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 .
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.
Claim 1 and claims 2-33 dependent on it 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.
With regard to claim 1, the term “large cross-sections” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large cross-sections” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification merely recites “the gain media 171 to 175 are positioned directly upstream of the respective mirrors 736, 737, and 738 since the pump radiation has the largest cross-section there” (para. [0072]) and similar in para [0095] & [0102].
Further with regard to claim 7, the claim recites the limitation "two disks" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6, from which claim 7 depends, recites “a disk” and “the disk” implying only a single disk.
Further with regard to claim 25, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Clarification and correction are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 11, 25, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2006/0209918).
With regard to claim 1, Wang disclose an amplifier (Fig. 11) comprising:
A multipass cell and at least one gain medium (Active mirror includes a thin disk doped with active species for amplification [0080] & Fig. 10), wherein the multipass cell has concavely curved mirrors (spherical mirror S and small spherical mirrors A and B), the gain medium being arranged within the multipass cell in such a way that the pump radiation passes through the gain medium multiple times and is absorbed by the gain medium, the mirrors are designed and arranged to form a White multipass cell, and the pump radiation and laser beam to be amplified have large cross-sections at the positions at which the mirrors and gain media are arranged (multiple passes of the beam with substantially unchanged beam structure at S, A and B, and sufficient absorption of the pump beam by the gain medium which is a thin disk [0002] & [0008]).
With regard to claim 2, the concave mirrors include lenses with each mirror (para. [0044]).
With regard to claim 5, (see Fig. 10 and para. [0080] for reference numbers) the gain medium is a thin disk (AM), a first surface of the disk is concave and is coated with a highly transmissive coating, the second surface of the disk is convex and coated with a highly reflective coating. The radii of curvature of the surfaces of the disk are approximately equal to the radius of curvature of the concave mirror (same imaging characteristics).
With regard to claim 11, there are 48 passes of the laser beam to be amplified (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 25, the gain medium is glass doped with Yb ions (Yb:YAG), para. [0080].
With regard to claim 29, in an alternative embodiment a laser resonator is formed with additional mirrors cooperating with the multipass cell (para. [0010]).
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.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sarkisyan et al. (US 2012/0212804).
With regard to claim 18, Wang does not disclose but Sarkisyan teaches in the same field of endeavor (Fig. 7 and para. [0098]), the pump radiation is emitted by a beam source, shaped by an optical unit and is coupled into a multipass pump arrangement via a dichroic mirror (1205) highly transmissive for the laser beam to be amplified and the laser beam to be amplified is coupled into the multipass arrangement by the mirror. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, before the effective filing date of the application, to utilize the dichroic mirror in the configuration taught by Sarkisyan et al. for the multipass amplifier of Wang, as an alternative way to provide pump light to the gain medium, and to decrease thermal deformation from pump light at the back of the gain medium, a problem discussed by Wang (para. [0003]).
With regard to claim 19, the laser beam to be amplified and the pump radiation are superimposed coaxially (Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sumida et al. (US 2005/0175057).
Wang does not disclose, but Sumida teaches in the same field of endeavor, a thin gain medium on an active mirror of a multipass amplifier may be a semiconductor, and the gain is generated by an electrical current (para. [0006]). The use of an electrically pumped semiconductor reduces the number of optical components required and simplifies operation. Therefore, replacing the doped glass gain medium in the multipass amplifier of Wang with the electrically pumped semiconductor taught by Sumida would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application.
Claim(s) 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiang et al. (US 2011/0075688).
With regard to claim 32, Wang does not disclose, but Chiang et al. teach, that an optical switch that generates laser pulses is arranged within a laser oscillator. Specifically Chiang teaches in Fig. 5(d) an optical switch (EO Bragg deflector 303) between two mirrors (305) forming a laser cavity surrounding the gain medium (302). The optical switch functions as a Q-switch to obtain high peak power laser pulses [0004] that are desirable in many applications. Therefore, one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application, to include an optical switch in the laser resonator of the multipass system of Wang.
With regard to claim 33, Wang does not disclose, but Chiang et al. teach, that a frequency conversion unit is arranged with a laser oscillator. Specifically Chiang teaches in Fig. 5(d) a frequency conversion unit (QPM wavelength converter 406) between two mirrors (305) forming a laser cavity surrounding the gain medium (302). The frequency converter allows tuning to different laser wavelengths from those inherent to the gain medium (para. [0003]). Therefore, one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the application, to include a frequency converter in the laser resonator of the multipass system of Wang, to more easily obtain these other wavelengths.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-10, 12-17, 20-24, 27-28, and 30-31 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on June 29, 2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 5pm.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645