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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 18 and 20.
The Examiner notes claims 9 (“original” yet amended), 13 (“amended” yet original) and 16 (“original” yet amended) have incorrect status identifiers and therefore do not comply with 37 CFR 1.121.
The claims have been examined in an effort to promote compact prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner notes the document listed on the 11/10/2025 IDS did not contain a proper date; therefore, the reference has not been considered.
Year alone is not compliant with 37 CFR 1.98 b 5.
MPEP 609.04(a) I (no month or statement provided):
The date of publication supplied must include at least the month and year of publication, except that the year of publication (without the month) will be accepted if the applicant points out in the information disclosure statement that the year of publication is sufficiently earlier than the effective U.S. filing date and any foreign priority date so that the particular month of publication is not in issue.
Drawings
The previous objections to fig.1 and fig.2 are withdrawn.
The drawings are objected to because:
It is unclear which line corresponds with each of the “two commercial DFB diode lasers in figure 4. Namely, figure 4 proports to show 3 separate lines. It is unclear which line is which with respect to the two lines closest to the origin.
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
The previous claim objection is withdrawn.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 uses the term “conDentional” and is understood to more correctly read “conventional”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 112b rejection regarding the term “narrowband” the Applicant has argued claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended to define the term.
The Examiner does not agree that the term is now clear. Claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended to include “(bandwidth < 1 kHz Lorentzian (FWHM))”. First, placing this term in parenthesis makes it unclear if the term is considered limiting or is simply an exemplary amount (see MPEP 2173.05 d). Further, the use of the term in claims such as 6 remains confusing as the term is used with respect to a characteristic of the volume Bragg grating (VBG). The original specification states the VBG has a bandwidth of “0.1 to 0.5nm” ([0022]) while the < 1KHz value is for a laser with center wavelength of 1535nm ([0046]). The stated bandwidth of the grating at the noted center wavelength corresponds to a frequency of 12.7-63.6 GHz (see pertinent art in Conclusion section below). The calculated frequency range for the grating therefore does not equate to the < 1 KHz value, and therefore the supposed “defining” of “narrowband” in the claims does not clarify the scope/meaning of the term in the claims.
The Applicant notes the 112b of “high” and “low” on page 10 of the Remarks but provides no detail regarding them.
The rejections are therefore maintained.
The Applicant has amended “clear” to “transparent”
The Examiner accepts this substitution.
The Applicant has argued the term “plate” is known from the prior art.
The Examiner accepts use of the term in claims to mean “a rigid body of uniform thickness”.
The Applicant has added “conventional” before the term “active-mirror amplifier”.
The Examiner notes no evidence was submitted, or explanation given as to what an “active-mirror amplifier” is. Simply inserting “conventional” without explaining what the base term refers to is not found to clarify the confusion.
With respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1, 8 and 15, the Applicant has argued the cited art does not teach the bandwidth < 1 kHz limitation.
As noted in the following 112b rejections, the current use of this term in the claims is not found limiting, making the argument largely moot.
With respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1, 8 and 15, the Applicant has argued the cited art does not teach the package volume requirements.
The Examiner agrees the particular volume amount is not taught by the cited art. The art of Essaian, however, is found to contain many references to the desire of the laser system to be “compact” (see Abstract, [0002, 11, 14, etc) thereby making the reduction in size to the claimed amount an obvious modification.
The Applicant has argued Essaian and Dulaney do not teach the Faraday isolator transmission and isolation values and does not teach the isolator to be directly adjacent the VBG.
The Examiner notes LaChappelle, not Essaian or Dulaney, was used to teach the VBG specifications.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, the claims do not require “directly adjacent” as stated by the Applicant, making the argument largely moot.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., directly adjacent elements) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Applicant has argued Essaian and Dulaney do not teach the diffusion bonding requirements.
The Examiner notes Hargis, not Essaian or Dulaney, was used to teach the diffusion bonding requirements.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant has argued no reference teaches integrating all elements with the stated performance.
The Examiner notes the provided rejection(s) was that of a 103, necessarily meaning that no single reference taught all the claimed limitations.
The Applicant has argued Essaian and Dulaney do not teach the watt level pumping requirements or optics requirements and Zhang does not disclose the entire claimed system.
The Examiner notes Zhang, not Essaian or Dulaney, was used to teach the pumping requirements and optics requirements.
Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant has argued (see Remarks, pg.12-22) that there is no motivation or reasonable expectation of success to combine the provided references to achieve the claimed combination.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Examiner has provided motivation for each and every modification of the primary reference. As the Applicant has not particularly pointed out the supposed errors in the Examiner’s analysis the rejections are maintained.
The Applicant has argued (see Remarks, pg.12-22) that instant invention achieves unexpected results as evidence by figures 3 and 4, thereby demonstrating the claimed invention is not obvious in view of the cited art.
