DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 § 102
2. 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.
3. Claims 1, 4-5, 11, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (US 5148496).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses in figures 1, 2, and specification:
A distributed gain polygon ring laser amplifier, comprising:
a substrate ring (see, 14, fig.1 and fig. 2, see also col. 5, line 38 – col. 6, line
37, here, discoid body 14) having inner and outer surfaces; and
a plurality of reflection points (see, S1-S11, fig. 2) spaced around the inner
surface of the substrate ring and configured to reflect light from an input pump
laser (see, 82, fig. 2, see also col. 5, line 38 – col. 6, line 37, here, a laser diode) to an output coupler (see, 88, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson discloses in figures 1, 2, and specification the amplifier as set forth in claim 1, wherein each of the reflection points includes a laser mirror (see, S1-S11, fig. 2, here, beams are bounce back) coupled to the substrate ring, laser media (see, 84,86, fig. 2, see also, col. 5, line 57 – col. 6, line 6, here, the SLM chip 84, he SLM chip 86) provided to the laser mirror and an anti-reflective coating (inherent for pumping to the laser media) provided to the laser media.
Regarding claim 5, Anderson discloses in figures 1, 2, and specification the amplifier as set forth in claim 4, wherein the laser mirror is configured with an interior ellipsoidal surface directed with foci towards the interior of the substrate ring (see, beam configuration in the interior of the substrate ring, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons applied to claim 5 since the limitations of claim 11 are in the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons applied to claim 5 since the limitations of claim 14 are in the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, Anderson discloses in figures 1, 2, and specification the amplifier as set forth in claim 11, wherein the anti- reflective coating exhibits less than 5% reflectivity (inherent since it depends on the laser media).
Regarding claim 19, Anderson discloses in figures 1, 2, and specification the laser ring reflection point as set forth in claim 18, wherein the anti- reflective coating exhibits no more than 0.5% reflectivity (inherent since it depends on the laser media and the output power).
Regarding claim 20, Anderson discloses in figures 1, 2, and specification laser ring reflection point as set forth in claim 11, wherein the anti- reflective coating includes diamond-like carbon (inherent since it depends on the laser media and the output power).
PNG
media_image1.png
202
192
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
336
294
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 2-3, 9-10, 12-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson above.
Regarding claim 2, Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
However, Anderson is silent as to the limitation of “wherein the substrate ring
further includes a material having thermal conductivity of greater than 300 W/mK”.
It is common knowledge in the art to have the limitation of “wherein the substrate
ring further includes a material having thermal conductivity of greater than 300 W/mK” in same field of endeavor for the purpose of making thermal management more efficient for the single monolithic substrate ring.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to combine the limitation of “wherein the substrate ring further includes a material having thermal conductivity of greater than 300 W/mK” with the single monolithic substrate ring because this provides the single monolithic substrate ring made of a material with high thermal conductivity.
Regarding claim 3, Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above.
However, Anderson is silent as to the limitation of “wherein the substrate ring
further includes a material having a melting point greater than 20000°C”.
It is common knowledge in the art to have the limitation of “wherein the substrate
ring further includes a material having a melting point greater than 20000°C” in same field of endeavor for the purpose of protecting the deterioration of the substrate ring during any sintering of a laser media.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to combine the limitation of “wherein the substrate ring further includes a material having a melting point greater than 20000°C” with the single monolithic substrate ring because this protects the deterioration of the substrate ring during any sintering of a laser media.
Regarding claim 6, Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons
above except the limitation of “top and bottom cover plates configured for vacuum sealing with the substrate ring”
It is common knowledge in the art to have the limitation of “top and bottom cover plates configured for vacuum sealing with the substrate ring” in same field of endeavor for the purpose of making the safe operation without any disturbance from external condition of the laser system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to combine the limitation of “top and bottom cover plates configured for vacuum sealing with the substrate ring” with the laser system because this provides the safe operation without any disturbance from external condition of the laser system.
Regarding claim 7, modified device of Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 6 for the reasons above.
However, modified device of Anderson is silent as to the limitation of “wherein the
substrate ring further includes a ceramic material”.
It is common knowledge in the art to have the limitation of “wherein the substrate ring further includes a ceramic material” in same field of endeavor for the purpose of making the substrate ring to have the requirement of a thermal conductivity and a thermal expansion coefficient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to combine the limitation of “wherein the substrate ring further includes a ceramic material” with the laser system because this provides the substrate ring to have the requirement of a thermal conductivity and a thermal expansion coefficient.
