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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to Claims 1,3,6, in the submission filed 12/23/2025 are acknowledged and accepted.
Cancellation of Claims 8,9,12, 13,14,17, 18,19, is acknowledged and accepted.
In view of the amendments to the Claims, rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Pending Claims are 1,3-7,10-11,15-16,20-21. Claim 2 was canceled previously.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to claims 1,3-7,10-11,15-16,20-21, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kaertner et al.
Claims 1,3-7,10-11,15-16,20-21 are rejected as follows.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-4,6-7,10-11,15-16,20-21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaertner et al (US 6,590,925 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kaertner teaches (fig 4,5, embodiment of fig 5 is used, however, some of the labels are relevant to fig 5 also) a delay mirror (first double-chirped mirror 116, col 6, lines 60-61) comprising:
a base (SiO2 substrate 64, col 5, lines 32-35); and
an optical multilayer film (alternating high and low refractive index layers 52, 54, col 5, lines 32-37) formed on a surface of the base (SiO2 substrate 64, col 5, lines 32-35) (“The alternating layer structure of first double-chirped mirror 116 is essentially identical to double-chirped mirror 50, described above, i.e., mirror 116 has about 60 alternating layers”, col 7, lines 11-14), wherein
a value of a group delay (GD in fs, fig 7C) in a first wavelength band (about 570nm, fig 7C) according to the optical multilayer film (alternating high and low refractive index layers 52, 54, col 5, lines 32-37) is different from a value of the group delay (GD in fs, fig 7C) in a second wavelength band (1030nm, fig 7C) according to the optical multilayer film (GD is different for 570nm and 1030nm in fig 7C),
wherein a value of a group delay dispersion (GDD in fs2 in fig 7D) in the first wavelength band (about 570nm, fig 7D)according to the optical multilayer film (alternating high and low refractive index layers 52, 54, col 5, lines 32-37) and a value of the group delay dispersion (GDD in fs2 in fig 7D) in the second wavelength band (1030nm, fig 7D) according to the optical multilayer film are each not less than -150 fs2 and not greater than 100 fs2, (value of GDD at about 570nm and at 1030nm is between -150 to 100 as in fig 7D) and
wherein out of the first wavelength band (about 570nm, fig 7C,7D) and the second wavelength band (1030nm, fig 7C,7D), (i) one is a 400 nm band and another is an 800 nm band, or (ii) one is a 570 nm band and another is a 1030nm band.
However, Kaertner does not teach the first wavelength band is 515 nm and group delay dispersion is between -100 to 100 fs2
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of wavelength bands, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0027] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 570nm. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kaertner to have the claimed range of first wavelength band of 515nm for the purposes of using wavelengths for desired special applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of GDD, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0030] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses -150 to 100 fs2. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kaertner to have the claimed range of GDD between -100 to 100 fs2 for the purposes of using delay mirrors with reduced amplitude of oscillations in GDD for better performance ("oscillations in group delay that limit performance of double-chirped mirrors” col 8, lines 17-19).
Regarding Claim 3, Kaertner teaches (fig 4,5, embodiment of fig 5 is used, however, some of the labels are relevant to fig 5 also) a delay mirror (first double-chirped mirror 116, col 6, lines 60-61) comprising:
a base (SiO2 substrate 64, col 5, lines 32-35); and
an optical multilayer film (alternating high and low refractive index layers 52, 54, col 5, lines 32-37) formed on a surface of the base (SiO2 substrate 64, col 5, lines 32-35) (“The alternating layer structure of first double-chirped mirror 116 is essentially identical to double-chirped mirror 50, described above, i.e., mirror 116 has about 60 alternating layers”, col 7, lines 11-14), wherein
a value of a group delay (GD in fs, fig 7C) in a first wavelength band (about 570nm, fig 7C) according to the optical multilayer film (alternating high and low refractive index layers 52, 54, col 5, lines 32-37) is different from a value of the group delay (GD in fs, fig 7C) in a second wavelength band (1030nm, fig 7C) according to the optical multilayer film (GD is different for 570nm and 1030nm in fig 7C),
wherein a value of a group delay dispersion (GDD in fs2 in fig 7D) in the first wavelength band (about 570nm, fig 7D) according to the optical multilayer film (alternating high and low refractive index layers 52, 54, col 5, lines 32-37) and a value of the group delay dispersion (GDD in fs2 in fig 7D) in the second wavelength band (1030nm, fig 7D) according to the optical multilayer film are each between -100 to100, (value of GDD at about 570nm and at 1030nm is between -150 to 100 as in fig 7D); and
wherein out of the first wavelength band (about 570nm, fig 7C,7D) and the second wavelength band (1030nm, fig 7C,7D), (i) one is a 400 nm band and another is an 800 nm band, or (ii) one is a 570 nm band and another is a 1030nm band.
