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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2022 and 12/12/2023 were filed on or after the filing date of this application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 subject matter of claims 5 and 8-11 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.
Claims 5-11 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.
Claim 5 recites “at least one laser diode unit configured to operate according to claim 1”. Claim 1 recites “a method for operating a pulsed diode-pumped solid-state laser.” Accordingly, claim 5 is indefinite, because it is unclear if applicant is attempting to claim that only the laser diode unit is operating as “a pulsed diode-pumped solid-state laser” or if the “diode-pumped solid-state laser system” is operating as “a method for operating a pulsed diode-pumped solid-state laser.” Additionally, it is unclear if “at least one laser diode unit” can operate according to “a method for operating a pulsed diode-pumped solid-state laser” without the “solid-state laser”.
For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret the claim as “at least one laser diode unit; and wherein the diode-pumped solid-state laser system is configured to operate according to claim 1.”
Claims 6-11 are indefinite at least based on their dependence from claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adams et al. (US20060018350A1)1, hereafter Adams.
Regarding claim 1, Adams discloses a method for operating a pulsed diode-pumped solid-state laser (Fig. 5; Abstract; [0083]-[0089]) comprising: providing a pump light source (Fig. 5 element 210; [0087]) for pumping a solid-state laser (Fig. 5 element 200; [0083]; [0087]), said pump light source comprising at least one laser diode unit configured for emitting a series of light pulses for pumping the solid-state laser ([0089]), modulating the series of light emission pulses of the at least one laser diode unit ([0093]) such that only the light pulses with a frequency close to or equal to a requested frequency setting of the solid-state laser are operated with a required pulse amplitude and/or a required pulse duration to trigger light emission of the solid-state laser (Fig. 2 elements Δt1 and Δt4; Fig. 7a element 308 in Δt1; [0093]), and such that any other light pulses emitted by the at least one laser diode unit are operated to not trigger light emission of the solid-state laser (Fig. 2 element Δt3; Fig. 7a element 308 in Δt3; [0093]).
Regarding claim 4, Adams further discloses during operation of the pulsed diode-pumped solid-state laser, an electrical current provided to drive the at least one laser diode unit is non-zero at all times (Fig. 2 shows the diode current above zero during all times when operating).
Regarding claim 5, Adams further discloses a diode-pumped solid-state laser system (Fig. 5; Abstract; [0083]-[0089]) comprising: a solid-state laser (Fig. 5 element 200; [0083]-[0084]), at least one laser diode unit (Fig. 5 element 210; [0089]) configured to operate according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, Adams further discloses at least one laser diode unit comprises a single laser diode or a one-dimensional array of laser diodes, or a two-dimensional array of laser diodes, or a three-dimensional array of laser diodes ([0045]).
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Lee et al. (WO2013079943A1)2, hereafter Lee.
Regarding claim 2, Adams does not explicitly disclose the requested frequency setting for the solid-state laser lies at a frequency below 300 Hz. However, Lee discloses the requested frequency setting for the solid-state laser lies at a frequency below 300 Hz (Table 1). An advantage, as is known in the art, is to increase the number of potential applications for the laser device. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams with the requested frequency setting for the solid-state laser lies at a frequency below 300 Hz as disclosed by Lee in order to increase the number of potential applications for the laser device and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 3, Adams in view of Lee do not explicitly disclose the requested frequency setting for the solid-state laser is one of the following frequency settings: 5, 10, 20, 25, 50, 75 or 100 Hz, and wherein the at least one laser diode unit is operated to emit light pulses with a frequency of 100 Hz, and wherein for a requested solid-state laser frequency setting of 5 Hz, only every 20th light pulse of the laser diode unit is operated with the required pulse amplitude and/or the required pulse duration to trigger light emission of the solid-state laser, and wherein for a requested solid-state laser frequency setting of 10 Hz only every 10 th light pulse of the laser diode unit is operated with the required pulse amplitude and/or the required pulse duration to trigger light emission of the solid-state laser, and wherein for a requested solid-state laser frequency setting of 20 Hz only every 5th light pulse of the laser diode unit is operated with the required pulse amplitude and/or the required pulse duration to trigger light emission of the solid-state laser, and wherein for a requested solid-state laser frequency setting of 25 Hz only every 4th light pulse of the laser diode unit is operated with the required pulse amplitude and/or the required pulse duration to trigger light emission of the solid-state laser, and wherein for a requested solid-state laser frequency setting of 50 Hz only every 2nd light pulse of the laser diode unit is operated with the required pulse amplitude and/or the required pulse duration to trigger light emission of the solid-state laser, and wherein for a requested solid-state laser frequency setting of 75 Hz or 100 Hz all pulses of the laser diode unit are operated with the required pulse amplitude and/or the required pulse duration to trigger light emission of the solid-state laser. However, Lee discloses optimizing the frequency settings (Table 1; pg. 11 ll. 29 to pg. 12 ll. 14) and optimizing the number of pulses between trigger pulses with the desired amplitude or pulse width based on the desired frequency setting (Table 1; pg. 11 ll. 29 to pg. 12 ll. 14) in order to provide stable pulses over a wide range of applications (pg. 12 ll. 15-24). