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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2022 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims filed 9/30/2022 have been entered. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 9 have been amended. Claims 2, 4, and 10-11 are as originally presented. Claims 8 and 12 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-7 and 9-11 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: WATER-COOLED ELECTRO-OPTICAL ELEMENT WITH CONDUCTIVE LAYERS.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“Ka” should read as “K” on page 6, paragraph 13, line 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“a height direction” should read as “the height direction” in claim 4, lines 7-8.
“the electrode” should read as “the pair of electrodes” in line 3 of each of claims 6 and 11.
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 1-3, 6-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dribinski et al. (US 20150022805 A1), hereinafter Dribinski; Sakamoto et al. (US 20210247660 A1), hereinafter Sakamoto; and Draper (US 20090122814 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dribinski teaches a laser processing apparatus (laser system 100, Fig. 1A) comprising:
an electro-optical element (crystal 103, Fig. 1A);
a laser irradiation unit (light source 101, Fig. 1A) that irradiates (“output of a light source 101 can be focused to an elliptical cross-section Gaussian beam waist in or proximate to a frequency-conversion crystal 103 (also called crystal 103”, [0049]) the electro-optical element with laser (“light source 101 can include a laser”, [0051]);… and
a shield material (Leftmost side of housing 107 in Fig. 1A which is equivalent to “exemplary housings that could implement housing 107” in Figs. 1C, 1D, 1E) that is provided on an incident side (Leftmost side of Figs. 1A-1E from which light source 101 is output) of the electro-optical element, in an irradiation direction (Horizontal direction toward the right in Figs. 1A-1E) of the laser.
Dribinski does not teach a pair of electrodes provided on both sides of the electro-optical element so as to sandwich the electro-optical element therebetween; a cushioning material having conductivity provided between the pair of electrodes and the electro-optical element;… intersecting a direction in which a voltage applied by the pair of electrodes is applied, and prevents incidence of the laser onto the cushioning material; and
a cooling unit that cools the shield material, wherein
the cooling unit includes a cooling block and a pipe connected to the cooling block,
the cooling block is provided at a portion located on one electrode side of the shield material,
and is provided so as to extend in the width direction, the cooling block is formed of metal, and a flow path through which cooling water flows is
formed inside the cooling block, and
the pipe is connected to the flow path of the cooling block to circulate the cooling water.
Sakamoto teaches a pair of electrodes (electrode pair 113 including a cathode and an anode, Fig. 6; Electrode pairs 113 of first embodiment are equivalent to electrode pairs 213 of second embodiment.) provided on both sides (“On upper and lower surfaces of the electro-optical material 101 facing each other, an electrode pair 113”, Fig. 6) of the electro-optical element (see mapping to Dribinski) so as to sandwich the electro-optical element therebetween (“cathode side metal block 102 and the anode side metal block 103 are provided so as to hold the electro-optical material 101 and the electrode pair 113 therebetween”, [0062]); a cushioning material (carbon sheets 221, 222, Fig. 11) having conductivity (Chung1 supports the basic scientific fact that “carbon films” have “high thermal and electrical conductivity” on pg. 1, para. 1 under “1. Introduction”.) provided between the pair of electrodes and the electro-optical element (“carbon sheet 221 is disposed between an electro-optical material 201 and a cathode side metal block 202, and that a carbon sheet 222 is disposed between the electro-optical material 201 and an anode side metal block 203”, [0080]);…
intersecting a direction (“a direction of the electric field”, [0063]) in which a voltage applied (“An optical axis of incident light into the electro-optical material 101 is set so as to be orthogonal to a direction of the electric field”, [0063]) by the pair of electrodes is applied (“an alternating current voltage on which the direct current bias voltage is superimposed is applied between the electrode pair 113, enabling to deflect the incident light.”, [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic material of Dribinski to connect to a pair of electrodes. Dribinski and Sakamoto are analogous arts because they both relate to light interaction with optical crystals. Dribinski teaches a non-linear crystal. Sakamoto teaches a non-linear crystal disposed between a pair of electrodes. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide electrodes. By doing so, one would be able to control and “generate a refractive index distribution inside the electro-optical material”, as identified by Sakamoto ([0063]).
Modified Dribinski does not explicitly teach and prevents incidence of the laser onto the cushioning material. However, Dribinski teaches a housing 107 with variable sizes (“housing 107 may be a larger structure including crystal 103 and other components of a laser system”, [0050]) that functions to “protect crystal 103 from impurities” ([0050]). Sakamoto teaches conductive carbon sheets disposed adjacent to an electro-optical material 201 (see citation to [0080] above) which may be a crystal (“as the electro-optical material 201, a KTN crystal”, [0095]). Given that the housing has variable sizes and is designed to protect a crystal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the size of the housing to protect material disposed directly adjacent the crystal.
