DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 32-34, 37 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,246,711 (Stultz) in view of US 4,860,295 (Byer).
For claim 32, Stultz teaches a laser amplifier device (fig. 1/1a) comprising:
an amplification element comprising a solid-state gain medium (fig. 1/1a, 16, col. 2, l.49); said amplification element comprising a first main face (fig. 1/1a, left side of 16) and a second main face (fig. 1/1a, right side 0f 16) separated from each other by a distance (.5 mm, col. 2, l. 61-62) which is at least ten times smaller than the lateral dimensions of said first and a second main faces (10 mm length, col. 2, l. 58-59),
a solid-state heat spreader thermally connected to the first main face of the amplification element and substantially covering the surface of said first main face (fig. 1/1a, 12); the solid-state heat spreader being optically transparent to a pump light configured to optically excite the gain medium of the amplification element (col. 3, l. 37-45); said solid-state heat spreader being further in thermal contact with a heat sink (fig. 1/1a, 26, col. 2, l. 50),
a first reflector substantially covering and facing said first main face (fig. 1/1a, 12a) and a second reflector substantially covering and facing the second main face (fig. 1/1a, 14a); said reflectors being configured to reflect said pump light for at least a range of incidence angles (col. 3, l. 37-45, fig. 1/1a),
wherein the solid-state heat spreader and the first reflector are arranged such that when said pump light is directed towards the amplification element, the pump light passes through the solid-state heat spreader and through the first reflector (col. 2, l. 31-35 and col. 3, l. 38-42),
wherein the first and second reflectors are configured to produce multiple reflections of said pump light across the amplification element, between the first and second reflectors (col. 3, l. 38-41);
wherein said first reflector (fig. 1, 12a) is physically separated from the amplification element (fig. 1, 16).
Stultz does not teach first reflector (fig. 1, 12a) is physically separated from the solid-state heat spreader (fig. 1, 12). It is noted that for the combination with Byer, the solid state heat spreader is considered a cladding for the amplification element.
However, Byer teaches a first reflector (fig. 2, 18) is physically separated from the cladding (fig. 2, 14; col. 3, l. 33) around a gain medium (fig. 2, 12) in order to reflect pump light (fig. 2, 20; col. 5, l. 26-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reflector of Byer physically separated from the cladding as a simple substitution for the reflector of Stultz not physically separated from the cladding (i.e. solid state heat spreader) as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative means to reflect pump light to the gain medium. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
For claim 33, Stultz teaches herein the amplification element comprises a gain medium layer (fig. 1/1a, 16) sandwiched between two surrounding layers (fig. 1/1a, 12 and 14), the gain medium layer constituting the gain medium of the amplification element (col. 2, l. 62-63) and the surrounding layers being made from a transparent material approximately matching the index of refraction of the gain medium layer (col. 2, l. 19).
For claim 34, Stultz teaches The laser amplifier device according to The laser amplifier device according to wherein the gain medium layer has a thickness between 100 µm and 3 mm; preferably, between 200 µm and 300 µm (col. 2, l. 61-62, the preferable range does not limit the claim beyond the original range), and wherein each of the surrounding layers has a thickness between 200 µm and 1 mm, preferably between 200 µm and 300 µm (col. 2, measurements in l. 58-62 result in the claimed range, the preferable range does not limit the claim beyond the original range).
For claim 37, Stultz does not teach said solid-state heat spreader is made of a material comprising diamond or sapphire. However, the examiner previously took official notice that sapphire and diamond were well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be useful as heat spreaders. The applicant did not traverse. It is therefore, taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03 C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the well-known diamond or sapphire as a simple substitution for the heat spreader of Stultz in order to provide a heat spreader with high thermal conductivity as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative heat spreader material. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
For claim 41, Stultz does not teach the pump light comprises a collimated beam.
However, the examiner previously took official notice that collimation of pump light was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple pump light. The applicant did not traverse. It is therefore, taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03 C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a collimated beam with the pump light in order to couple the pump light.