Regarding claim 8, modified device of Anderson discloses the limitations of
claim 6 for the reasons above. claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons applied to claim 5 since the limitation of claim 8 are in the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, modified device of Anderson discloses the limitations of
claim 6 for the reasons above.
However, modified device of Anderson is silent as to the limitation of “a cooling
fluid contained within a region defined between the top and bottom cover plates and the outer surface of the substrate ring”.
It is common knowledge in the art to have the limitation of “a cooling fluid
contained within a region defined between the top and bottom cover plates and the outer surface of the substrate ring” in same field of endeavor for the purpose of making the laser system to have an enabling facilitated cooling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to combine the limitation of “a cooling fluid contained within a region defined between the top and bottom cover plates and the outer surface of the substrate ring” with the laser system because this allows for the laser system to have an enabling facilitated cooling.
Regarding claim 10, modified device of Anderson discloses the limitations of
claim 6 for the reasons above.
However, modified device of Anderson is silent as to the limitation of “refractive-
index- matching cooling fluids at the interior of the substrate ring”.
It is common knowledge in the art to have the limitation of “refractive-index-
matching cooling fluids at the interior of the substrate ring” in same field of endeavor for the purpose of making the laser system to have an enabling facilitated cooling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to combine the limitation of “refractive-index- matching cooling fluids at the interior of the substrate ring” with the laser system because this allows for the laser system to have an enabling facilitated cooling.
Regarding claim 12, Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 11 for the reasons above.
However, Anderson is silent as to the limitation of “wherein the laser mirror
includes layers of diamond-like carbon and Lu2O3”.
It is common knowledge in the art to have the limitation of “wherein the laser
mirror includes layers of diamond-like carbon and Lu2O3” in same field of endeavor for the purpose of making the laser mirror with high laser damage thresholds.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to combine the limitation of “wherein the laser mirror includes layers of diamond-like carbon and Lu2O3” with the laser ring reflection point because this allows for the laser mirror to have the high laser damage thresholds.
Regarding claim 13, Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 11 for the reasons above.
However, Anderson is silent as to the limitation of “wherein the laser mirror
includes layers of TiO2 and SiO2”.
It is common knowledge in the art to have the limitation of “wherein the laser
mirror includes layers of TiO2 and SiO2” in same field of endeavor for the purpose of making the laser mirror with high laser damage thresholds.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to combine the limitation of “wherein the laser mirror includes layers of TiO2 and SiO2” with the laser ring reflection point because this allows for the laser mirror to have the high laser damage thresholds.
Regarding claim 15, Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 11 for the reasons above.
However, Anderson is silent as to the limitation of “wherein the laser media
includes a ceramic”.
It is common knowledge in the art to have the limitation of “wherein the laser media includes a ceramic” in same field of endeavor for the purpose of making the laser media to have the requirement of a thermal conductivity and a thermal expansion coefficient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to combine the limitation of “wherein the laser media includes a ceramic” with the laser ring reflection point because this allows for the laser media to have the requirement of a thermal conductivity and a thermal expansion coefficient.
Regarding claim 16, Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 11 for the reasons above.
However, Anderson is silent as to the limitation of “wherein the laser media
includes Lu2O3”.
It is common knowledge in the art to have the limitation of wherein the laser
media includes Lu2O3” in same field of endeavor for the purpose of making the laser mirror with high laser damage thresholds.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to combine the limitation of “wherein the laser media includes Lu2O3” with the laser ring reflection point because this allows for the laser media to have the high laser damage thresholds.
Regarding claim 17, Anderson discloses the limitations of claim 11 for the reasons above.
However, Anderson is silent as to the limitation of “wherein the laser media
includes Lu2O3 doped with rare earth minerals ”.
It is common knowledge in the art to have the limitation of “Lu2O3 doped with rare
earth minerals” in same field of endeavor for the purpose of making the laser media with high lasing activation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to combine the limitation of “Lu2O3 doped with rare earth minerals” with the laser ring reflection point because this allows for the laser media to have the high lasing activation.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kinam Park whose telephone number is (571) 270-1738. The examiner can normally be reached on from 9:00 AM-5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, MINSUN HARVEY, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KINAM PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828