Modified Dribinski does not teach a cooling unit that cools the shield material, wherein
the cooling unit includes a cooling block and a pipe connected to the cooling block,
the cooling block is provided at a portion located on one electrode side of the shield material,
and is provided so as to extend in the width direction, the cooling block is formed of metal, and a flow path through which cooling water flows is
formed inside the cooling block, and
the pipe is connected to the flow path of the cooling block to circulate the cooling water.
Draper teaches a cooling unit (“sandwich cooling arrangement”, Fig. 3) that cools the shield material (see mapping to Dribinski), wherein
the cooling unit includes a cooling block (cooling plate 303, Fig. 3) and a pipe (“at least one cooling conduit”, [0047], Fig. 3) connected to the cooling block (See Fig. 3 for configuration of unlabeled structure construed as conduits indicated by arrows and cooling blocks 303),
the cooling block is provided at a portion (Fig. 3 shows cooling blocks 303 above and below aluminum layers 302 sandwiching an AO medium 301) located on one electrode side of the shield material (see mapping to Sakamoto),
and is provided so as to extend (Fig. 3 shows cooling plate 303 extending in three dimensions) in the width direction (Horizontal direction of Fig. 1 equivalent to direction into the page of Fig. 5), the cooling block is formed of metal (“outer cooling plates 303 are made from stainless steel”, [0048]), and a flow path through which cooling water flows is
formed inside the cooling block (“cooling conduit of plate 303 is made from a corrosion resistant material with cooling channels machined in the plate”, [0047], Figs. 2-4), and
the pipe is connected to the flow path of the cooling block to circulate the cooling water (“machined in the plate in such a way that they form enclosed channels, with an entry and an exit point for the coolant to flow from coolant in to coolant out shown in FIG. 3”, [0047]; Entry and exit points are construed as parts of at least one cooling conduit.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic material of Sakamoto to include a cooling unit. Dribinski, Sakamoto, and Draper are analogous arts because they all relate to light interaction with optical crystals. Dribinski teaches a thermo-electric or Peltier cooler to control crystal temperature. Sakamoto teaches a Peltier element to heat or cool metal blocks surround an optical crystal. Draper teaches a cooling block and pipe for cooling an optical crystal. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a cooling unit. By doing so, one would be able to effectively cool a device utilizing materials highly resistant to corrosion, as identified by Draper ([0050], [0051]).
Regarding claim 2, Dribinski, Sakamoto, and Draper teach the laser processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the electro-optical element (crystal 103, Fig. 1A; Dribinski) is a KTN crystal (“the KTN crystal that is the electro-optical material 201”, [0095]; Sakamoto).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic material of Dribinski to be a KTN crystal. Dribinski, Sakamoto, and Draper are analogous arts because they all relate to light interaction with optical crystals. Dribinski teaches a KTN crystal (which is “another non-linear optical crystal” [0022] of Sakamoto). Sakamoto teaches a non-linear electro-optical crystal that can be “a CLBO (cesium lithium borate) crystal, a CBO (cesium borate) crystal, a BBO (.beta. barium borate) crystal, an LBO (lithium triborate) crystal, a lithium niobate crystal, a KDP (potassium dihydrogen phosphate) crystal or another non-linear optical crystal” [0022]. Draper teaches an optical crystal. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a KTN crystal. By doing so, one would be able to “achieve a high-speed and wide-angle optical deflector”, as identified by Sakamoto ([0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Dribinski, Sakamoto, and Draper teach the laser processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the shield material (Leftmost side of housing 107 in Fig. 1A which is equivalent to “exemplary housings that could implement housing 107” in Figs. 1C, 1D, 1E; Dribinski) is formed in a plate shape (Window housing in each of Figs. 1C, 1D, and 1E have circular shapes which are construed as plate shapes; Dribinski) and has an opening (Each window in Figs. 1C-1E; Dribinski) through which (Fig. 1 of Dribinski shows light source 101 directed to and travelling through housing 107) the laser (“light source 101 can include a laser”, [0051]; Dribinski) passes.
Regarding claim 6, Dribinski, Sakamoto, and Draper teach the laser processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the shield material (Leftmost side of housing 107 in Fig. 1A which is equivalent to “exemplary housings that could implement housing 107” in Figs. 1C, 1D, 1E; Dribinski) is metal (Fig. 1E indicates window supports as “metal seals”; Dribinski), and the laser processing apparatus (laser system 100, Fig. 1A; Dribinski) further comprises an insulating portion (insulator 309a, Fig. 12; Sakamoto) provided between (Insulator 309a being “provided between the cathode side metal block 302 and the anode side metal block 303 so as to surround the electro-optical material 301”, [0085]) the shield material and the electrode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Dribinski to include an insulating material. Dribinski, Sakamoto, and Draper are analogous arts because they all relate to light interaction with optical crystals. Sakamoto teaches a non-linear electro-optical crystal. Dribinski teaches a KTN crystal surrounded by insulators. Draper teaches an optical crystal. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to introduce insulators. By doing so, one would be able to prevent overheating of an electro-optical element.
