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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 21-23, 25-27, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 40, 41 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/08/2026.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 2, 5, 21-23, 25-27, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 40, 41, the amending of claim 6 and the addition of claims 43-52.
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 11, 13, 46 (and all claims dependent therefrom; 14, 17, 18, 47-50) 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 11 refers to the comparator applying the second applied waveform to the second burst. This limitation is unclear as the comparator is used to compare repetition rates while the first/second applied waveforms are used to modify the wavelength control device. It is unclear how the comparator applies the second waveform to the wavelength control device.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “the comparator applies the second applied waveform to the wavelength control device during the second burst”.
Claim 11 also refers to “trigger pulses in the second burst” in line 2. It is unclear what these trigger pulses are as they are not outlined in the preceding claims.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “pulses in the second burst”.
Claim 13 at line 2 refers to “the plurality of trigger pulses in the second burst”. It is unclear what these trigger pulses are as they are not outlined in the preceding claims.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “a plurality of pulses in the second burst”.
Claim 46 at line 2 refers to “the third pulse”. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation and it is therefore unclear what “the third pulse” is referring to.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “a third pulse”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 43, depending from claim 3 and claim 1, states the comparator computes one or more parameters for the second applied waveform using the second repetition rate as an input. Claim 1 states a comparison is made between the second repetition rate the first repetition rate and determining one or more parameters of the second applied waveform at least partly based on the comparison. Claim 1 is therefore using the second repetition rate as an input and is basing the outputted parameter on that input. Claim 43 then repeats this process using slightly different wording but having an overlapping meaning. Claim 43 therefore does not further limit claims 3 and 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 43-48, 50 and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Aggarwal (US 2019/0155170).
With respect to claim 1, Aggarwal discloses a laser system (fig.1/2) comprising: a trigger circuit for firing the laser system in at least two bursts (fig.4a S40/42, [0055] trigger circuit necessarily present to initiate bursts of pulses), a first burst including a plurality of first burst pulses fired at a first repetition rate (fig.4a burst associated with previous RR) and a second burst including a plurality of second burst pulses fired at a second repetition rate (fig.4a burst associated with current RR); a wavelength control device adapted to control a respective wavelength of each of the first burst pulses in response to a first applied waveform and of each of the second burst pulses in response to a second applied waveform (fig.3 by changing DTMOPA which changes bandwidth, [0003], which necessarily changes wavelengths output); and a comparator for performing a comparison between the second repetition rate and the first repetition rate (fig.4a S48) and for determining one or more parameters of the second applied waveform at least partially on the basis of the comparison (fig.4a S52, fig.3 ∆DTM).
With respect to claim 3, Aggarwal discloses the comparator determines to use a second applied waveform the same as the first applied waveform if the second repetition rate is the same as the first repetition rate (fig.4a S50).
With respect to claim 6, Aggarwal discloses the comparator comprises a memory having a look-up table and wherein the look-up table returns one or more parameters for the second applied waveform based on the second repetition rate (fig.3 using stored table, [0051]).
With respect to claim 7, Aggarwal discloses the one or more parameters include a magnitude of an amplitude of the second applied waveform or a time variation of a magnitude of an amplitude of the second applied waveform (fig.3 amplitude and/or time variation of an amplitude is adjusted using the summing method at #320).
With respect to claim 9, Aggarwal discloses the one or more parameters include a correction to a feedback algorithm for the second applied waveform ([0053] by use of multiplier).
With respect to claim 11, Aggarwal discloses the comparator applies the second applied waveform to the second burst after a plurality of trigger pulses in the second burst has been used to compute the second repetition rate (fig.4a at least 2 pulses, = plurality, are used to compute the second RR at S46).
With respect to claim 13, Aggarwal discloses the comparator applies a first trigger waveform applied during the first burst to the second burst after the plurality of trigger pulses in the second burst has been used to compute the second repetition rate (this condition is true when the first RR equals to the second RR, fig.4a S50, and the first trigger waveform is equal to the first applied waveform).
With respect to claim 14, Aggarwal discloses the comparator applies the first applied waveform as the first trigger waveform (this condition is true when the first RR equals to the second RR, fig.4a S50, and the first trigger waveform is equal to the first applied waveform).
With respect to claim 17, Aggarwal discloses a transition management unit for managing a transition between the first trigger waveform and the second applied waveform (fig.4a S50/51/52 manage control of the DTMOPA control signal, fig.3).
With respect to claim 43, Aggarwal discloses the comparator computes one or more parameters for the second applied waveform using the second repetition rate as an input (fig.3, fig.4a, see claim 1 rejection above).
With respect to claim 44, Aggarwal discloses the one or more parameters include a time variation of a magnitude of an amplitude of the second applied waveform (fig.3 amplitude of applied signal changes at time of summation when ∆DTM value present).
With respect to claim 45, Aggarwal discloses the feedback algorithm is an iterative learning control algorithm (based on process outlined at fig.3, [0053, 54, 57, 60]).
With respect to claim 46, Aggarwal discloses the comparator applies the second applied waveform to the second burst before the third pulse in the second burst has been used to compute the second repetition rate (fig.4a, since the process step proceeds after a second pulse via S42, the changes made at S52 are before a third pulse is used to compute the second RR).
With respect to claim 47, Aggarwal discloses the comparator applies a default waveform as the first trigger waveform (fig.4a, can be considered the first applied waveform when no change to RR occurs).
With respect to claim 48, Aggarwal discloses the comparator applies a constant level as the first trigger waveform (fig.4a, can be considered the first applied waveform when no change to RR as the DTMOPA signal level would not change).
With respect to claim 51, Aggarwal discloses the device outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above, including: the comparator being adapted and configured to use a second applied waveform different from the first applied waveform if the second repetition rate is different from the first repetition rate (fig.4a S51/52, fig.3 ∆DTM applied).
Claim 52 is rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejection of claim 1 and 43 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 49 and 50 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.
With respect to claim 18, the prior art was not found to teach or suggest the transition management unit further operated to manage the transition between the first trigger waveform and the second applied waveform by cross fading the first trigger waveform and the second applied waveform in conjunction with the limitations inherited from the claims upon which 18 depends.
With respect to claim 49, the prior art was not found to teach or suggest the transition management unit further operated to manage the transition between the first trigger waveform and the second applied waveform by switching from the first trigger waveform to the second applied waveform at a zero crossing of the first trigger waveform in conjunction with the limitations inherited from the claims upon which 48 depends.
With respect to claim 50, the prior art was not found to teach or suggest the transition management unit further operated to manage the transition between the first trigger waveform and the second applied waveform by switching from the first trigger waveform to the second applied waveform at a local maximum or minim of the first trigger waveform in conjunction with the limitations inherited from the claims upon which 50 depends.
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 references related to rep rate control in gas lasers.
US 2018/0109068 and 2021/0018846 noted as being of closely related subject matter to at least claim 1.
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
Prosecution Insights