However, Kaertner does not teach the first wavelength band is 515 nm and group delay dispersion is negative or <0.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of wavelength bands, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0027] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 570nm. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kaertner to have the claimed range of first wavelength band of 515nm for the purposes of using wavelengths for desired special applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of GDD, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0030] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses -150 to 100 fs2. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kaertner to have the claimed range of GDD being negative or <0 fs2 for the purposes of using delay mirrors with negative dispersion which are suited for various applications in solid state apparatus.
Regarding Claim 4, Kaertner teaches the delay mirror according to claim 3,
wherein the value of the group delay dispersion (GDD in fs2 in fig 7D) in the first wavelength band (about 570nm, fig 7C,7D) is a value that realizes dispersion compensation of a first optical pulse (“generation of ultra-short pulse”, col 6, lines 59-65) according to the first wavelength band (about 570nm, fig 7C,7D) through a predetermined number of times of reflection, and
the value of the group delay dispersion (GDD in fs2 in fig 7D) in the second wavelength band (1030nm, fig 7D) is a value that realizes dispersion compensation of a second optical pulse (“generation of ultra-short pulse”, col 6, lines 59-65) according to the second wavelength band (1030nm, fig 7D) through a predetermined number of times of reflection. (“In addition, the reflection includes a negative dispersion, since the longer wavelengths experience more group delay than the shorter wavelengths. This dispersion compensates for the positive dispersion produced by other cavity components in the laser system, such as the laser crystal”, col 1, lines 44-49).
Regarding Claim 6, Kaertner teaches (fig 4,5, embodiment of fig 5 is used, however, some of the labels are relevant to fig 5 also) a delay mirror (first double-chirped mirror 116, col 6, lines 60-61) comprising:
a base (SiO2 substrate 64, col 5, lines 32-35); and
an optical multilayer film (alternating high and low refractive index layers 52, 54, col 5, lines 32-37) formed on a surface of the base (SiO2 substrate 64, col 5, lines 32-35) (“The alternating layer structure of first double-chirped mirror 116 is essentially identical to double-chirped mirror 50, described above, i.e., mirror 116 has about 60 alternating layers”, col 7, lines 11-14), wherein
a value of a group delay (GD in fs, fig 7C) in a first wavelength band (about 570nm, fig 7C) according to the optical multilayer film (alternating high and low refractive index layers 52, 54, col 5, lines 32-37) is different from a value of the group delay (GD in fs, fig 7C) in a second wavelength band (1030nm, fig 7C) according to the optical multilayer film (GD is different for 570nm and 1030nm in fig 7C),
wherein a value of a group delay dispersion (GDD in fs2 in fig 7D) in the first wavelength band (about 570nm, fig 7D) according to the optical multilayer film (alternating high and low refractive index layers 52, 54, col 5, lines 32-37) and a value of the group delay dispersion (GDD in fs2 in fig 7D) in the second wavelength band (1030nm, fig 7D) according to the optical multilayer film are each between -100 to100, (value of GDD at about 570nm and at 1030nm is between -150 to 100 as in fig 7D); and
wherein out of the first wavelength band (about 570nm, fig 7C,7D) and the second wavelength band (1030nm, fig 7C,7D), (i) one is a 400 nm band and another is an 800 nm band, or (ii) one is a 570 nm band and another is a 1030nm band.