Regarding claim 7, Dribinski, Sakamoto, and Draper teach the laser processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the laser (“light source 101 can include a laser”, [0051]; Dribinski) incident on the electro-optical element (crystal 103, Fig. 1A; Dribinski) is a collimated laser (“collimated light is input to the optical deflector”, [0054], Fig. 4a; Sakamoto).
Regarding claim 9, Dribinski, Sakamoto, and Draper teach the laser processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
a window material (two prisms 201 and 202, Fig. 2A; Dribinski) that is provided on (“FIG. 2A illustrates two prisms 201 and 202 that can be configured to operate near Brewster's angle” [0055] and Fig. 1C shows a Brewster window as part of housing 107.) the incident side (Leftmost side of Figs. 1A-1E from which light source 101 is output; Dribinski) of the electro-optical element (crystal 103, Fig. 1A; Dribinski), in the irradiation direction (Horizontal direction toward the right in Figs. 1A-1E; Dribinski) of the laser (“light source 101 can include a laser”, [0051]; Dribinski), and covers the electro-optical element (Figs. 1C and 1E show circular opening window with a surface area covering that of the incident face of “CLBO crystal”; Dribinski).
Regarding claim 10, Dribinski, Sakamoto, and Draper teach the laser processing apparatus according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the window material (two prisms 201 and 202, Fig. 2A; Dribinski) is provided between (For prism 201 and/or prism 202 to be stably fixed along optical axis, said prisms would sit within support of Brewster window part of housing 107 shown in Fig. 1C. Thus, the prisms would be construed as being in between leftmost side of housing 107 and equivalent crystal 103 in Dribinski) the electro-optical element (crystal 103, Fig. 1A; Dribinski) and the shield material (Leftmost side of housing 107 in Fig. 1A which is equivalent to “exemplary housings that could implement housing 107” in Figs. 1C, 1D, 1E; Dribinski).
Regarding claim 11, Dribinski, Sakamoto, and Draper teach the laser processing apparatus according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above), wherein the shield material (Leftmost side of housing 107 in Fig. 1A which is equivalent to “exemplary housings that could implement housing 107” in Figs. 1C, 1D, 1E; Dribinski) is metal (Fig. 1E indicates window supports as “metal seals”; Dribinski), and the window material (two prisms 201 and 202, Fig. 2A; Dribinski) functions as an insulation material (Prisms may be made of quartz. For support for this basic scientific fact, please see ThorLabs2. Being made of quartz is construed as functioning as an insulation material.) provided between (For prism 201 and/or prism 202 to be stably fixed along optical axis, said prisms would sit within support of Brewster window part of housing 107 shown in Fig. 1C. Thus, the prisms would be construed as being in between leftmost side of housing 107 and equivalent crystal 103 in Dribinski) the shield material and the electrode (electrode pair 113 including a cathode and an anode, Fig. 6; Electrode pairs 113 of first embodiment are equivalent to electrode pairs 213 of second embodiment.; Sakamoto).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dribinski et al. (US 20150022805 A1), hereinafter Dribinski; Sakamoto et al. (US 20210247660 A1), hereinafter Sakamoto; and Draper (US 20090122814 A1); and Isomet3 (see copy furnished under NPL).
Regarding claim 4, Dribinski, Sakamoto, Draper, and Isomet teach the laser processing apparatus according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein in an orthogonal plane (Plane of face of window orthogonal to horizontal rightward direction in Figs. 1A-1E; Dribinski) orthogonal to the irradiation direction (Horizontal direction toward the right in Figs. 1A-1E; Dribinski) of the laser (“light source 101 can include a laser”, [0051]; Dribinski), when a direction (Direction parallel to arrow labelled x in Fig. 11 of Sakamoto) in which the pair of electrodes (electrode pair 113 including a cathode and an anode, Fig. 6; Electrode pairs 113 of first embodiment are equivalent to electrode pairs 213 of second embodiment.; Sakamoto) face each other is defined as a height direction (“x direction” [0039]), and a direction orthogonal (Direction that would point into the page in Fig. 11 of Sakamoto) to the height direction is defined as a width direction (Direction that would point into the page in Fig. 11 of Sakamoto), in the shield material (Leftmost side of housing 107 in Fig. 1A which is equivalent to “exemplary housings that could implement housing 107” in Figs. 1C, 1D, 1E; Dribinski),… a beam diameter (“beam diameter”, [0055]; Dribinski) of the laser, and smaller than the length of the electro-optical element in a height direction (Figs. 1C-1E show windows having a smaller diameter and thus height than the height of central rectangular box (without 100W heater included)).
