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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite “wherein the at least one laser diode unit is emitting light emission pulses with frequencies close to or equal to a requested frequency setting of the Tm:YAG laser and is emitting light emission pulses with frequencies not equal to the requested frequency setting, and wherein the frequencies not equal to the requested frequency setting are frequencies outside a predetermined interval around the requested frequency setting”.
On page 9 of the response, applicant contends “Lee does not disclose or suggest the concept of defining the frequency of these additional pulses as being outside a predetermined interval around the requested frequency setting of the solid-state laser”. The Office disagrees. Specifically, Figs. 2-6 show various embodiments of Lee’s “thermal compensation energy”. In at least Figs. 2-5, the “thermal compensation energy” is provided at frequencies “outside a predetermined interval around the requested frequency setting of the solid-state laser”. The requested frequency setting of the solid-state laser being the LFP pulses. In contrast, Fig. 6 appears to show that the thermal compensation energy can be provided at the requested frequency and is not “outside a predetermined interval”. Since the claims do not specify the “predetermined interval”, any interval may be interpreted to read on “a predetermined interval” and an interval is shown in Figs. 2-5. Additionally, Lee describes on page 12 lines 5-14 that the frequency of the thermal compensation pulses maybe optimized with respect to other pulse factors to manage the thermal load of the gain medium.
Additionally, the Office notes applicant asserts on page 11 “Neither Kafka nor Adams relates to Tm:YAG lasers” and “Adams manages the thermal load of the laser diode by varying the temporal durations of the current levels applied to the laser diode…not by implementing the claimed frequency-based modulation scheme. This is an incorrect assertion. Adams relates to solid-state lasers and shows the frequency based (e.g. the pulses with respect to time) in Fig. 2 and 7A. The Office notes that Adams, like Lee, also controls the current to the laser diodes in order to achieve heating pulses that do not cause light emission. See, e.g., Fig. 2 Δt3 which is a current above the threshold current. The threshold current is the current that must be applied to the laser diode to support laser emission. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art will understand the pulses to be emitted during this time period. See also [0053] “When a boost in output from the laser diode is desired, the diode current rises by an amount .DELTA.I.sub.1 above I.sub.nom to a first level I.sub.1 for a burst period .DELTA.t.sub.1. (emphasis added)” and [0048] “By way of example, the thermal load may be maintained at a substantially steady state by applying a nominal amount of pumping power to the laser gain medium. In a diode pumped laser, this can be done by applying a nominal level of current to one or more of the diodes pumping the gain medium.”
On pages 10 and 11, applicant discusses unclaimed features to attempt to further distinguish the Lee reference. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Given the task of improving power output of the solid-state laser of Lee”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/14/2026. These drawings are accepted.
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 1-5 and 7-11 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 1 has been amended to recite “wherein the at least one laser diode unit…is emitting light emission pulses with frequencies not equal to the requested frequency setting…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 Tm:YAG laser.” Accordingly, claim 1 is indefinite, because it is unclear how “at least one laser diode unit…is emitting light emission pulses” while these pulses are specifically configured “to not trigger light emission”. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret claim 1 to recite “wherein the at least one laser diode unit…is emitting light pulses with frequencies not equal to the requested frequency setting”.
Claims 2-5 and 7-11 are indefinite at least based on their dependence from claim 1.
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 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US20060018350A1)1, hereafter Adams, in view of Lee et al. (WO2013079943A1)2, hereafter Lee..
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]), wherein the at least one laser diode unit is emitting light emission pulses with frequencies close to or equal to a requested frequency setting of the solid-state laser (Fig. 2 elements Δt1 and Δt4; Fig. 7a element 308 in Δt1; [0093])) and is emitting other light emission pulses (Fig. 2 element Δt3; Fig. 7a element 308 in Δt3; [0093]), 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]). Adams does not explicitly disclose the solid-state laser is a Tm:YAG laser or the other light emitting pulses with frequencies not equal to the requested frequency setting, and wherein the frequencies not equal to the requested frequency setting are frequencies outside a predetermined interval around the requested frequency setting. 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. Adams, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the other light emitting pulses with frequencies not equal to the requested frequency setting, and wherein the frequencies not equal to the requested frequency setting are frequencies outside a predetermined interval around the requested frequency setting. However, Lee discloses the other light emitting pulses with frequencies not equal to the requested frequency setting (Compare Fig. 3 and Fig. 6; See also annotated Fig. 3 below), and wherein the frequencies not equal to the requested frequency setting are frequencies outside a predetermined interval around the requested frequency setting (See annotated Fig. 3 below3; There is a difference between the non-requested frequencies and the requested frequency that corresponds to a predetermined interval). An advantage is to provide the desired thermal compensation energy as pulse rate decreases to maintain the system at a stabilized level (pg. 8 ll. 25-30; pg. 10 ll. 15-18). 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 other light emitting pulses with frequencies not equal to the requested frequency setting, and wherein the frequencies not equal to the requested frequency setting are frequencies outside a predetermined interval around the requested frequency setting as disclosed by Lee in order to provide the desired thermal compensation energy as pulse rate decreases to maintain the system at a stabilized level.
PNG
media_image1.png
255
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
255
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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).
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). 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 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]).
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.
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 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 06/20/2026
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.
3 The Office notes that either interpretation of “frequencies not equal to the requested frequency” shown in Fig. 3 of Lee read on the claimed limitations.
Prosecution Insights