The Examiner does not agree. MPEP 716.02 III states that evidence of unexpected results may be in the form of direct or indirect comparisons of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. Figure 3 of the instant application is a comparison of performance of the instant invention to a “non-planar ring oscillator” while figure 4 of the instant application is a comparison to “two conventional distributed feedback lasers”. Neither of the comparison systems in figure 3 or figure 4 is comparable to the claimed system of a laser diode assembly pumping a solid state laser medium via beam forming optics, the solid state laser medium sitting atop a high thermal conductivity plate, the output of the laser medium passed to a volume Bragg grating which then outputs light to a Faraday isolator as detailed in claims 1, 8 and 15.
As there does not appear to be a clear nexus between the claimed lasing arrangement and that of the examples outlined in figures 3 and 4, the argument of unexpected results is not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 (and all claims dependent therefrom, 2-20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended to state “comprising a defined substrate material”. The originally filed specification is not found to discuss any “substrate material”. Therefore it is not clear the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended to state “(thermal isolator)” adjacent the laser plate. The originally filed specification is not found to discuss any “thermal isolation” function of the laser plate. Therefore it is not clear the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
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 1-19 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.
The term “narrowband” in claims 1-19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrowband” 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.
For purposes of examination, any narrowing of the spectrum of the laser by an element will be considered to be making the laser/element narrowband.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended to include “(bandwidth < 1 kHz Lorentzian (FWHM))” after “narrowband”. First, placing this term in parenthesis makes it unclear if the term is considered limiting or is simply an exemplary amount (see MPEP 2173.05 d). Further, the use of the term in claims such as 6 remains confusing as the term is used with respect to a characteristic of the volume Bragg grating (VBG). The original specification states the VBG has a bandwidth of “0.1 to 0.5nm” ([0022]) while the < 1KHz value is for a laser with center wavelength of 1535nm ([0046]). The stated bandwidth of the grating at the noted center wavelength corresponds to a frequency of 12.7-63.6 GHz (see pertinent art in Conclusion section below). The calculated frequency range for the grating therefore does not equate to the < 1 KHz value, and therefore the supposed “defining” of “narrowband” in the claims does not clarify the scope/meaning of the term in the claims.
For purposes of examination, this term will be understood to be an example value rather than a claim limitation.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11 and 15 have been amended to include terms such as “(heatsink)”, “(thermal insulator)”. As these terms are placed in parenthesis it is unclear whether they are considered limiting or exemplary of the associated plate elements.
For purposes of examination, these terms will be understood to be an example rather than a claim limitation.
The terms “high” and “low” in claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high” and “low” are 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.
For purposes of examination, a conductivity will be considered “high” and “low” when a first conductivity is compared to a second conductivity with unequal values, such that one is more than the other.
The term “active-mirror amplifier” in claims 2, 9, 16 is not defined by the instant application nor made clear in the claims, making the scope indefinite.
For purposes of examination, “active-mirror amplifier” is understood to be an amplifying device using an active material and mirror.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 have been amended to insert the term “conventional”. As the term being modified “active-mirror amplifier” is not understood, attaching the term “conventional” is not found to improve clarity.
The combined term will be interpreted as outlined above.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 (and claims 5, 12 and 19 via dependency) have been amended to end with “to produce an laser.”. The intended meaning is unclear.
For purposes of examination the limitation will be understood to mean “to produce the laser”.
Claim 18 uses the term “clear”, which is a relative word which renders the claim indefinite. The term clear 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.
For purposes of examination, “clear” is understood to mean transparent.
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, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Essaian et al. (US 2013/0250983) in view of Dulaney et al. (US 2018/0001417).
With respect to claim 1, Essaian teaches a narrowband (bandwidth < 1 kHz Lorentzian (FWHM)), single-longitudinal-mode (SLM) solid-state laser (fig.2), comprising: a laser diode assembly (fig.2 #1, [0037]); a beam-forming optics assembly (fig.2 #3, [0037]) located adjacent to the laser diode assembly; a high thermal conductivity, (heatsink) ([0038]), electrically insulating dielectric plate comprising a defined substrate material (fig.2 #6, [0038] sapphire or YAG) located adjacent to the beam-forming optics assembly; a low thermal conductivity (thermal insulator) (relative to the sapphire or YAG) laser plate comprising a defined substrate material (fig.2 #8, [0038-39] Nd:YVO4) operatively connected ([0038] bonded) to the high thermal conductivity (heatsink), electrically insulating dielectric plate; a volume Bragg grating (fig.2 #202, [0051] VBG) located adjacent to the low thermal conductivity laser plate. Essaian does teach a diode pumped solid state laser (fig.2), but does not teach a Faraday isolator assembly located adjacent to the Volume Bragg grating. Dulaney teaches a diode pumped solid state laser system (DPSS) (fig.1) which uses a Faraday isolator (fig.1 #114) to separate the DPSS from further components downstream (fig.1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the DPSS device of Essaian to make use of a Faraday isolator at the output thereof as taught by Dulaney in order to protect the oscillator from back reflections and enable incorporation into larger laser/optical systems (Dulaney, [0062]).
