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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 05/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/18/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2023 was filed after the filing date of this application on 08/07/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaloski et al. (US20130148185A1), hereafter Michaloski, in view of Nguyen et al. (US7813406B1), hereafter Nguyen.
Regarding claim 1, Michaloski discloses a pulse stretcher unit (Fig. 5; Title) comprising: a selected number of beam splitters arranged along a selected main path (Fig. 5 elements 102, 502, and 506) and comprising an input beam splitter (Fig. 5 element 102), an output beam splitter (Fig. 5 element 506) and one or more intermediate beam splitters (Fig. 5 element 502), and an arrangement of light reflecting surfaces defining a selected number of n auxiliary paths extending between said selected number of beam splitters (Fig. 5 elements 104, 504, and 508); wherein (a) said input beam splitter is configured to receive an input beam and to direct a first portion of the beam along said selected main path and a second portion of the beam along a first auxiliary path (Fig. 5 element 102; [0019]); (b) said output beam splitter is configured to receive first input beam portion propagating along said selected main path and a second input beam portion propagating along an n'th auxiliary path (Fig. 5 element 508), and to provide at least one output beam propagating along said selected main path (Fig. 5 element 506 and 116); and(c) each one or more intermediate beams splitters is configured to receive a first input beam portion propagating along said selected main path and a second input beam portion propagating along an i'th auxiliary path (Fig. 5 element 502 and 504), and to provide a first portion of output beam propagating along said selected main path and a second portion of output beam propagating along a respective i+1 auxiliary path (Fig. 5 element 502, 504, and 116). Michaloski does not explicitly disclose wherein lengths of said auxiliary paths follow approximately a series of the form L/2k for k=0, 1,2, where L is a selected length of an auxiliary path. However, Nguyen discloses lengths of said auxiliary paths follow approximately a series of the form L/2k for k=0, 1,2, where L is a selected length of an auxiliary path (col. 2 ll. 16-231). An advantage is to reduce peak pulse energy while maintaining total pulse energy in a low cost and relatively compact module that can be easily optimized (col. 1 ll. 60-67). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Michaloski with lengths of said auxiliary paths follow approximately a series of the form L/2k for k=0, 1,2, where L is a selected length of an auxiliary path as disclosed by Nguyen in order to reduce peak pulse energy while maintaining total pulse energy in a low cost and relatively compact module that can be easily optimized.
Regarding claim 2, Nguyen further discloses the lengths of said auxiliary paths follow the form L/2k for k=0, 1,2, where L is a selected length of an auxiliary path up to 10% length variation (col. 2 ll. 16-23; col. 12 ll. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Michaloski further discloses length of said auxiliary path being larger than length of portion of said selected main path between consecutive beam splitters (Fig. 5 shows path 104 and 504 being longer than the distance between 102 and 502). Additionally, Nguyen also discloses length of said auxiliary path being larger than length of portion of said selected main path between consecutive beam splitters (col. 12 ll. 3-4).
Regarding claim 8, Michaloski further discloses said selected number of beam splitters consists of polarization independent beam splitters ([0024]).
Regarding claim 12, Michaloski further discloses said selected number of beam splitters comprise polarization independent beam splitters ([0024]).
Regarding claim 13, Nguyen further discloses said selected number of beam splitters consists of beam splitter configured to split input beams with a power ratio between 0.4:0.6 and 0.6:0.4 (col. 12 ll. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Nguyen further discloses said arrangement of beam splitter define one or more auxiliary paths and wherein said one or more auxiliary paths are being folded by one or more reflecting surfaces arranged to cause radiation to be reflected back and front between the reflective surfaces through the auxiliary path (Fig. 9 elements 900).
Claims 4-6, 9-11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaloski in view of Nguyen, as applied to claim 1 in further view of Oshima et al. (US20070070337A1), hereafter Oshima.