Stultz teaches the amplifier device being oriented relative to the beam (collimated based on obviousness over well-known art) such as to provide a predetermined angle of entrance of the collimated beam into the amplification element (col. 2, 31-35);
wherein the second reflector makes a non-zero reflector angle relative to the first reflector (fig. 1, 1a) such that the multiple reflections across the amplification element occur at other angles of incidence different from the predetermined angle of entrance (col. 3, l. 37-42);
said first reflector comprising an angle-dependent optical coating having transmitting properties for the collimated beam at the predetermined angle of entrance and having reflective properties for the collimated beam at said other angles of incidence (col. 2, l. 42-44, AR coating).
While Stultz does not explicitly teach the angle-dependent optical coating, it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make AR coatings from dielectrics and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known dielectric as a suitable material for the AR coating.
Claims 35-36, 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,246,711 (Stultz) in view of US 4,860,295 (Byer) and US 5,761,233 (Bruesselbach).
For claim 35, Stultz teaches the gain medium layer comprises material and the surrounding layers comprise the same undoped material (col. 2, l. 18-22).
Stultz does not teach the material is ceramic or crystalline. However, Bruesselbach teach a similar device where the gain medium and surrounding layers are doped ceramic or crystalline (col. 6, l. 34-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the doped crystalline material of Bruesselbach as a simple substitution for the glass material of Stultz as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative material to use in the gain and surrounding area in order to form a laser. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
For claim 36, Bruesselbach further teaches the material of said gain medium layer comprises Yb-dopped YAG and, the material of the surrounding layers comprises undoped YAG (col. 6, l. 34-36).
For claim 42, Stultz teaches a system comprising a laser amplifier device (fig. 1/1a) comprising:
an amplification element comprising a solid-state gain medium (fig. 1/1a, 16, col. 2, l.49); said amplification element comprising a first main face (fig. 1/1a, left side of 16) and a second main face (fig. 1/1a, right side 0f 16) separated from each other by a distance (.5 mm, col. 2, l. 61-62) which is smaller than the lateral dimensions of said first and a second main faces (10 mm length, col. 2, l. 58-59),
a solid-state heat spreader thermally connected to the first main face of the amplification element and substantially covering the surface of said first main face (fig. 1/1a, 12); the solid-state heat spreader being optically transparent to a pump light configured to optically excite the gain medium of the amplification element (col. 3, l. 37-45); said solid-state heat spreader being further in thermal contact with a heat sink (fig. 1/1a, 26, col. 2, l. 50),
a first reflector substantially covering and facing said first main face (fig. 1/1a, 12a) and a second reflector substantially covering and facing the second main face (fig. 1/1a, 14a); said reflectors being configured to reflect said pump light for at least a range of incidence angles (col. 3, l. 37-45, fig. 1/1a),
wherein the solid-state heat spreader and the first reflector are arranged such that when said pump light is directed towards the amplification element, the pump light passes through the solid-state heat spreader and through the first reflector (col. 2, l. 31-35 and col. 3, l. 38-42),
wherein the first and second reflectors are configured to produce multiple reflections of said pump light across the amplification element, between the first and second reflectors (col. 3, l. 38-41);
wherein said first reflector (fig. 1, 12a) is physically separated from the amplification element (fig. 1, 16).
Stultz does not teach first reflector (fig. 1, 12a) is physically separated from the solid-state heat spreader (fig. 1, 12). It is noted that for the combination with Byer, the solid state heat spreader is considered a cladding for the amplification element.
However, Byer teaches a first reflector (fig. 2, 18) is physically separated from the cladding (fig. 2, 14; col. 3, l. 33) around a gain medium (fig. 2, 12) in order to reflect pump light (fig. 2, 20; col. 5, l. 26-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reflector of Byer physically separated from the cladding as a simple substitution for the reflector of Stultz not physically separated from the cladding (i.e. solid state heat spreader) as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative means to reflect pump light to the gain medium. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
Stultz further teaches the laser amplifier device further comprising a light source configured to generate pump light adapted to optically excite the gain medium of the amplification element (fig. 1/1a, 22).
