comprises a fixture disposed on a face of the gain medium opposite the first face (Fig. 2 element 160 is shown on both sides of 148), the gain medium being clamped between the cooling element and the fixture (Fig. 2 element 160 is shown on both sides of 148). Xuan does not explicitly disclose a second face. However, Myers discloses a gain medium having a second face ([0058]) and the gain medium being clamped between a cooling element and a fixture (Fig. 3; [0061]). An advantage is to use a known alternative to a cylindrical rod ([0045]-[0046]) and still provide increased heat transfer ([0049]). 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 Xuan with a second face as disclosed by Myers in order to use a known alternative to a cylindrical rod and still provide increased heat transfer.
Regarding claim 3, Xuan further discloses the fixture is a second instance of the cooling element with its metal foil disposed over the second face of the gain medium to provide cooling of the gain medium via the second face (Fig. 3 element 160 and 140 on the lower surface). Myers also discloses the fixture is a second instance of the cooling element with its metal foil disposed over the second face of the gain medium to provide cooling of the gain medium via the second face (Fig. 3; [0061]).
Regarding claim 4, Xuan does not explicitly disclose an indium layer between the metal foil and the first face of the gain medium. However, Myers discloses an indium layer ([0061]) between a metal layer (Fig. 3 element 302) and the first face of the gain medium (Fig. 3 element 304). An advantage is to allow better heat transfer from the gain medium to the metal layer ([0061]). 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 Xuan with an indium layer between the metal foil and the first face of the gain medium as disclosed by Myers in order to allow better heat transfer from the gain medium to the metal layer.
Regarding claim 5, Xuan in view of Myers does not explicitly disclose the indium layer is soldered between the metal foil and the first face of the gain medium. However, the Office takes Official Notice that soldering is a well known in the art. An advantage, as is known in the art, is to secure the indium layer to the gain medium. 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 Xuan in view of Myers with the indium layer is soldered between the metal foil and the first face of the gain medium as is known in the art in order to secure the indium layer to the gain medium.
Regarding claim 6, Xuan in view of Myers does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the indium layer is in the range between 50 and 500 micrometers. However, the Office takes Official Notice that optimizing the thickness of layers is well known in the art in order to control the properties of the layer. 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 Xuan in view of Myers with the thickness of the indium layer is in the range between 50 and 500 micrometers, since it is known in the art to optimize the thickness of layers to control their properties and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xuan.
Regarding claim 9, Xuan does not explicitly disclose the metal foil is soldered or brazed to the housing. However, Xuan discloses the foil may be sealed to the housing using any suitable technique ([0028]). Additionally, the Office takes Official notice that soldering and brazing are well known techniques to connect materials in order to form a seal. 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 Xuan with the metal foil is soldered or brazed to the housing since Xuan discloses any suitable technique may be used and soldering and brazing are well known techniques to form a seal between materials.
Regarding claim 11, Xuan does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the metal foil is between 50 and 200 micrometers. However, Xuan discloses the thickness of the metal foil is between 50.8 microns (0.002 inches) and 508 microns (0.02 inches) ([0038]). An advantage, as is known in the art, is to control the various properties of the layer. 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 Xuan with the thickness of the metal foil is between 50 and 200 micrometers, since Xuan discloses the thickness of the metal foil is between 50.8 microns (0.002 inches) and 508 microns (0.02 inches) in order to control the properties of the layer and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 12-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xuan in view of McCordic et al. (US20070289718A1), hereafter McCordic.
Regarding claim 12, Xuan further discloses the first end is hotter than the second end ([0030]). Xuan does not explicitly disclose a height of the coolant channel above the metal foil is less at the first end than at a location closer to the second end, such that the speed of flow of the coolant is greater at the first end than at the location closer to the second end. However, McCordic discloses changing the size of a fluid channel along its length in order to control the heat transfer coefficient (Abstract) and to make the channel smaller where greater cooling is required (Fig. 6; [0060]). An advantage is to control and reduce thermal gradients ([0002]). 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 Xuan with a height of the coolant channel above the metal foil is less at the first end than at a location closer to the second end, such that the speed of flow of the coolant is greater at the first end than at the location closer to the second end, since Xuan discloses that the first end is hotter than the second end and McCordic discloses controlling the channel size to be smaller where greater cooling is required in order to control and reduce thermal gradients.
