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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 22-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/12/2026.
Applicant’s traversal of the Applicant's election with traverse of the species requirement on the basis that Species a is generic to all species in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 acknowledged. This is found persuasive because species A is generic.
Thus, the election of species requirement is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 0. For examination purposes these claims are regarded to depend from claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (EP 3 636 443), copy provided by applicants with the IDS filed 12.16.2022.
Regarding claim 1.
Kurihara discloses:
A system comprising:
a laser operable (1)to produce an infrared laser beam for a range of wavelengths([0012]-[0019]);
an optics assembly(scanner unit, 60) operable to focus and direct the laser beam(1); and
electronics communicatively(50) coupled with the laser(1) and the optics assembly(60), the electronics being configured to control the laser and the optics assembly, wherein the laser is configured to produce the infrared laser beam at wavelengths in the range of wavelengths that overlap with absorption peaks due to higher-order, non-linear oscillations of molecular bonds of each polymeric material of at least ten different polymeric materials, thereby generating heat from absorption of photon energy from the infrared laser beam.(see claim 1, and [0012]-[0019], and [0037])
Kurihara, does not specifically disclose that the laser is configured to produce the beam at wavelengths that overlap…of at least ten different polymeric materials.
However, Kurihara discloses that the laser is configured to generate wavelengths in the range of 700nm – 2500nm, and that heat is generated from the photothermal conversion. As such, it would have been obvious to use the wave length range on various materials including at least ten different materials for the obvious benefit of allowing various materials to be used for the reading and writing of the device. As such, the features of claim 1 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2.
Kurihara discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the laser is configured to produce the infrared laser beam in a wavelength range of 1.7 to 2.7 microns. (see [0018])
Regarding claim 3.
Kurihara discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the laser is operable to produce a continuously tunable infrared laser beam for the range of wavelengths, produce multiple discretely tunable infrared laser beams at multiple different wavelengths for the range of wavelengths, or a combination thereof. (See 40, and [0027], [0035]-[0036])
Regarding claim 4.
Kurihara discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the laser is further configured to produce the infrared laser beam at another wavelength that overlaps with a primary absorption peak due to C—H dipole interactions of each polymeric material of the at least ten different polymeric materials. .(see claim 1, and [0012]-[0019], and [0037])
Regarding claim 5.
Kurihara discloses:
The system of claim 4, wherein the laser is configured to produce the infrared laser beam in a wavelength range of 3.2 to 3.6 microns. .(see claim 1, and [0012]-[0019], and [0037])
Regarding claim 7.
Kurihara discloses
wherein the laser(1) is a first laser, further comprising a second laser(31a/31b/31c), wherein the second laser is communicatively coupled with the electronics
Kurihara does not disclose:
The system of claim 1, and configured to produce a second infrared laser beam for a second wavelength that overlaps a primary absorption peak due to C—H dipole interactions of each polymeric material of the at least ten different polymeric materials.
.(see claim 1, and [0012]-[0019], and [0037])
Kurihara, does not specifically disclose that the laser is configured to produce the beam at wavelengths that overlap…of at least ten different polymeric materials.
However, Kurihara discloses that the laser is configured to generate wavelengths in the range of 700nm – 2500nm, and that heat is generated from the photothermal conversion. As such, it would have been obvious to use the wave length range on various materials including at least ten different materials for the obvious benefit of allowing various materials to be used for the reading and writing of the device. As such, the features of claim 7 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9.
Kurihara discloses(1) is a first laser, further comprising a second laser and third laser(31a/31b/31c), all of the features of claim 7. Kurihara does not disclose:
The system of claim 7, further comprising a third laser, wherein the third laser is communicatively coupled with the electronics and configured to produce a third infrared laser beam for third wavelength that overlaps a primary absorption peak due to C—H dipole interactions of each polymeric material of the at least ten different polymeric materials.
However, Kurihara disclose that the lasers may produce within the claimed ranges at [0018]. Kurihara discloses that the device may include a plurality of laser devices in the abstract, capable of emitting in various wavelengths. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the multiple lasers each within the overlapping ranges of absorption of C-H dipoles for the obvious benefit of providing enhanced reading and writing to the device. As such, the features of claim 9 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14.
Kurihara discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the at least ten different polymeric materials comprise plastic, foam, and rubber materials.(See [0018], disclosing the wave length may be between 700-2500, which would include the recited materials.)
Regarding claim 15. Kurihara discloses: The system of claim 14, wherein the at least ten different polymeric materials comprise HDPE, LDPE, BOPP, PAI6, PAI6.6, PE, PET-G, PMMA, POM, PP, PVC, and PCV-p1.(See [0018], disclosing the wave length may be between 700-2500, which would include the recited materials.)
Regarding claim 16.
Kurihara discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the heat generated by the absorption of photon energy from the infrared laser beam modifies or breakdowns, within an optical penetration depth, a surface and subsequent layers of a target polymeric material of the at least ten different polymeric materials.([0016])
Regarding claim 17.
Kurihara discloses
The system of claim 16, wherein the photon energy is greater than an energy required to dissociate molecular bonds of the target polymeric material. ([0016])
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (EP 3 636 443), copy provided by applicants with the IDS filed 12.16.2022. in view of Deacon (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0086448)
Regarding claim 11.
Kurihara discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Kurihara does not disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein the laser is a semiconductor laser based on II-VI or compound materials such as InP, InGaAs or GaSb.