Stultz does not teach the pump light substantially covering the surface of said first main face. However, Bruesselbach teaches a similar device where pump light (fig. 6, 104) substantially covering the surface of said first main face (fig. 6, 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the coverage taught by Bruesselbach in the device of the previous combination in order to pump the entire amplification element.
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,246,711 (Stultz) in view of US 4,860,295 (Byer) and US 2003/0160034 (Filgas).
For claim 38, Stultz does not teach the pump light comprises an array of locally spatially confined pump beams; and wherein the first reflector comprises an array of small apertures configured to allow the passage of said array of locally spatially confined pump beams into the amplification element.
However, Filgas does teach the pump light comprises an array of locally spatially confined pump beams (fig. 11b, 1100, [0192]); and wherein the first reflector comprises an array of small apertures (fig. 11b, 1102) configured to allow the passage of said array of locally spatially confined pump beams into the amplification element (fig. 11b, 1103 and 1105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the array and pumps and apertures Filgas as a simple substitution for the pump and slit of Stultz as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative pump/reflector configuration with the additional advantage of providing reflection between apertures. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
For claim 39, Filgas further teaches the first reflector comprises a substrate comprising an array of tap-holes defining said array of small apertures (fig. 11b, 1101), said substrate being coated on at least one side with a reflective coating (fig. 11b, 1102).
For claim 40, Filgas further teaches the first reflector comprises a transparent substrate (fig. 11b, top 1103) comprising a patterned reflective coating defining said array of small apertures (fig. 11b, 1102).
Claims 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,246,711 (Stultz) in view of US 4,860,295 (Byer), US 5,761,233 (Bruesselbach) and US 2003/0160034 (Filgas).
For claim 43, the previous combination does not teach the light source is configured to generate an array of locally spatially confined pump beams; wherein the first reflector comprises an array of small apertures configured to allow the passage of said array of locally spatially confined pump beams into the amplification element.
However, Filgas does teach the light source is configured to generate an array of locally spatially confined pump beams (fig. 11b, 1100, [0192]); and wherein the first reflector comprises an array of small apertures (fig. 11b, 1102) configured to allow the passage of said array of locally spatially confined pump beams into the amplification element (fig. 11b, 1103 and 1105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the array and pumps and apertures Filgas as a simple substitution for the pump and slit of Stultz as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative pump/reflector configuration with the additional advantage of providing reflection between apertures. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
For claim 44, Filgas teaches the light source comprises an array of lasers (fig. 11b, 100); and wherein each laser comprises an output face emitting one of the locally spatially confined pump beams (fig. 11b, bottom of 1100), each output face being aligned in front of each of said small apertures (fig. 11b).
The combination does not teach the array of lasers includes an array of optical fibers and the output faces are output faces of the optical fiber. However, the examiner previously took official notice the fiber coupled diode lasers and fiber lasers were well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The applicant did not traverse. It is therefore, taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03 C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a well-known fiber coupled diode lasers or fiber lasers as a simple substitution for the diode lasers of the previous combination with their output face in the same location as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative pump light source. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
For claim 45 and 46, Filgas teaches the locally spatially confined pump beams are passed through the small apertures (fig. 11b). The combination does not teach the light source comprises an array of micro-lenses generating the array of locally spatially confined pump beams, the array of micro-lenses being arranged to focus said locally spatially confined pump beams into said small apertures wherein the light source is configured to generate a collimated beam.
However, the examiner previously took official notice that micro-lenses generating an array of locally spatially confined pump beams, the array of micro-lenses being arranged to focus said locally spatially confined pump beams wherein the light source is configured to generate a collimated beam were well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The applicant did not traverse. It is therefore, taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03 C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use well-known micro-lenses generating an array of locally spatially confined pump beams, the array of micro-lenses being arranged to focus said locally spatially confined pump beams wherein the light source is configured to generate a collimated beam were well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to allow the pump laser array to be set back from the slotted reflector due to light collimation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 32 and 42 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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 contact the examiner at the above number.
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.
/Michael Carter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828