Regarding claim 4, Michaloski in view of Nguyen do not explicitly disclose an output reflecting surface, wherein said output beam splitter provides a portion of output beam to propagate along said selected main path and a second portion of output beam to propagate along an output auxiliary path, said output reflecting surface is positioned to direct said second portion of output beam to propagate along a selected auxiliary output path. However, Oshima discloses an output reflecting surface (Fig. 9 element 5C), wherein said output beam splitter (Fig. 9 element 30) provides a portion of output beam to propagate along said selected main path (Fig. 9 beam propagating down from 30) and a second portion of output beam to propagate along an output auxiliary path (Fig. 9 beam propagating straight out of 30), said output reflecting surface is positioned to direct said second portion of output beam to propagate along a selected auxiliary output path (Fig. 9 element 5c bends the propagation path parallel to the main propagation path). An advantage is to allow the device to irradiate a surface from different positions ([0047]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Michaloski in view of Nguyen with an output reflecting surface, wherein said output beam splitter provides a portion of output beam to propagate along said selected main path and a second portion of output beam to propagate along an output auxiliary path, said output reflecting surface is positioned to direct said second portion of output beam to propagate along a selected auxiliary output path as disclosed by Oshima in order to allow the device to irradiate a surface from different positions.
Regarding claim 5, Michaloski further discloses said selected number of beam splitters comprise one or more beam splitters mounted on a moveable platform (Fig. 3 element 304; [0022]). Michaloski in view of Nguyen do not explicitly disclose moveable along at least one axis perpendicular to said selected main path, enabling output beam in the form of two parallel output beams. However, Oshima discloses placing an optic that is moveable along at least one axis perpendicular to said selected main path (Fig. 13 elements 39a/b, 40a/b, 41a/b, and 42a/b) and an output beam in the form of two parallel output beams (Fig. 10 beam paths after element 30 and 5e) or an output beam in the form of a single output beam (Fig. 1 beam paths). An advantage of movable components along at least one axis perpendicular to said selected main path it to provide greater flexibility of the configuration of the device ([0053]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Michaloski in view of Nguyen with the beam splitters moveable along at least one axis perpendicular to said selected main path, enabling output beam in the form of two parallel output beams, since Oshima discloses placing an optic that is moveable along at least one axis perpendicular to said selected main path and an output beam in the form of two parallel output beams or an output beam in the form of a single output beam in order to provide greater flexibility of the configuration of the device such as allowing the output of one beam or multiple beams.
Regarding claim 6, Michaloski further discloses said output beam splitter is mounted on a moveable platform (Fig. 3 element 304; [0022]). Michaloski in view of Nguyen do not explicitly disclose moveable along at least one axis perpendicular to said selected main path, enabling output beam in the form of two parallel output beams. However, Oshima discloses placing an optic that is moveable along at least one axis perpendicular to said selected main path (Fig. 13 elements 39a/b, 40a/b, 41a/b, and 42a/b) and an output beam in the form of two parallel output beams (Fig. 10 beam paths after element 30 and 5e) or an output beam in the form of a single output beam (Fig. 1 beam paths). An advantage of movable components along at least one axis perpendicular to said selected main path it to provide greater flexibility of the configuration of the device ([0053]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Michaloski in view of Nguyen with the beam splitters moveable along at least one axis perpendicular to said selected main path, enabling output beam in the form of two parallel output beams, since Oshima discloses placing an optic that is moveable along at least one axis perpendicular to said selected main path and an output beam in the form of two parallel output beams or an output beam in the form of a single output beam in order to provide greater flexibility of the configuration of the device such as allowing the output of one beam or multiple beams.
Regarding claim 9, Michaloski further discloses said output beam splitter and one or more intermediate beam splitters are polarization independent beam splitters ([0024]). Michaloski in view of Nguyen do not explicitly disclose said input beam splitter is a polarization beam splitter. However, Oshima discloses said input beam splitter is a polarization beam splitter (Fig. 8 element 22a). An advantage, as is known in the art, is to use known components to achieve the desired splitting of light. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Michaloski in view of Nguyen with said input beam splitter is a polarization beam splitter as disclosed by Oshima in order to use known components to achieve the desired splitting of light2.