In related art, Deacon discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the laser is a semiconductor laser based on II-VI or compound materials such as InP, InGaAs or GaSb.(see [0006])
Deacon discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of allowing the laser to be formed to provide a laser having a desired property. As such, the features of claim 11 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12.
Kurihara discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Kurihara does not disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein the laser is a diode or fiber pumped solid-state laser.
In related art Deacon discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the laser is a diode or fiber pumped solid-state laser.(see [0006])
Deacon discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of allowing the laser to be formed to provide a laser having a desired property. As such, the features of claim 11 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (EP 3 636 443), copy provided by applicants with the IDS filed 12.16.2022. in view of Furnas (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0156674)
Regarding claim 13
Kurihara discloses all of the features of claim 1
Kurihara does not disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein the laser is a solid-state laser comprising a host crystal of ZnS/Se doped with Cr.sup.2+ or Fe.sup.2+.
In related art, Furnas discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the laser is a solid-state laser comprising a host crystal of ZnS/Se doped with Cr.sup.2+ or Fe.sup.2+.([0079]).
Furnas discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of providing a good laser providing a light emission having a desired property. It would have been obvious to modify the device of Kurihara in view of Furnas to obtain a laser emitting a desired light property.
Regarding claim 18.
Kurihara discloses all of the features of claim 1
The system of claim 1, further comprising a motorized mirror, (61 62)
Kurihara does not disclose:
wherein the laser is a diode laser.
In related art, Furnas discloses:
The system of claim 1, further comprising wherein the laser is a diode laser ([0079])
Furnas discloses that the recited feature provides the benefit of providing a desired laser light quality. As such, the features of claim 18 would have been obvious to one ahvign ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (EP 3 636 443), copy provided by applicants with the IDS filed 12.16.2022. in view of Lau (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0011267)
Regarding claim 19.
Kurihara discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the optics assembly comprises focusing optics(32e 40), wherein the laser comprises two or more single emitter diode lasers(31a 31b 31c), wherein the focusing optics are adjacent to a distal end of one of the two or more single emitter diode lasers(See Fig. 1).
Kurihara does not discloses:
mounted in a transistor outline (TO)-can package and coupled to an optical fiber
In related art, Lau discloses:
mounted in a transistor outline (TO)-can package and coupled to an optical fiber([0005])
Lau discloses that the recited feature provides the benefit of allowing the device to be incoprated into a desired application, to deliver laser light as desired. As such, the recited features would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (EP 3 636 443), copy provided by applicants with the IDS filed 12.16.2022. in view of Clowes (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0157419)
Regarding claim 20.
Kurihara discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Kurihara does not disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein the optics assembly comprises a multi-emitter bar.
In related art, Clowes discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the optics assembly comprises a multi-emitter bar.([0099])
Clowes discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of allowing a laser to be used to allow the laser to deliver a desired light emission. As such, the features of claim 20 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (EP 3 636 443), copy provided by applicants with the IDS filed 12.16.2022. in view of Piao (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0234064)
Regarding claim 21.
Kurihara discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Kurihara does not disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein the laser is a semiconductor laser based on II-VI and/or III-V compounds and antimonides.
In related art, Piao discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the laser is a semiconductor laser based on II-VI and/or III-V compounds and antimonides.(See claim 14 and 15) Piao discoses that the recited features provide the benefit of providing laser having a desired light emission. It would have been obvious to use the features recited in claim 21 in the device of Kurihara for the obvious benefit of obtained a desired light output. Thus, the features would have been obvious.
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara (EP 3 636 443), copy provided by applicants with the IDS filed 12.16.2022. in view of Montagne (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0118764)
Regarding claim 37
Kurihara discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the laser comprises at least two lasers(31a 31b 31c) configured to emit light at respective different wavelengths(abstract), and
Kurihara does not discloses:
the system further comprises at least one dichroic mirror that is reflective of light in at least a first of the different wavelengths, is antireflective of light in at least a second of the different wavelengths, and is positioned to combine light from the at least two lasers.
IN related art, Montagne discloses:
the system further comprises at least one dichroic mirror that is reflective of light in at least a first of the different wavelengths, is antireflective of light in at least a second of the different wavelengths, and is positioned to combine light from the at least two lasers. ([0059], 11). Montagne discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of providing a desired light output from the laser device. As such, the features would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 38
Kurihara discloses all of the features of claim 37.
Kuihara does not disclose:
The system of claim 37, wherein the at least two lasers consists of five lasers.
However, the recited features are a mere duplication of parts which as been held to be obvious where there is no new or unexpected result. Here, the duplication of the laser would provide additional laser power but no unexpected results. As such, the feat ure would have been obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8 and 10 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim but would be allowed if rewritten in independent form.
The following is the Examiner's Reasons for Allowance:
the prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious:
The system of claim 4, wherein the laser is configured to produce the infrared laser beam in a wavelength range of 6.5 to 7.5 microns, as recited in claim 6;
the first laser is configured to produce the infrared laser beam in a wavelength range of 1.7 to 2.7 microns, and the second laser is configured to produce the second infrared laser beam in a wavelength range of 3.2 to 3.6 or 6.5 to 7.5 microns, as recited in claim 8;
is configured to produce the third infrared laser beam in a wavelength range of 6.5 to 7.5 microns, as recited in claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G BACHNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT G BACHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898