Modified Sakamoto does not teach a length of the opening in the height direction is larger than… and smaller than the length of the electro-optical element in a height direction, and a length between the opening and the cushioning material is 1 mm or more or 10% or more of the beam diameter, whichever is smaller.
Isomet teaches a length (Length along X (horizontal) axis of dashed elongate shape indicated as “cover aperture” in figure on pg. 3 under “1: Beam Height and Position”) of the opening (see mapping to Dribinski) in the height direction (see mapping to Sakamoto) is larger than (Figure shows a circular white Laser Beam with a dimension along X axis smaller than that of Cover Aperture opening)… and smaller than the length (Length of dashed cover aperture is shorter than length of solid outline of AO crystal along active aperture center line of X axis) of the electro-optical element (see mapping to Sakamoto) in a height direction (see mapping to “a height direction” of Sakamoto above in claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic material of Dribinski to include a cooling unit. Dribinski, Sakamoto, Draper, and Isomet are analogous arts because they all relate to light interaction with optical crystals. Dribinski teaches a housing for an optical crystal with a window. Sakamoto teaches an optical crystal. Draper teaches an optical crystal. Isomet teaches dimensions of a cover aperture disposed over an optical crystal. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide an opening with certain dimensions. By doing so, one would be able to prevent beam clipping and ensure a beam is fully incident on an optical crystal.
Modified Dribinski does not explicitly teach and a length between the opening and the cushioning material is 1 mm or more or 10% or more of the beam diameter, whichever is smaller. However, Dribinski teaches a housing (housing 107, Figs. 1A-1E) including the opening (Each window in Figs. 1C-1E; Dribinski) wherein “in one embodiment, housing 107 is preferably smaller, rather than larger” and “in other embodiments, housing 107 may be a larger structure including crystal 103 and other components of a laser system” [0050] and a crystal. Sakamoto teaches the cushioning material (carbon sheets 221, 222, Fig. 11) wherein “carbon sheet[s] 221 is disposed between an electro-optical material 201…” [0080]. The carbon sheets are construed as adjacent to the electro-optical material 201. Given that the housing of Dribinski has an adjustable size relative to a crystal and the electro-optical material 201 of Sakamoto may be a KTN crystal and contacts a cushioning material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust housing dimensions, including the dimensions of an opening, to create a distance of 1mm or more or 10% of the beam diameter. By doing so, one would be able to “protect the crystal from impurities during standard operation”, as identified by Dribinski ([0021]).
Regarding claim 5, Dribinski, Sakamoto, Draper, and Isomet teach the laser processing apparatus according to claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein a length (Length along Y (vertical) axis of dashed elongate shape indicated as “cover aperture” in figure on pg. 3 under “1: Beam Height and Position”; Isomet) of the opening (Each window in Figs. 1C-1E; Dribinski) in the width direction (Horizontal direction of Fig. 1 equivalent to direction into the page of Fig. 5; Draper) is larger than the beam diameter (“beam diameter”, [0055]; Dribinski) of the laser (“light source 101 can include a laser”, [0051]; Dribinski) and equal to or less (Length of cover aperture in Y direction is less than length of solid lines of AO crystal in Y direction in figure on pg. 3; Isomet) than a length (Length of “CLBO crystal” in Fig. 1E of Dribinski) of the electro-optical element (crystal 103, Fig. 1A; Dribinski) in the width direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Deri et al. (US 20120105931 A1) discloses an electro-optic device with substrate coatings and crystal face cooling. Uchikawa et al. (US 20080043319 A1) discloses a scanning electro-optic element. Akage et al. (US 12085832 B2) discloses an electro-optic crystal made of KTN.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON HELFERTY whose telephone number is (571)272-1465. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, 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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 Chung, K. K., Fechler, N., Patrini, M., Galinetto, P., Comoretto, D., & Antonietti, M. (2015). High definition conductive carbon films from solution processing of nitrogen-containing oligomers. Carbon, 94, 1044–1051. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2015.07.080>
2 ThorLabs. Wollaston Prisms. Date Archived: 9/21/2017. <https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=917>
3 Isomet Corp. Maximizing AO Diffraction efficiency. Date published: Nov 2006. < https://isomet.com/App-Manual_pdf/Maximizing%20DE.pdf>