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 Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 03/13/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/13/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “(,” in line 2 is believed to be a typo error and should be removed to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “8wherein” in line 1 is believed to be a typo error should be changed to “8, wherein” in order to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “1wherein” in line 1 is believed to be a typo error should be changed to “1, wherein” in order to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 15 recites the limitation "and/or the imaging grating stretcher" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests removing the limitation to overcome the 112-indefiniteness rejection. For purposes of examination, claim 15 is examined according to the Examiner’s suggestion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boullet et al. (US PG Pub 2012/0154902 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Boullet discloses a laser system (10, FIG. 2, [0036]) for nonlinear pulse compression, comprising:
a laser source (110, FIG. 2, [0037]) configured to generate laser pulses with a pulse energy;
a spectral broadening device (120, FIG. 2, [0038]) for spectrally broadening the high-energy laser pulses using self-phase modulation; and
a compression device (160, FIG. 2, [0041]) including a grating compressor having at least two diffraction gratings and configured to compress the spectrally broadened high-energy laser pulses,
wherein the laser system is configured to generate a pulse duration of the high-energy laser pulses of 30 to 1000 fs ([0022]).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Boullet does not explicitly disclose the laser source with a pulse energy of at least 50 mJ. However, it’s known in the art to design a laser oscillator in a laser system with a pulse energy of at least 50 mJ in order to maximize the high-energy laser pulses of the laser system. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser source of Boullet with the laser source generating a pulse energy of at least 50 mJ in order to maximize the high-energy laser pulses of the laser system.
Boullet also does not explicitly disclose the pulse duration of the high-energy laser pulses of less than 100 fs. However, it’s known in the art to design the laser system to generate a pulse duration of the high-energy laser pulses of less than 100 fs in order to obtain desired optical application (e.g. ophthalmic surgery). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser system of Boullet with generating a pulse duration of the high-energy laser pulses of less than 100 fs in order to obtain desired optical application (e.g. ophthalmic surgery).
Regarding claim 2, Boullet has disclosed the grating compressor outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except the grating compressor being an imaging grating compressor. However, it’s known in the art to design a grating compressor with image grating compressor in order to obtain desired optical application (e.g. image projection). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grating compressor of Boullet with an image grating compressor in order to obtain desired optical application (e.g. image projection).
Regarding claim 3, Boullet has disclosed the grating compressor outlined in the rejection to claim 2 above except the two diffraction gratings are reflection diffraction gratings. However, it’s known in the art that a reflection-type grating compressor supports higher damage thresholds and prevents nonlinear optical distortion by avoiding the need for the laser pulses to travel through a substrate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grating compressor of Boullet with a reflection-type grating compressor in order to support higher damage thresholds and prevent nonlinear optical distortion by avoiding the need for the laser pulses to travel through a substrate.
Regarding claim 4, Boullet discloses the two diffraction gratings are transmission diffraction gratings ([0041]), each attached to an exit-side side of a respective transparent substrate (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Boullet discloses the compression device comprises at least one dispersive mirror (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Boullet has disclosed the grating compressor outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except the laser source is designed to generate the high-energy laser pulses with a pulse duration of 300 fs or more. However, it’s known in the art to design the laser system to generate a pulse duration of the high-energy laser pulses of 300 fs or more in order to obtain desired optical application (e.g. precision micromachining). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser system of Boullet with generating a pulse duration of the high-energy laser pulses of 300 fs or more in order to obtain desired optical application (e.g. precision micromachining).
Regarding claim 15, Boullet has disclosed the grating compressor outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except the grating compressor is disposed in a chamber with vacuum surroundings and/or with protective gas surroundings. However, it’s known in the art to place a grating compressor in a chamber with vacuum in order to minimize optical distortion in air. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser system of Boullet with placing the grating compressor in a chamber with vacuum in order to minimize optical distortion in air.
Claims 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boullet et al. in view of Karavitis (US PG Pub 2011/0206070 A1, 04/08/26 IDS).
Regarding claim 5, Boullet has disclosed the grating compressor outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except the compression device comprises a stretching device having at least two stretcher diffraction gratings configured to temporally stretch the high-energy laser pulses. Karavitis discloses the compression device (a stretcher-compressor 200, FIG. 1A, [0122]) comprises a stretching device (200’, FIG. 3B, [0124]) having at least two stretcher diffraction gratings (201/203, FIG. 3B, [0152]) configured to temporally stretch the high-energy laser pulses. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grating compressor of Boullet with the stretcher-compressor comprising at least two stretcher diffraction gratings as taught by Karavitis in order to obtain a more compact grating compressor.
Regarding claim 6, Boullet, as modified, discloses the grating compressor is a non-imaging grating compressor (FIGS. 1B and 3B of Karavitis).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Boullet has disclosed the grating compressor outlined in the rejection to claims 5 and 6 above except the two diffraction gratings are reflection diffraction gratings. However, it’s known in the art that reflection-type grating compressor supports higher damage thresholds and prevents nonlinear optical distortion by avoiding the need for the laser pulses to travel through a substrate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grating compressor of the combination with reflection-type grating compressor in order to support higher damage thresholds and prevent nonlinear optical distortion by avoiding the need for the laser pulses to travel through a substrate.
Regarding claim 8, Boullet discloses the at least two diffraction gratings are transmission diffraction gratings ([0041]).
Regarding claim 9, Boullet discloses a first transmission diffraction grating is attached to an exit-side side or to an entrance-side side of a first transparent substrate and wherein a second transmission diffraction grating is attached to an exit-side side of a second transparent substrate (FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Boullet has disclosed the grating compressor outlined in the rejection to claim 5 above except the diffraction gratings of the grating compressor and the stretcher diffraction gratings of the grating stretcher are aligned relative to one another so as to minimize a spatial chirp. However, it’s known in the art to maintain optical alignment between optical components to minimize a spatial chirp in order to maximize optical efficiency. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diffraction gratings of the grating compressor and the stretcher diffractions gratings of the grating stretcher to be aligned relative to one another in order to minimize a spatial chirp in order to maximize optical efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qian et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0288132 A1) discloses an optical parametric chirped-pulse amplifier comprising a pulse stretcher and a pulse compressor, wherein the pulse stretcher and the pulse compressor include reflection-type diffraction gratings (see FIG. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUANDA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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.
/YUANDA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights