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
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 1, and 5-11. New claims 12-20 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are respectfully found not persuasive.
Regarding the remarks made on page 9 of the Remarks filed 12/04/2025 that the proposed combination is improper as it would require a fundamental reconstruction of Wang’s device and is not supported by a valid motivation to combine:
Examiner notes the language of “a partially reflective element” can be understood to mean a single element, but the following language of “at an opposite end of the first external resonator and an opposite end of the second external resonator…” can also be understood to mean that the claim language can be interpreted as limiting the structure to include a partially reflective element at both an opposite end of a first external resonator and an opposite end of a second external resonator in which the first and second external resonators do not share a single partially reflective element. The claim language does not limit solely a “single, common partially reflective element shared by both resonators” as stated on page 9 of the remarks filed on 12/04/2025.
Therefore, a further construction of a common shared partially reflective element is not needed in Wangs device, and a teaching or motivation from Konno to perform this reconstruction is also not needed as recited on pages 9 and 10 of the remarks filed 12/04/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the position changer comprises a glass substrate on an optical path of the first beam group and a mechanism to rotate the glass substrate “ as described in new claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Regarding claim 17, Examiner notes line 2 of claim 17 reads the optional limitation of “at least one of” followed by “the first laser element and the second laser element is a semiconductor laser bar”. The use of “at least one of” followed by the use of first laser element and second laser element raises confusion on which of (or both) the first and second laser elements must be semiconductor laser bars in order to meet the limitations of the claim.
For the purposes of examination in the instant application, the interpretation of claim 17 is understood to be “wherein the first laser element and the second laser element are semiconductor laser bars” as shown in prior art rejection of claim 17 below.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang) (CN 102868089 A) in view of Konno et al. (hereinafter Konno) (JP 2014216361 A) (Examiner notes attached machine translations of Wang and Konno will be used for the claim mapping of each respective reference for the remainder of the Office Action.)
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses in Fig. 4,
A laser system [Fig. 4] (Para. [46]) comprising:
first laser element [N1 to NN] (Para. [46]) to emit a first beam group [λ1 to λM from N1 to NN] (Para. [46]), the first beam group being one or a plurality of beams (Para. [46]), and being at one end of a first external resonator to cause the first beam group [λ1 to λM from N1 to NN] to resonate (Paras. [36,46]);
a second laser element [N1’ to NN’] (Para. [46]) to emit a second beam group [λ1 to λM from N1’ to NN’], the second beam group being one or a plurality of beams (Para. [46]), and being at one end of a second external resonator to cause the second beam group to resonate [λ1 to λM from N1’ to NN’] (Paras. [36,46]);
a diffractive optical element [3] (Para. [36]):
to which the first beam group [λ1 to λM from N1 to NN] and the second beam group [λ1 to λM from N1’ to NN’] enter in such a manner that positive and negative angles of incidence of each beam of the first beam group [λ1 to λM from N1 to NN] and each beam of the second beam group [λ1 to λM from N1’ to NN’] are opposite to each other [beam groups opposite angles across dotted line Fig. 4]; and
from which a first beam [8N] being the converged first beam group [λ1 to λM from N1 to NN], and a second beam [8N’] being the converged second beam group [λ1 to λM from N1’ to NN’], are emitted (Para. [46]);
a partially reflective element [4’] (Paras. [25,46]) at an opposite end of the first external resonator [between 4’ and N1 to NN] and an opposite end of the second external resonator [between 4’ and N1’ to NN’] (Para. [46]), to reflect a part of the first beam [8N] and a part of the second beam [8N’], and to transmit a remainder of the first beam and a remainder of the second beam (Paras. [25,46]);
Wang fails to disclose,
a beam deflection element to deflect the second beam emitted from the diffractive optical element toward the partially reflective element.