Essaian further teaches numerous instances of creating/desiring a “compact” laser system (abstract, [0002, 11, 14, etc). Essaian does not specify the laser would fit in a compact package as small as 22 cm3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to reduce the size of the laser system of Essaian to be 22 cm3 or smaller in order to provide the compact size desired by Essaian and to enable incorporation of the system into mobile, handheld systems (Essaian, [0004]) (see also MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
With respect to claim 4, Essaian teaches the high thermal conductivity, electrically insulating dielectric plate further comprises: a high thermal conductivity (heatsink) dielectric laser plate that is optically transparent at a pump wavelength in order to optically-pump the low thermal conductivity laser plate and is optically transparent at a lasing wavelength to produce an efficient laser ([0038], noting both sapphire and YAG are transparent to the pump at 808nm and the 1064nm laser light).
With respect to claim 6, Essaian teaches the Volume Bragg grating further comprises: a narrowband, reflective Volume Bragg Grating ([0051]).
With respect to claim 8, Essaian teaches method of constructing ([0018]) a narrowband (bandwidth < 1 kHz Lorentzian (FWHM)), single-longitudinal-mode (SLM) solid-state laser, comprising: providing a laser diode assembly (fig.2 #1, [0037]); locating a beam-forming optics assembly (fig.2 #3, [0037]) adjacent to the laser diode assembly; locating a high thermal conductivity (heatsink) ([0038]), electrically insulating dielectric plate comprising a defined substrate material (fig.2 #6, [0038] sapphire) adjacent to the beam-forming optics assembly; connecting a low thermal conductivity (thermal isolator) (relative to sapphire) laser plate (fig.2 #8, [0038-39] Nd:YVO4) ([0038] bonded) to the high thermal conductivity, electrically insulating dielectric plate; locating a volume Bragg grating (fig.2 #202, [0051] VBG) adjacent to the low thermal conductivity laser plate. Essaian does teach a diode pumped solid state laser (fig.2), but does not teach a Faraday isolator assembly located adjacent to the Volume Bragg grating. Dulaney teaches a diode pumped solid state laser system (DPSS) (fig.1) which uses a Faraday isolator (fig.1 #114) to separate the DPSS from further components downstream (fig.1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the DPSS device of Essaian to make use of a Faraday isolator at the output thereof as taught by Dulaney in order to protect the oscillator from back reflections and enable incorporation into larger laser/optical systems (Dulaney, [0062]).
Essaian further teaches numerous instances of creating/desiring a “compact” laser system (abstract, [0002, 11, 14, etc). Essaian does not specify the laser would fit in a compact package as small as 22 cm3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to reduce the size of the laser system of Essaian to be 22 cm3 or smaller in order to provide the compact size desired by Essaian and to enable incorporation of the system into mobile, handheld systems (Essaian, [0004]) (see also MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
With respect to claim 11, Essaian teaches the high thermal conductivity, electrically insulating dielectric plate further comprises: a high thermal conductivity (heatsink) dielectric laser plate that is optically transparent at a pump wavelength in order to optically-pump the low thermal conductivity laser plate and is optically transparent at a lasing wavelength to produce an laser ([0038], noting both sapphire and YAG are transparent to the pump at 808nm and the 1064nm laser light).
With respect to claim 13, Essaian teaches the Volume Bragg Grating further comprises: a narrowband reflective Volume Bragg Grating ([0051]).
With respect to claim 15, Essaian teaches a method of operating ([0020]) a narrowband (bandwidth < 1 kHz Lorentzian (FWHM)), single-longitudinal-mode (SLM) solid-state laser (fig.2), comprising: delivering a pre-determined current and voltage to a laser diode assembly (fig.2 #1) to create an output pump beam ([0022, 65] current and voltage necessarily provided by the leads to enable pump beam production and laser output); delivering the output pump beam to a beam-forming optics assembly (fig.2 #3) and utilizing the beam-forming optics assembly to convert the output pump beam into a square pump beam ([0037], see 112b above); delivering the substantially square pump beam to a high thermal conductivity (heatsink) ([0038]) electrically insulating dielectric plate (fig.2 #6, [0038])and transiting the square pump beam through the high thermal conductivity electrically insulating dielectric plate (as seen at fig.2 #4); delivering the square pump beam from the high thermal conductivity electrically insulating dielectric plate to a low thermal conductivity (thermal isolator) (relative to #4) laser plate (fig.2 #8, [0038-39]) in order to produce a round laser beam ([0037] TEM00) from the low thermal conductivity laser plate; delivering the round laser beam from the low thermal conductivity laser plate to a Volume Bragg grating (fig.2 #202, [0051]). Essaian does teach a diode pumped solid state laser (fig.2), but Essaian does not teach delivering the substantially round laser beam from the Volume Bragg grating to a Faraday isolator assembly, wherein the Faraday isolator assembly is used to ensure that any backward traveling beams from optics further downstream of the Faraday isolator do not damage the narrowband, SLM solid-state laser; and delivering the substantially round laser beam from the Faraday isolator assembly. Dulaney teaches a diode pumped solid state laser system (DPSS) (fig.1) which uses a Faraday isolator (fig.1 #114) to separate the DPSS from further components downstream (fig.1) and protect the elements from back reflections. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the DPSS device of Essaian to make use of a Faraday isolator at the output thereof as taught by Dulaney in order to protect the oscillator from back reflections and enable incorporation into larger laser/optical systems (Dulaney, [0062]).
