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
Applicant’s election without traverse of fig.14-16, 19, claims 1-7, 12-14 in the reply filed on 01/23/2026 is acknowledged.
The Examiner notes claims 3 and 6, though having been elected, are withdrawn as not corresponding to the elected species of fig.14-16,19.
Claim 3 outlines a cylindrical container while the elected embodiment uses rectangular ([0094]).
Claim 6 outlines a resistive heating element while the elected embodiment uses inductive ([0098]).
Claims 3 and 6 are therefore withdrawn. The restriction requirement is hereby made final.
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) 1-2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Treanor (US 4163199).
With respect to claim 1, Treanor discloses a gas laser (fig.1, abstract) comprising: a gas serving as a laser medium (col.2 lines 20-21); a thermal radiation source (fig.2 #30+45) having wavelength selectivity (col.2 lines 4-7) and configured to emit excitation light for excitation of the gas by thermal radiation (col.2 lines 15-30); and an optical resonator for causing emission light emitted from the gas in response to the excitation light to resonate (fig.1 #12, col.2 line 22, resonance necessarily occurring in cavity to enable lasing).
With respect to claim 2, Treanor discloses a thermally insulated region (fig.2 #44+vacuum around #40; col.1 line 68 – col.2 line 1) is disposed between the gas and the thermal radiation source.
With respect to claim 12, Treanor discloses waste heat recovery system comprising: a gas laser (fig.1, abstract), the gas laser including, a gas serving as a laser medium (col.2 lines 20-21), a thermal radiation source (fig.2 #30+45) having wavelength selectivity (col.2 lines 4-7) and configured to emit excitation light for excitation of the gas by thermal radiation (col.2 lines 15-30), and an optical resonator for causing emission light emitted from the gas in response to the excitation light to resonate (fig.1 #12, col.2 line 22, resonance necessarily occurring in cavity to enable lasing); and a heating element (power/thermal source necessarily present to enable heating of oven) for heating the thermal radiation source of the gas laser.
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treanor in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0222389).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Treanor further teaches a container containing the gas (fig.2 #40), but does not teach the container has an inner surface including a reflecting surface configured to reflect the excitation light, wherein the reflecting surface is disposed so as to face the thermal radiation source. Chen teaches a related optically pumped gas laser (fig.1) which includes a container (fig.1 #5) that includes a surface configured to reflect the excitation light, wherein the reflecting surface is disposed to face the radiation source (fig.1 HR coating #13, faces optical source #1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the container of Treanor to utilize a surface, such as the inner surface opposite to an oven #30, which faces the oven radiation source, and which is coated with a high reflectance film as demonstrated by Chen in order to return un-reflected pumping radiation to the gain medium to improve efficiency and potentially eliminate the use of the oven on the opposed side.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treanor in view of Palamos (US 3614663).
With respect to claim 7, Treanor teaches the device outlined above, including a conductor (fig.2 oven #30 is thermal conductor), but does not teach a coil for inductively heating the conductor; and an AC power source for supplying AC power to the coil. Palamos teaches a related thermal radiation pumped laser (fig.1) which includes a conductor (fig.1 #10), a coil (fig.1 #12), a power source (col.2 lines 29-30) for heating the conductor (col.2 lines 23-32) as well as heating based on induction (col.3 lines 34-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system of Treanor to make use of a coil, power source, and inductive control to heat the conductor as demonstrated by Palamos in order to make use of a more compact heating system (see also MPEP 2144.06 II).
The Examiner takes Official Notice that use of an AC source is necessary and known in the art to be a power source for a coil in an inductive system in order to provide a time changing current to create the inductance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further utilize an AC power source in order to create the inductance effect desired by Palamos.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treanor in view of Abe et al. (US 2021/0333788).
With respect to claim 13, Treanor teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a photoelectric cell configured to convert a laser beam from the gas laser into electricity. Abe teaches a gas laser (fig.1) which includes a photocell used to convert the beam into electricity (fig.1 #144, [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system of Treanor to make use of a photocell in a manner similar to that of Abe in order to provide feedback control to the pumping source.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treanor in view of Komori et al. (US 6151350).
With respect to claim 14, Treanor teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a chemical reactor configured to be irradiated with a laser beam from the gas laser. Komori teaches CO based lasers (col.1 lines 50-51) and gas laser’s use in creating photochemical reactions (col.1 lines 15-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system of Treanor to provide the laser beam to a photochemical reactor in order to produce a photochemical reaction as Komori has demonstrated the usefulness of such reactions in material modification applications.
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 art.
Note US 4599731 and 4424592 teach similar thermal type pumping schemes.
The following teach related blackbody type pumped gas lasers:
Young et al. (“Lasant materials for blackbody-pumped lasers”, NASA technical memorandum 87616, 09/1985)
Insuik et al. (“Blackbody-pumped CO2 laser experiment”, AIA A 16th fluid and plasma dynamics conference, 07/12-14/1983)
Chang et al. (“Blackbody-pumped CO2 lasers using Gaussian and waveguide cavities”, SPIE Vol.1412, 1991)
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