No n-Final Rejection The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This application was filed with claims 1-20, which are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim s 1-8, 11-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2005/0111510 (“Gong”) . Regarding claim 1, Gong discloses in Fig. 1 a device comprising: an active material 22 ([0017]-[0019]); a primary optical system that forms a primary folded optical path through the active material for a primary optical beam (as seen in any of Figs. 2a-c, a primary optical path going through the active material is a zigzag, i.e. folded, [0017]-[0019]); and a pump optical system 21 that forms a pump folded optical path through the active material for pump light, (the pump propagates through the active material via TIR, i.e. it reflects off the sides, i.e. it is folded) the pump folded optical path overlapping with the primary folded optical path in the active material (as the pump path zigzags several times via TIR, and the primary path also zigzags , the pump and primary paths will overlap in the slab. As seen in Fig. 2a and especially Figs. 2b-c, the primary path may go through a large portion of the slab. And as discussed in [0019] much of the point here is to get uniformity of the pumping in the slab, so Gong clearly wants it to go through much of the area where the primary beam is propagating.). wherein pump light propagating along the pump folded optical path pumps the active material to amplify the primary optical beam propagating through the active material along the primary folded optical path (this is just generally explaining the basic definition of optical pumping in a laser slab and would have been understood by a person skilled in the art. The input beam 26 is amplified by the pump . [0003]-[0004],[0024]-[0026]). Regarding claims 2 and 3, since the pump and primary paths are both folded and propagating through the slab by TIR, they will each intersect with each other multiple times. The device of claim 1, wherein the primary folded optical path includes a section that intersects the pump folded optical path multiple times. Regarding claim 4, Gong discloses the primary beam may be in a resonator arrangement, Fig. 8 embodiment, in which case the primary path will intersect with itself. Regarding claim 5, Gong discloses the primary folded optical path passes through the active material multiple times. See Fig. 2a. Regarding claim 6, Gong discloses the primary optical beam passes through the active material a fixed number of times, when it is an amplifier. See Fig. 7 embodiment. Regarding claim 7, Gong discloses the primary folded optical path includes a zigzag path. See Fig. 2a. Regarding claim 8, Gong discloses the pump folded optical path includes a zigzag path (propagates via TIR, so it will zig zag off of the slab walls [0015]). Regarding claim 11, Gong shows in Fig. 2a the primary folded path going relatively straight through the slab, along line A of Fig. 1. Gong shows in Fig. 1 the pumps are approximately 45 degrees to the line A. Regarding claim 12, Gong discloses the pump optical system includes one or more surfaces of the active material that direct pump light (pump propagates via TIR in slab [0015]). Regarding claim 13, Gong discloses the active material includes first, second, and third surface portions, the first surface portion arranged to receive pump light from a pump source (corner where the pump enters), the second surface portion opposite the first surface portion (where the pump first propagates via TIR, [0015]) and angled to direct pump light propagating from the first surface portion and un-absorbed by the active material toward the third surface portion (side opposing the second). Regarding claims 16 and 17, the primary and pump optical paths are in free space. Regarding claim 18, Gong discloses no waveguides in the system. Regarding claim 19, Gong discloses the pump and primary optical systems are different. 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. Claim s 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of US 5,619,522 (“Dube”) . Regarding claims 9-10, Gong does not show the propagation direction of the primary beam is approximately transverse to the propagation direction of the pump light, or that the angle of intersection between them is 70-90 degrees. Dube shows that an optically pumped solid state laser can be pumped transverse and at about a 90 degree angle to the propagation direction of the primary beam . Rather than use TIR, Dube has reflectors so that the pump path folds and goes through the gain medium multiple times. See Fig. 1 and discussion thereof. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such mirrors as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predicable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. Gong is like the claim, but differs in that it uses TIR off of surfaces rather than actual mirrors. Dube shows that it was known to instead use mirrors , and when doing so the pump beam can be transverse at around 90 degrees to the primary direction . A person of ordinary skill in the art could have used mirrors instead of TIR and the result of that substitution would have been predictable. Reflection occurs either way, just from a different mechanism, and the result of the change is just reflected beams, the same as in either reference. This further allows for a different variety of shape and type of gain medium and a different input angle, as the skilled artisan no longer has to worry about the TIR conditions being met. Dube additionally teaches that this allows for more efficient pumping as many passes of the pump beam may go through the gain medium. Col. 3 lines 34-59. Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of Dergachev et al., Review of Multipass Slab Laser Systems, IEEE J. of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics (2007) (see 8/10/2023 IDS) (“ Dergachev ”). Regarding claim 14, Gong uses total internal reflection to create the folded primary path, not mirrors . See Fig. 2 . Dergachev teaches that in a similar system with folded primary path through a gain medium there may instead be mirrors on either side of the gain medium. See Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such mirrors as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predicable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. Gong is like the claim, but differs in that it uses TIR off of surfaces rather than actual mirrors. Dergachev shows that it was known to instead use mirrors. A person of ordinary skill in the art could have used mirrors instead of TIR and the result of that substitution would have been predictable. Reflection occurs either way, just from a different mechanism, and the result of the change is just reflected beams, the same as in either reference. This further allows for a different variety of shape and type of gain medium and a different input angle, as the skilled artisan no longer has to worry about the TIR conditions being met. Regarding claim 20, when the combination above is made, the additional mirrors of one system are not in common with the other. Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong in view of US 6,625,194 (“Kaneda”) . Regarding claim 1 5 , Gong uses total internal reflection to create the folded p ump path, not mirrors. See Fig. 2. Kaneda teaches that in a similar system with folded pump path through a gain medium there may instead be mirrors on either side of the gain medium. See Fig. 3, mirrors 4,5 reflecting pump 2 in a folded manner. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include such mirrors as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predicable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. Gong is like the claim, but differs in that it uses TIR off of surfaces rather than actual mirrors. Kaneda shows that it was known to instead use mirrors. A person of ordinary skill in the art could have used mirrors instead of TIR and the result of that substitution would have been predictable. Reflection occurs either way, just from a different mechanism, and the result of the change is just reflected beams, the same as in either reference. This further allows for a different variety of shape and type of gain medium and a different input angle, as the skilled artisan no longer has to worry about the TIR conditions being met. Regarding claim 20 , when the combination above is made, the additional mirrors of one system are not in common with the other. Conclusion The examiner prefers the above rejections, but also has a favorable view of the lack of novelty findings in related PCT/US23/28879. See 3/4/2024 IDS. The following citations are also relevant. The following show a p ump light source and signal light source that are each folded : US 2023/0238763 , US 2022/0294170 , US 6,094,297 , DE 10 2007 051 877 . The following show a f olded signal light source but either no discussion of or a non-folded pump: US 2017/0229835 , US 6,055,263 , US 6 , 061 , 377 , US 7 , 590 , 160 , DE 103 27 260 . The following show a folded pump light source but a non-folded signal source: US 2001/0019570 , US 6,625,194 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT James Menefee whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1944 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7-4 . Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT MinSun Harvey can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 applications may be obtained from Patent Center. See : 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. /JAMES A MENEFEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828