Essaian further teaches numerous instances of creating/desiring a “compact” laser system (abstract, [0002, 11, 14, etc). Essaian does not specify the laser would fit in a compact package as small as 22 cm3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to reduce the size of the laser system of Essaian to be 22 cm3 or smaller in order to provide the compact size desired by Essaian and to enable incorporation of the system into mobile, handheld systems (Essaian, [0004]) (see also MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
With respect to claim 18, Essaian teaches the high thermal conductivity electrically insulating dielectric plate further comprises: a high thermal conductivity dielectric plate that is optically transparent at a pump wavelength passing through in order to optically-pump the lasing ions in the low thermal conductivity plate and is optically clear at a lasing wavelength to produce an laser ([0038], noting both sapphire and YAG are transparent to the pump at 808nm and the 1064nm laser light).
With respect to claim 20, Essaian teaches the Volume Bragg Grating further comprises: a narrowband reflective Volume Bragg Grating ([0051]).
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Essaian and Dulaney in view of Zhang et al. (US 2007/0201532).
With respect to claims 2, 9 and 16, Essaian, as modified, teaches the laser assembly/method outlined above including end-pumping the laser (fig.2) in CW ([0045] CW pump necessary to enable CW resonator operation), the pump capable of end-pumping a conventional active-mirror amplifier (fig.2, as the pump excites the active material and mirror system, see 112b above), but does not teach the laser diode assembly/method further comprises: a watt level laser diode. Zhang teaches a related diode pumped solid state laser system (fig.1) including using watt level pumping ([0002, 5, 32]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the pump of Essaian to make use of watt level diode lasers as taught by Zhang in order to increase/ensure a high output power of the system.
With respect to claims 3, 10, 17, Essaian, as modified, teaches the laser assembly/method outlined above, but does not teach the beam-forming optics assembly further comprises: a fast-axis collimating (FAC) lens; and a slow-axis collimating (SAC) lens located adjacent to the FAC lens. Zhang further teaches using fast and slow axis cylindrical lens to enable collimation and shaping of the pumping beams (fig.1 #21/22, [0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of FAC and SAC lens for the optics of Essaian as demonstrated by Zhang in order to shape the light in a desired manner (Essaian [0037]; Zhang [0034]).
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Essaian and Dulaney in view of Hargis et al. (US 6101201).
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19, Essaian, as modified, teaches the laser system/method outlined above, including the plates to be bonded ([0038]), but does not teach the low thermal conductivity laser plate further comprises: a diffusion bond between the high thermal conductivity, electrically insulating dielectric laser plate and the low thermal conductivity laser plate. Hargis teaches a related laser device using low/high materials (fig.2) and where those materials are diffusion bonded together (col.6 lines 13-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system/method of Essaian to utilize diffusion bonding to join the materials as Hargis has demonstrated such a bond provides a strong bond (Hargis, col.6 lines 13-22).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Essaian and Dulaney in view of LaChapelle et al. (US 11119219).
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Essaian, as modified, teaches the laser system/method outlined above, but does not teach wherein the Faraday isolator assembly further comprises: a Faraday Isolator that exhibits a transmission of 88-90% and isolation of 35-40 dB. LaChapelle teaches a laser system using isolators (fig.14) of the Faraday type (col.81 line 24) and that transmission of 99% and isolation of 50dB is possible (col.82 lines 44-46, 52-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to optimize the Faraday isolator of Essaian and Dulaney to make use of transmission of 99% and blocking of 50dB as demonstrated by LaChapelle in order to pass as much wanted light as possible while attenuating as much unwanted light as possible (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the previously included pto892 form for a list of related art.
US 7450626, 12142888, 2017/0104308 each found to teach related VBG and/or end-cap solid state laser systems.
See the included citation for calculating the frequency of the grating from the wavelength bandwidth (RP photonics; “Bandwidth”, https://www.rp-photonics.com/bandwidth.html; 2026).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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