Konno discloses in Fig. 9,
a beam deflection element [18a] (Para. [0093]) to deflect a beam emitted from a diffractive optical element [5] (Para. [0092]) toward a partially reflective element [6d] (Para. [0084]) through a collimating lens [14f] (Para. [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the beam deflection element reflecting the beams from a diffraction grating through a collimating lens to a partially reflecting mirror as disclosed in Konno with the first and second beams in the device of Wang for the purpose of reducing the optical path difference and aligning the optical axes of the respective light beams in parallel. (Konno Paras. [0079 and 0094])
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Konno as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Wang Fig. 4,
wherein the first beam [8N] is a plus primary diffracted light of the first beam group [λ1 to λM from N1 to NN], and the second beam [8N’] is a minus primary diffracted light of the second beam group
See respective angles of [8N] and [8N’] to the first and second beam groups in relation to the dotted line in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Konno as applied to claim 1 above further discloses,
wherein an incident plane of the partially reflective element [4’ Wang Fig. 4] to which the first beam [8N Wang Fig. 4] and the second beam [8N’ Wang Fig. 4] enter is a single plane
Examiner notes that when the deflection element and collimating lens of Konno Fig. 9 are implanted into the device of Wang, the beams are parallel to each other and reaching the partially reflective element at a single plane.
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Konno as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Wang Fig. 4,
a plurality of the first laser elements [N1 to NN] (Para. [46]); and
a plurality of the second laser elements [N1’ to NN’] (Para. [46]), wherein
the diffractive optical element [3] (Para. [46]):
is to converge the first beam group [λ1 to λM from N1 to NN] (Para. [46]), emitted from each of the first laser elements [N1 to NN], to the first beam [8N] (Paras. [37,46]); and
is to converge the second beam group [λ1 to λM from N1’ to NN’] (Para. [46]), emitted from each of the second laser elements [N1’ to NN’], to the second beam [8N’] (Para. [46])
Regarding claim 17, Wang in view of Konno as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Wang Fig. 4,
at least one of the first laser element [N1 to NN] (Para. [46]) and the second laser element [N1’ to NN’] (Para. [46]) is a semiconductor laser bar (Para. [21]).
Regarding claim 18, Wang in view of Konno as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Wang Fig. 4,
a first lens [21,2N] (Para. [34]) in an optical path of the first beam group [λ1 to λM from N1 to NN] (Para. [37]) between the first laser element [N1 to NN] and the diffractive optical element [3] (Para. [36]), the first lens [21,2N] (Para. [34]) to collimate each beam of the first beam group [λ1 to λM from N1 to NN] (Paras. [34,46]).
Regarding claim 19, Wang in view of Konno as applied to claim 18 above further discloses in Wang Fig. 4,
a second lens [21’,2N’] (Para. [34]) in an optical path of the second beam group [λ1 to λM from N1’ to NN’] (Para. [37]) between the second laser element [N1’ to NN’] (Para. [37]) and the diffractive optical element [3] (Para. [36]), the second lens [21’,2N’] (Para. [34]) to collimate each beam of the second beam group [λ1 to λM from N1’ to NN’] (Paras. [34,46]).
Regarding claim 20, Wang in view of Konno as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Wang Fig. 4,
the diffractive optical element [3] is a transmission grating (Paras. [24,25,36]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Konno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lang et al. (hereinafter Lang) (US 20040165639 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Konno discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
Wherein a reflectance of the partially reflective element for the first beam and the second beam is five or more times a reflectance of the diffractive optical element for the first beam group and the second beam group
Lang discloses,
a diffractive optical element with a reflectivity value of 1-5% (Para. [0064])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the reflectivity of the grating of Lang into the grating of Wang in view of Konno for the purpose of ensuring high lasing efficiency. (Lang Para. [0064])
Examiner notes that paragraph [25] of Wang discloses that the external cavity mirror has a reflectivity of 5%-15%. Therefore, when the grating reflectivity of Lang is implemented into the diffractive optical element of Wang in view of Konno, the partially reflective element of Wang in view of Konno has a reflectance value of at least 5 times more than a reflectance of the diffractive optical element of Lang.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Konno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (hereinafter Kobayashi) (US 20200028332 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wong in view of Konno discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
a reduction optical system:
to reduce a diameter of the first beam traveling from the diffractive optical element to the partially reflective element and a diameter of the second beam traveling from the diffractive optical element to the partially reflective element; and
to reduce a distance between a principal ray of the first beam traveling from the diffractive optical element to the partially reflective element and a principal ray of the second beam traveling from the diffractive optical element to the partially reflective element.
