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
Applicant's amendment filed on 4/28/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 48 have been amended. Claims 18-19 and 39 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1-17, 20-38, and 40-48 are still pending in this application, with Claims 1 and 47-48 being independent.
The objections to the Drawings have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejections of Claims 1, 39, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejection of Claim 46 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 46 was amended to recite “the laser apparatus comprises a laser weapon” in line 2 of the claim, however the claim has the incorrect status identifier “original”, rather than being labeled “currently amended”, and none of the changes are indicated with clear markings in the text of the claim by underlining the added subject matter and crossing out or enclosing in brackets all subject matter being deleted from the claim, in the manner required by 37 CFR 1.121(c). See MPEP 714(I)(C). Since the amendment appears to be bona fide, in the interest of compact prosecution, this has not been treated as a non-compliant amendment and the amendment has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/28/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-48 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1-48 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “the firing signal representative of a duration of the filing signal” in line 15 of the claim (emphasis added). The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --the firing signal representative of a duration of the firing . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17, 20-38, and 40-46 are 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 1, the limitation “a signal is received from a settings and display” in line 10 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what specific structure or component is meant by “a settings and display”, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has assumed that this was intended to be written as a “settings and display circuit”, similar to the language originally recited in Claim 1 prior to the amendment, and so the Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --a signal is received from a settings and display circuit-- or similar language for more clarity.
Claims 2-17, 24-38, and 40-46 are rejected due to their dependence on indefinite Claim 1.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the second power source" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since this limitation was previously defined in Claim 19 which was cancelled in the amendment. Additionally, Claim 20 still depends on cancelled Claim 19, which further renders the claim indefinite. Claims 21-23 are likewise rejected as indefinite because they also depend on Claim 20 and therefore on cancelled Claim 19.
The Examiner respectfully suggests cancelling Claims 20-23 since they each depend on a cancelled Claim and cannot be amended to depend on Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17, 24-38, and 40-46 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 47-48 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the Prior Art taken as a whole fails to specifically disclose or suggest, in combination, “A laser apparatus comprising a power switch component configured to power on the laser apparatus; a settings interface component configured to allow i. a change to one or more settings or ii. a change to one or more configurations of the laser apparatus; a data storage component configured to store laser apparatus information; a display component in communication with the data storage component and configured to display i. a current setting or ii. a state of the laser apparatus; a display and feedback component configured to read at least one current setting when a signal is received from a settings and display circuit; a trigger mechanism component configured to allow an activation of the laser apparatus so as to energize the laser apparatus to create a generated laser beam; a firing circuit component configured to receive an electrical activation signal from the trigger mechanism component and generate a firing signal based in part on this electrical activation signal and the firing signal representative of a duration of the firing signal; a power transfer circuit component configured to receive the firing signal from the firing circuit component, based in part on the firing signal, the power transfer circuit component transfers power to a modulatable laser beam generation component; at least one power source component configured to provide power to the laser beam generation component, the laser beam generation component generating the generated laser beam; and an output optics component configured to receive the generated laser beam generated by the laser beam generation component and condition the generated laser beam” (emphasis added).
Although laser apparatuses are known, as evidenced by the Prior Art already of record, no Prior Art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all the features of Applicant’s invention, in particular the above limitations in combination with the remaining features of the claim, and there would be no motivation, absent the Applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the references in the manner distinctly and specifically called for in the combination as claimed in amended Claim 1.
Claims 2-17, 24-38, and 40-46 depend on Claim 1.
Regarding claim 47, the claim is allowable for the same reasons discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Regarding claim 48, the claim is allowable for the same reasons discussed above with regards to Claims 1 and 47.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (US 2022/0042774), Conemac (US 9,303,958), Lowell et al. (US 7,784,390), and Marshall (US 3,898,747) all disclose laser apparatuses comprising firing circuit components activated by a trigger mechanism component to power a power transfer circuit component and generate a laser beam.
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 WILLIAM N HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00AM- 5:00PM EST, Alternate Fridays.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/WILLIAM N HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875