Regarding claim 10, Oshima further discloses a polarization rotation plate positioned in said selected main path between said input beam splitter and a consecutive beam splitter (Fig. 8 element 21b).
Regarding claim 11, Michaloski in view of Nguyen in further view of Oshima do not explicitly disclose a polarization rotation plate positioned in said auxiliary path between said input beam splitter and a consecutive beam splitter. However, the Office takes Official notice that a polarization rotation plate positioned in said auxiliary path between said input beam splitter and a consecutive beam splitter is well known in the art. An advantage, as is known in the art, is to rotate the delay path to the desired polarization. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Michaloski in view of Nguyen in further view of Oshima with a polarization rotation plate positioned in said auxiliary path between said input beam splitter and a consecutive beam splitter as is known in the art in order to rotate the delay path to the desired polarization
Regarding claim 16, Michaloski in view of Nguyen do not explicitly disclose operable in ultraviolet wavelength range. However, Oshima discloses operable in ultraviolet wavelength range ([0048]). An advantage is to allow minute defects to be detected without damaging the irradiated surface ([0048]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Michaloski in view of Nguyen with operable in ultraviolet wavelength range as disclosed by Oshima in order to allow minute defects to be detected without damaging the irradiated surface.
Regarding claim 17, Michaloski discloses a pulse stretcher unit (Fig. 5; Title) comprising: a selected number of beam splitters arranged along a selected main path (Fig. 5 elements 102, 502, and 506) and comprising an input beam splitter (Fig. 5 element 102), an output beam splitter (Fig. 5 element 506) and one or more intermediate beam splitters (Fig. 5 element 502), and an arrangement of light reflecting surfaces defining a selected number of n auxiliary paths extending between said selected number of beam splitters (Fig. 5 elements 104, 504, and 508); wherein (a) said input beam splitter is configured to receive an input beam and to direct a first portion of the beam along said selected main path and a second portion of the beam along a first auxiliary path (Fig. 5 element 102; [0019]); (b) said output beam splitter is configured to receive first input beam portion propagating along said selected main path and a second input beam portion propagating along an n'th auxiliary path (Fig. 5 element 508), and to provide at least one output beam propagating along said selected main path (Fig. 5 element 506 and 116); and(c) each one or more intermediate beams splitters is configured to receive a first input beam portion propagating along said selected main path and a second input beam portion propagating along an i'th auxiliary path (Fig. 5 element 502 and 504), and to provide a first portion of output beam propagating along said selected main path and a second portion of output beam propagating along a respective i+1 auxiliary path (Fig. 5 element 502, 504, and 116). Michaloski does not explicitly disclose wherein lengths of said auxiliary paths follow approximately a series of the form L/2k for k=0, 1,2, where L is a selected length of an auxiliary path or at least one second pulse stretcher unit, said at least one second pulse stretcher unit is placed downstream of said at least one first pulse stretcher unit such that output beam of said at least one first pulse stretcher unit is input beam to said at least one second pulse stretcher unit. However, Nguyen discloses lengths of said auxiliary paths follow approximately a series of the form L/2k for k=0, 1,2, where L is a selected length of an auxiliary path (col. 2 ll. 16-233). An advantage is to reduce peak pulse energy while maintaining total pulse energy in a low cost and relatively compact module that can be easily optimized (col. 1 ll. 60-67). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Michaloski with lengths of said auxiliary paths follow approximately a series of the form L/2k for k=0, 1,2, where L is a selected length of an auxiliary path as disclosed by Nguyen in order to reduce peak pulse energy while maintaining total pulse energy in a low cost and relatively compact module that can be easily optimized. Michaloski in view of Nguyen do not explicitly disclose at least one second pulse stretcher unit, said at least one second pulse stretcher unit is placed downstream of said at least one first pulse stretcher unit such that output beam of said at least one first pulse stretcher unit is input beam to said at least one second pulse stretcher unit. However, Oshima discloses at least one second pulse stretcher unit (Fig. 16 element 1501 stretches the beam at least in the spatial domain), said at least one second pulse stretcher unit is placed downstream of said at least one first pulse stretcher unit such that output beam of said at least one first pulse stretcher unit is input beam to said at least one second pulse stretcher unit (Fig. 15 element 1501 is downstream of element 5). An advantage is to provide the desired beam shape on the irradiated surface ([0058]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Michaloski in view of Nguyen with at least one second pulse stretcher unit, said at least one second pulse stretcher unit is placed downstream of said at least one first pulse stretcher unit such that output beam of said at least one first pulse stretcher unit is input beam to said at least one second pulse stretcher unit as disclosed by Oshima in order to provide the desired beam shape on the irradiated surface.