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams in view of Lee with the requested frequency setting for the solid-state laser is one of the following frequency settings: 5, 10, 20, 25, 50, 75 or 100 Hz, and wherein the at least one laser diode unit is operated to emit light pulses with a frequency of 100 Hz, and wherein for a requested solid-state laser frequency setting of 5 Hz, only every 20th light pulse of the laser diode unit is operated with the required pulse amplitude and/or the required pulse duration to trigger light emission of the solid-state laser, and wherein for a requested solid-state laser frequency setting of 10 Hz only every 10 th light pulse of the laser diode unit is operated with the required pulse amplitude and/or the required pulse duration to trigger light emission of the solid-state laser, and wherein for a requested solid-state laser frequency setting of 20 Hz only every 5th light pulse of the laser diode unit is operated with the required pulse amplitude and/or the required pulse duration to trigger light emission of the solid-state laser, and wherein for a requested solid-state laser frequency setting of 25 Hz only every 4th light pulse of the laser diode unit is operated with the required pulse amplitude and/or the required pulse duration to trigger light emission of the solid-state laser, and wherein for a requested solid-state laser frequency setting of 50 Hz only every 2nd light pulse of the laser diode unit is operated with the required pulse amplitude and/or the required pulse duration to trigger light emission of the solid-state laser, and wherein for a requested solid-state laser frequency setting of 75 Hz or 100 Hz all pulses of the laser diode unit are operated with the required pulse amplitude and/or the required pulse duration to trigger light emission of the solid-state laser, since Lee discloses optimizing the frequency settings and optimizing the number of pulses between trigger pulses with the desired amplitude or pulse width based on the desired frequency setting in order to provide stable pulses over a wide range of applications and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 6, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams
Regarding claim 6, Adams does not explicitly disclose the solid-state laser is a Tm:YAG laser. However, Adams discloses Tm as a dopant ([0084]), YAG as a host ([0084]), and selecting the desired materials based on the output wavelengths for the intended use of the device ([0002], [0003], [0083], & [0085]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams with the solid-state laser is a Tm:YAG laser, since Adams discloses Tm as a potential dopant, YAG as a potential hose and selecting the desired materials based on the desired output wavelength for the intended use of the device and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7, Adams does not explicitly disclose the at least one laser diode unit is configured to emit light pulses with a wavelength between 778 to 782 nm at 100 Hz and with pulse durations of up to 500 ps and with amplitudes of up to a maximum current of 250 A. However, Adams discloses optimizing the wavelength ([0052]), the repetition rate ([0050], [0052]), pulse duration ([0050], [0052]), and the amplitude of the current ([0052]) of the laser diode unit in order to manage the thermal loads on a laser gain medium ([0005]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams with at least one laser diode unit is configured to emit light pulses with a wavelength between 778 to 782 nm at 100 Hz and with pulse durations of up to 500 ps and with amplitudes of up to a maximum current of 250 A, since Adams discloses optimizing the wavelength, the repetition rate, pulse duration, and the amplitude of the current of the laser diode unit in order to manage the thermal loads on a laser gain medium and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, Adams does not explicitly disclose the at least one laser diode unit comprises the one-dimensional array of laser diodes, and wherein the one-dimensional array of laser diodes is a diode laser bar. However, the Office takes Official Notice that a one-dimensional array of laser diodes in the form of a laser diode bar is a well known optical pumping element in the art. An advantage, as is well known in the art, is to balance the necessary pump power based on the desired output power for the intended use of the device with increased device complexity such as increased driving circuit and alignment complexity. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams with at least one laser diode unit comprises the one-dimensional array of laser diodes, and wherein the one-dimensional array of laser diodes is a diode laser bar as is known in the art in order to balance the necessary pump power based on the desired output power for the intended use of the device with increased device complexity such as increased driving circuit and alignment complexity and since it has been held that simply substituting one known element (laser diode) for another known element (laser diode bar) to obtain predictable results (increased pumping power) requires only ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 10, Adams does not explicitly disclose the at least one laser diode unit comprises the two-dimensional array of laser diodes, and wherein the two-dimensional array of laser diodes is a stack of diode laser bars. However, the Office takes Official Notice that two-dimensional arrays of laser diodes in the form of a stack of laser diode bars is a well known optical pumping element in the art. An advantage, as is well known in the art, is to balance the necessary pump power based on the desired output power for the intended use of the device with increased device complexity such as increased driving circuit and alignment complexity. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams with at least one laser diode unit comprises the two-dimensional array of laser diodes, and wherein the two-dimensional array of laser diodes is a stack of diode laser bars as is known in the art in order to balance the necessary pump power based on the desired output power for the intended use of the device with increased device complexity such as increased driving circuit and alignment complexity and since it has been held that simply substituting one known element (laser diode) for another known element (laser diode bar) to obtain predictable results (increased pumping power) requires only ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 11, Adams does not explicitly disclose the at least one laser diode unit comprises the three-dimensional array of laser diodes, and wherein the three- dimensional array of laser diodes is multiple stacks of diode laser bars. However, the Office takes Official Notice that three-dimensional arrays of laser diodes in the form of multiple stacks of laser diode bars is a well known optical pumping element in the art. An advantage, as is well known in the art, is to balance the necessary pump power based on the desired output power for the intended use of the device with increased device complexity such as increased driving circuit and alignment complexity. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams with the at least one laser diode unit comprises the three-dimensional array of laser diodes, and wherein the three- dimensional array of laser diodes is multiple stacks of diode laser bars as is known in the art in order to balance the necessary pump power based on the desired output power for the intended use of the device with increased device complexity such as increased driving circuit and alignment complexity and since it has been held that simply substituting one known element (laser diode) for another known element (laser diode bar) to obtain predictable results (increased pumping power) requires only ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited. See, e.g., US20050157382A1 [0020] disclosing pump sources include diode bars and diode bar stacks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10am-5pm MT.
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, Min Sun 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.
/Joshua King/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 01/07/2026
1 U.S. Patent Application Publication Cite No. 1 in the IDS filed 11/04/2022.
2 Foreign Patent Documents Cite No. 2 in the IDS filed 11/04/2022.