Kobayashi discloses in Fig. 12,
a reduction optical system [4] (Para. [0072]):
to reduce a diameter of a beam [6] (Para. [0072]) traveling from a diffractive optical element [3] (Para. [0072]) to a partially reflective element [5] (Para. [0072])
to reduce a distance between a principal ray [6a] (Para. [0063]) of the beam traveling from the diffractive optical element [3] to the partially reflective element [5] (shown with focusing of rays [6] through [41 and 42]) (Para. [0072])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the reduction optical system of Kobayashi into the modified device of Wong in view of Konno for the purpose of obtaining good beam quality without increasing the external resonator optical path. (Kobayashi Para. [0071])
Examiner notes when the reduction optical system of Kobayashi including a first lens [41] and a second lens [42] sharing the same structure as the claimed applications reduction optical system of [901 and 902] is implemented into the device of Wong in view of Konno, the reduction optical system will provide the function of reducing a distance a diameter of the first and second beams traveling towards the partially reflective element and reducing the distance between the principal rays of the first and second beams travelling to the partially reflective element with the convex lens [41] and concave lens [42] of Kobayashi. (Kobayashi Para. [0072])
Regarding claim 13, Wong in view of Konno and Kobayashi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 5 above and further discloses in Kobayashi Fig. 12,
wherein:
the reduction optical system [4] (Para. [0072]) comprises a first lens [41] and a second lens [42] (Para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 6, Wong in view of Konno discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
further comprising a beam rotation element to rotate each beam of the first beam group and each beam of the second beam group around a principal ray of the beam.
Kobayashi discloses in Fig. 10,
a beam rotation element [7] (Para. [0060]) adapted to rotate each beam of a beam group around a principal ray of the beam (Para. [0060])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the beam rotation element of Kobayashi into each laser element of Wang in view of Konno for the purpose of switching the slow axis direction and the fast axis direction of the laser beam. (Kobayashi Para. [0060])
Regarding claim 15, Wang in view of Konno and Kobayashi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 6 above and further discloses in Kobayashi Fig. 10,
wherein:
the beam rotation element [7] comprises a lens array [73] (Para. [0060]).
Regarding claim 16, Wang in view of Konno and Kobayashi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 15 above and further discloses in Kobayashi Fig. 10,
wherein:
the lens array [73] (Para. [0060]) comprises a plurality of cylindrical faces (Para. [0061]) on a first face [73a] and an opposite face [73b] (Para. [0060])thereof.
Claim 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Konno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamura (US 5982794 A).
Regarding claim 8, Wong in view of Konno discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose
further comprising a position changer to change a relative position of the first beam and the second beam in a plane including a principal ray of the first beam and a principal ray of the second beam.
Tamura discloses in Fig. 1,
a moving mechanism [12] which includes an LD unit [4] fixed thereto (Col. 2, lines 45-50)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the moving mechanism of Tamura onto the laser element of Wong in view of Konno for the purpose of allowing movement of a light unit in a parallel direction. (Col. 2, lines 45-50)
Regarding claim 9, Wong in view of Konno and Tamura as applied to claim 8 above further discloses in Tamura Fig. 1,
wherein the position changer [12] is a mechanism to move the first laser element relative to the second laser element. (Col. 2, lines 45-50 Tamura)
Examiner notes that when the moving mechanism of Tamura is implemented into the device of Wong in view of Konno, the first laser element can be moved in the direction relative to the second laser element.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Konno and Tamura as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sacher (US 20210226419 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wong in view of Konno and Tamura discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the position changer is a mechanism to rotate the beam deflection element.