Regarding claim 18, Oshima further discloses said at least one second pulse stretcher is configured to stretch input beam at least partially in spatial domain (Fig. 16 element 1501; [0058])
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaloski in view of Nguyen, as applied to claim 1 in further view of Spinelli et al. (US20080240171A1), hereafter Spinelli.
Regarding claim 7, Michaloski further discloses at least one auxiliary path is formed of a plurality of mirrors with optical powers such that radiation beam is reflected between the mirrors a selected number of times ([0019]) configured to focus beam impinging thereof to maintain at least one of beam divergence angle and beam width ([0019]). Michaloski in view of Nguyen do not explicitly disclose said arrangement of light reflecting surfaces comprise a selected number of curved reflective surfaces. However, Spinelli disclose said arrangement of light reflecting surfaces comprise a selected number of curved reflective surfaces (Fig. 2 elements 20, 22, and 24). An advantage, as is known in the art, is to help lower the divergence over longer propagation distances. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Michaloski in view of Nguyen with a said arrangement of light reflecting surfaces comprise a selected number of curved reflective surfaces as disclosed by Spinelli in order to help lower the divergence over longer propagation distances.
Regarding claim 15, Michaloski further discloses at least one auxiliary path is formed of a plurality of mirrors with optical powers such that radiation beam is reflected between the mirrors a selected number of times ([0019]). Michaloski in view of Nguyen do not explicitly disclose the at least one auxiliary path is formed of a plurality of spherical mirrors and a common flat mirror. However, Spinelli discloses the at least one auxiliary path is formed of a plurality of spherical mirrors (Fig. 2 elements 20, 22, and 24) and a common flat mirror (Fig. 2 element 18). An advantage, as is known in the art, is to help lower the divergence over longer propagation distances. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Michaloski in view of Nguyen with at least one auxiliary path is formed of a plurality of spherical mirrors and a common flat mirror as disclosed by Spinelli in order to help lower the divergence over longer propagation distances.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US3447856 and US20090067458A1 show a combination of polarization and polarization independent beam splitters and that waveplates may be provided in the auxiliary paths.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10am-5pm MT.
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, Min Sun 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.
/Joshua King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 07/25/2026
1 The delay time of each optical cavity will be c*L. To achieve the desired ratios in a geometric progression with the largest cavity being defined as L1=L results in L2=L/2 and L3=L/4 or L/2k for k=0,1,2. That is the delay time of the 3rd cavity will be ¼ the delay time of the 1st cavity and the delay time of the 2nd cavity will be ½ the delay time of the 1st cavity.
2 The Office notes that the combination will naturally result in both polarization and polarization independent beam splitters.
3 The delay time of each optical cavity will be c*L. To achieve the desired ratios in a geometric progression with the largest cavity being defined as L1=L results in L2=L/2 and L3=L/4 or L/2k for k=0,1,2. That is the delay time of the 3rd cavity will be ¼ the delay time of the 1st cavity and the delay time of the 2nd cavity will be ½ the delay time of the 1st cavity.
Prosecution Insights