Regarding claim 13, Xuan in view of McCordic do not explicitly disclose the height of the coolant channel is less than 1 millimeter through a first segment of the coolant channel nearest the first end. However, McCordic discloses adjusting the coolant channel height based on the desired heat transfer coefficient (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 further modify Xuan in view of McCordic with the height of the coolant channel is less than 1 millimeter through a first segment of the coolant channel nearest the first end, since McCordic discloses adjusting the coolant channel height based on the desired heat transfer coefficient and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Xuan in view of McCordic do not explicitly disclose the first segment spans from the first end to a location that is spaced apart from the first end by at least the 1/e absorption length of the pump laser beam in the gain medium. However, McCordic discloses adjusting the coolant channel height based on the desired heat transfer coefficient (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 further modify Xuan in view of McCordic with the first segment spans from the first end to a location that is spaced apart from the first end by at least the 1/e absorption length of the pump laser beam in the gain medium, since McCordic discloses adjusting the coolant channel height based on the desired heat transfer coefficient and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 15, McCordic further discloses the height of the coolant channel in a second segment, extending from the first segment at least partway to the second end, increases as a function of distance from the first end (Fig. 6 element 38).
Regarding claim 17, Xuan does not explicitly disclose the coolant channel extends at least the length of the gain medium from the first end to the second end. However, McCordic discloses the coolant channels (Fig. 5 elements 36) extends beyond the heat source (Fig. 5 element 50). An advantage is to remove heat along the entire length of the heat source. 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 Xuan with the coolant channel extends at least the length of the gain medium from the first end to the second end, since McCordic discloses the coolant channels extends beyond the heat source in order to remove heat along the entire length of the heat source.
Regarding claim 18, Xuan does not explicitly disclose the metal foil and the coolant channel extend beyond the first and second ends in a dimension parallel to the first face of the gain medium. However, McCordic discloses the coolant channels (Fig. 5 elements 36) extends beyond the heat source (Fig. 5 element 50). An advantage is to remove heat along the entire length of the heat source. 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 Xuan the metal foil and the coolant channel extend beyond the first and second ends in a dimension parallel to the first face of the gain medium, since McCordic discloses the coolant channels extends beyond the heat source in order to remove heat along the entire length of the heat source.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xuan in view of McCordic, as applied to claim 13, in further view of Kawashima et al. (US20070189346A1), hereafter Kawashima.
Regarding claim 16, Xuan in view of McCordic do not explicitly disclose a surface of the housing, facing the metal foil and forming a ceiling of the first segment of the coolant channel, has recessed or protruding features to induce turbulence in the flow of the coolant. However, Kawashima discloses forming protrusions on the housing side of the coolant channel so as to face the gain medium and increase turbulence ([0029]). An advantage is to allow more efficient heat removal ([0029]). 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 Xuan in view of McCordic with a surface of the housing, facing the metal foil and forming a ceiling of the first segment of the coolant channel, has recessed or protruding features to induce turbulence in the flow of the coolant as disclosed by Kawashima in order to allow more efficient heat removal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 on (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 03/28/2026
1 This is the pre-grant publication of this application.
2 Wire Gauge Guide (discussing how easily the various wire gauges will bend by hand).
3 Applicant discloses that copper plated with nickel and/or gold or silver with a thickness of less than 200 microns is “flexible” ([0025]). Xuan discloses the jacket is made from silver, gold or copper alloy ([0037]) with a thickness between 50.8 and 508 microns ([0038]) in the form of either a cylindrical sleeve or a coating ([0038]). The Office further notes that the metals disclosed by Xuan retain flexibility through the entire range of thicknesses disclosed by Xuan. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the jacket to have the same properties as applicant’s claimed “foil” and this includes being flexible.