Sacher discloses in Fig. 1,
a mechanism [16] to rotate a beam deflection element [12] (Paras. [0050,0051])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the rotation mechanism of Sacher into the beam deflection element of the modified device of Wong for the purpose of allowing control the diffraction parameters. (Sacher Para. [0059])
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Konno and Tamura as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Tayebati et al. (hereinafter Tayebati) (US 20150331245 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Wong in view of Konno and Tamura discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 8 above but fails to disclose,
wherein:
the position changer comprises a glass substrate on an optical path of the first beam group and a mechanism to rotate the glass substrate.
Tayebati discloses in Figs 8A and 8B,
a glass substrate [820] (Paras. [0047,0048]) on an optical path of an output beam [815] and a mechanism to rotate the glass substrate [820] (Para. [0048])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the glass rotatable optical element of Tayebati in the optical bath of the first beam group of the modified device of Wong for the purpose of allowing manual and automated repositioning of the beams. (Tayebati Para. [0047])
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Konno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (hereinafter Yamada) (US 20010005387 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wong in view of Konno discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
a shield between an optical path of the first beam and an optical path of the second beam.
Yamada discloses in Fig. 5,
Shielding plates [22a,22b] (Para. [0122]) between an optical path of a first beam [bottom beam from 21] and a second beam [right beam of 21] (Para. [0122-0124])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the shields of Yamada between the optical paths of the first and second beams of the modified device of Wong for the purpose of shielding the sides of each light beam. (Yamada Para. [0123])
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Konno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jhung et al. (hereinafter Jhung) (US 20090185586 A1) and Katsura et al. (hereinafter Katsura) (US 20160329685 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Konno discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Wang Fig. 4,
wherein:
the first beam [8N] (Para. [0037]) propagates from the diffractive optical element [3] toward the partially reflective element [4’] (Paras. [0036,0037]),
Wang in view of Konno fails to disclose,
the laser system further includes another beam deflection element,
the first beam and the second beam become parallel to each other when said beam deflection element deflects the second beam emitted from the diffractive optical element toward the partially reflective element, and
said another beam deflection element in an optical path of the first beam group between the first laser element and the diffractive optical element, said another beam deflection element deflects the first beam group toward the diffractive optical element.
Jhung discloses in Fig. 18,
a beam deflection element [451] (Para. [0095])
the beam deflection element [451] in an optical path of a first beam group [beams from left side under arrow Fig. 18] (Para. [0095]) before a diffractive optical element [452] (Para. [0095]), the beam deflection element [451] deflecting the first beam group toward the diffractive optical element [452] (See Fig. 18) (Para. [0095])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the beam deflection element of Jhung before the diffractive optical element of Wong in view of Konno for the purpose of aligning the light path at a desired angle. (Jhung Paras. [0068,0095])
Wong in view of Konno and Jhung fails to disclose,
the first beam and the second beam become parallel to each other when said beam deflection element deflects the second beam emitted from the diffractive optical element toward the partially reflective element
Katsura discloses in Fig. 7,
a first beam [beams from 1a,1b] (Para. [0053]) and second beam [beams from 1c, 1d] (Para. [0053]) parallel to each other at the point of contact to a partially reflective element [7] (Paras. [0052,0055,0056])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the parallel incidence structure to a partially reflective element as shown in Katsura with the first and second beams of the modified device of Wong for the purpose of allowing the module to share a single partially refractive element, suppressing cost. (Katsura Paras. [0052,0054])
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner particularly notes (US 20070160325 A1) which discloses the use of an adjustable reflector that receives light from a transmission grating.
Further, Examiner notes (US 20160344162 A1) which discloses the use of two mirrors to substantially match the emission light paths of two separate lasers. See PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828