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 .
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. 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).
The structure/arrangements outlined in at least claims 1, 7 and 9 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 Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
These claims use the term “semi-conductor” and are believed to more conventionally read “semiconductor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melcer et al. (“Picosecond Dynamics of optical gain switching in vertical cavity surface emitting lasers”; applicant submitted prior art) in view of Paschotta et al. (US 675234) and Klehr et al. (US 8559098).
With respect to claim 1, Melcer teaches a method for generating a laser pulse, comprising: using a first laser in to generate a pump laser pulse (fig.1 dye laser, pg.1417 col.2 para.4, 6ps), wherein the laser pulse to be generated is shorter than the pump laser pulse (pg.1419 col.2 para. 3, 2.45ps), and wherein the pump laser pulse is used to pump a second semi-conductor laser (fig.1a) comprising at least 20 quantum wells (fig.1a inset) arranged on top of each other in an emission direction of the laser pulse (fig.1a SEL beam out in same direction as QW stack), and emitting the laser pulse from the second semi-conductor laser (fig.1a SEL beam out). Melcer does not teach a first semi-conductor laser in a form of a broad-stripe laser diode generates the pump laser pulse. Paschotta teaches optically pumped vcsel type device (fig.1) are well-known to be pumped via broad stripe laser diodes (col.6 lines 47-51). Klehr further teaches broad stripe type laser diodes (fig.3) are capable of producing pico-second and faster pulses (col.5 lines 10-11, col.1 lines 1-12, col.5 line 60 – col.6 line 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to replace the dye laser pump of Melcer with a broad stripe laser pump demonstrated by Paschotta to be useable with optically pumped semiconductor lasers and to make use of the broad stripe laser demonstrated by Klehr to be able to achieve the pulse widths taught by Melcer in order to make use of a high power pump source in a more compact form than the pumped dye laser.
With respect to claim 3, Melcer, as modified, teaches the first semi-conductor laser is electrically pumped (see Klehr fig.3).
With respect to claim 4, Melcer teaches the pump laser pulse is shorter than 250 ps (pg.1419 col.2 para. 3, 6ps).
With respect to claim 5, Melcer teaches the pump laser pulse generated by the first semi-conductor laser is shorter than the pulse build-up time of the second semi-conductor laser (pg.1419 col.2 para. 3, 6ps pump pulse with 6.68 ps delay, see also fig.4a, 7a, 9a/b).
With respect to claim 6, Melcer teaches the laser pulse is shorter than 50 ps (pg.1419 col.2 para. 3, 2.45ps).
With respect to claim 7, Melcer teaches a device for generating a laser pulse (fig.1), comprising a first laser (fig.1 dye); and a second semi-conductor laser (fig.1a) with at least 20 quantum wells (fig.1a inset) arranged on top of each other in an emission direction of the laser pulse to be emitted by the second semi- conductor laser (fig.1a SEL beam out in same direction as QW stack). Melcer does not teach a first semi-conductor laser in a form of a broad-stripe laser diode generates the pump laser pulse. Paschotta teaches optically pumped vcsel type device (fig.1) are well-known to be pumped via broad stripe laser diodes (col.6 lines 47-51). Klehr further teaches broad stripe type laser diodes (fig.3) are capable of producing pico-second and faster pulses (col.5 lines 10-11, col.1 lines 1-12, col.5 line 60 – col.6 line 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to replace the dye laser pump of Melcer with a broad stripe laser pump demonstrated by Paschotta to be useable with optically pumped semiconductor lasers and to make use of the broad stripe laser demonstrated by Klehr to be able to achieve the pulse widths taught by Melcer in order to make use of a high power pump source in a more compact form than the pumped dye laser.
With respect to claim 8, Melcer teaches the second semi-conductor laser comprises a resonator (fig.1a via top/bottom mirrors), wherein the resonator has a length which is designed such that a pulse build-up time of the second semi-conductor laser is longer than 80% of a length of a pump laser pulse produced by the first semi-conductor laser (pg.1419 col.2 para. 3, 6ps pump pulse with 6.68 ps delay, see also fig.4a, 7a, 9a/b).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melcer, Paschotta, Klehr and further in view of Weng et al. (“Emission characteristics of high-gain gan-based vertical cavity surface emitting lasers”; applicant submitted prior art).
With respect to claim 2, Melcer, as modified, teaches the method outlined above, but does not teach the second semi-conductor laser comprises at least 50 quantum wells arranged on top of each other in the emission direction of the laser pulse. Weng teaches a related VCSEL device (fig.1) and further that increasing the number of QWs enables production of shorter pulses (pg.1-2 final line to first 3 lines). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Melcer to make use of at least 50 QWs as a means of optimizing the teachings of Melcer to select a desired amount of optical gain and adjustment of the pulse width as Weng has shown such selection of QW numbers to be a result effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melcer, Paschotta, Klehr and further in view of Cable et al. (US 9997891).
With respect to claim 9, Melcer, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach at least one power amplifier that is configured and arranged to amplify the laser pulse. Cable teaches optically pumped (abstract) VCSEL devices (fig.17) and that the output thereof can be sent to a power amplifier (fig.17 #1720, fig.19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Melcer to send the VCSEL output to a power amplifier as demonstrated by Cable in order to create greater output power (Cable, col.26 lines 7-8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included pto892 form for a list of related references.
Note US 6798804 and 6764183 teach similar devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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, 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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828