However, Kaertner does not teach the first wavelength band is 515 nm and group delay dispersion is positive or >0.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of wavelength bands, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0027] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 570nm. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kaertner to have the claimed range of first wavelength band of 515nm for the purposes of using wavelengths for desired special applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of GDD, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0030] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses -150 to 100 fs2. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kaertner to have the claimed range of GDD being positive or >0 fs2 for the purposes of using delay mirrors with negative dispersion which are suited for various applications in solid state apparatus.
Regarding Claim 7, Kaertner teaches the delay mirror according to claim 1,
a value of group delay dispersion (GDD) is positive and negative for different wavelength bands according to the optical multilayer film in fig 7D.
However, Kaertner does not teach
wherein out of a value of a group delay dispersion in the first wavelength band according to the optical multilayer film and a value of a group delay dispersion in the second wavelength band according to the optical multilayer film, one is a positive value and another is a negative value.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of GDD, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0030] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses -150 to 100 fs2 for the first and second wavelength bands. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kaertner to have the claimed range of GDD being positive or >0 fs2 and a negative value or <0 fs2 for the purposes of using delay mirrors with dispersions which compensate the system dispersions and are suited for various applications in solid state apparatus.
Regarding Claims 10, 15,20, Kaertner teaches a delay mirror system comprising:
the delay mirror (first double-chirped mirror 116, col 6, lines 60-61) according to claims 1,3,6;
Kaertner discloses all of the subject matter claimed, note the above explanation, except for explicitly stating that at least one of the pair of delay (chirped dichroic) mirrors includes a movement mechanism configured to move at least one of the pair of delay (chirped dichroic) mirrors with respect to the another one of the pair of delay (chirped dichroic) mirrors such that a number of times of reflection at the delay (chirped dichroic) mirror is changed.
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known to use and employed a typical movement mechanism in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of adjusting a number of reflections between a pair of mirrors in order to increase or decrease a signal delay of a system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one or both of the delay (chirped dichroic) mirrors of Kaertner et al to include a typical movement mechanism, as commonly used and employed in the art, in order to adjust a number a reflections between the pair of delay (chirped dichroic) mirrors so as increase or decrease a signal delay of the system.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one or both of the delay (chirped dichroic) mirrors of Kaertner et al to include an adjustable mechanism in order to adjust a number a reflections between the pair of delay (chirped dichroic) mirrors so as increase or decrease a signal delay of the system, s since it has been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, Note; In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding Claims 11,16,21, Kaertner teaches the delay mirror system according to claims 10,3,6,
comprising a pair of the delay mirrors (mirrors 116,118, col 6, lines 59-61, Kaertner).
Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaertner et al (US 6,590,925 B1) in view of Krausz et al (US 2008/0049301 A1, of record).
Regarding Claim 5, Kaertner teaches delay mirror according to claim 4,
wherein the first optical pulse and the second optical pulse (“generation of ultra-short pulse”, col 6, lines 59-65 for the two wavelength bands) are those having passed through an optical crystal (laser crystal, Ti: Sapphire crystal 114, col 6, lines 59-60).
However, Kaertner does not teach
a nonlinear optical crystal.
Kaertner and Krausz are related as delay mirrors.
Krausz teaches (fig 2)
a nonlinear optical crystal (“The non-linear optical medium 4 may comprise a periodically poled magnesium oxide-doped lithium niobate (PP--MgO:LN) crystal”, col 5, lines 40-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crystal of Kaertner to include the nonlinear crystal of Krausz for the purpose of generating ultrashort laser pulses with controlled temporal resolution of the carrier-envelope offset phase (col 1, lines 20-24).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 1/23/2026