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.
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.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification does not teach how the graphene periodic pattern is configured to act as a polarizer. For purposes of the art rejection below, it is assumed to be well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention or inherent in a configuration where the array is configured such that perpendicular directions have different configurations.
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 39 is 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.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the CO2 laser” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed to be “a CO2 laser.”
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.
Claims 1, 9, 16, 18-20, 23-25, 27-29, 32 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0355639 (Anantha) in view of US 9,184,553 (Ozyilmaz).
For claim 1, Anantha teaches a carbon dioxide (CO2) laser configured to produce infrared radiation ([0008]) comprising :
an optical element comprising a structure having a substantially periodic pattern of features ([0029] refers to one or more alternating layers which present a periodic pattern of features), wherein a response of the optical element is configured to change upon receipt of a signal, wherein a Q-factor of the CO2 laser changes upon receipt of the signal ([0027], the optical element switches from absorptive to reflective in response to a temperature change; [0038] and fig. 1, 100).
Anantha does not teach the optical element comprises graphene where the optical element comprising graphene has a frequency selective structure having a substantially periodic pattern of features, wherein a frequency response is configured to change upon receipt of the signal.
However, Ozyilmaz teaches a Q-switching element (fig.4 and 5; col. 6, l. 1-11) comprising graphene (fig.4 and 5, graphene layers; col. 6, l. 1-11) where the optical element comprising graphene has a frequency selective structure (col. 10, l. 14-17 and claims 7-8) having a substantially periodic pattern of features (fig. 4, periodic layers or fig. 5, periodic array), wherein a frequency response is configured to change upon receipt of the signal (claims 7 and 8) in order to tune the resonant wavelength from pulse to pulse (claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Q-switching element of Ozyilmaz with the invention of Anantha in order to enable the device to tune the resonant wavelength from pulse to pulse.
For claim 9, Anantha teaches the optical element comprises ZnSe, GaAs, Ge or ZnS ([0021], substrate). Ozyilmaz also teaches the saturable absorber may be provided on a substrate or mirror (col. 3, l. 45-48).
For claim 16, Ozyilmaz teaches the signal comprises a bias voltage (fig. 4, V and claim 7).
For claim 18, Ozyilmaz teaches a reflectivity, a transmissivity and/or an absorptivity of the optical element changes across a range of frequencies of infrared electromagnetic radiation upon receipt of the signal (col. 10, l. 14-17 and claims 7-8).
For claim 19, Ozyilmaz teaches the optical element (fig. 4) comprises a switching component (fig. 4, V) operably coupled to the frequency selective structure (fig. 4, graphene PVFD layers).
For claim 20, Ozyilmaz teaches the optical element comprises a signal
transmission component operably coupled to the switching component configured to receive the signal and transmit the signal to the switching component (fig. 4, connection between layers and V).
For claim 23, the combination does not explicitly teach an electric permittivity and/or a magnetic permeability of the optical element is configured to change upon receipt of the signal. However, the configuration of the combination is substantially similar to the claimed invention, and the device of the combination will have an electric permittivity and/or a magnetic permeability of the optical element is configured to change upon receipt of the signal based on the similar configuration.
Further, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. The combination of the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, and a change in the claimed change in the permittivity/permeability does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
For claim 24, the combination does not explicitly teach a conductivity and a resistivity of the optical element is configured to change upon receipt of the signal. However, the configuration of the combination is substantially similar to the claimed invention, and the device of the combination will have a conductivity and resistivity of the optical element configured to change upon receipt of the signal based on the similar configuration.
Further, apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. The combination of the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, and a change in the claimed change in the conductivity and resistivity does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
For claim 25, Ozyilmaz teaches the substantially periodic pattern of features comprises an array of geometric features configured to at least partially determine the frequency response of the optical element (fig. 5a, circles, col. 6, l. 28-32), wherein the array comprises tuning elements configured to at least partially determine the frequency response of the optical element (fig. 5a, S and D).
For claim 27, the combination does not explicitly teach the substantially periodic pattern of features is configured to act as a polarizer. However, array of Ozyilmaz (fig. 5b) in the combination will inherently act as a polarizer due to the lines between S and D. Alternatively, the examiner takes official notice that configuring an array to act as a polarizer was well-known in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the array of the previous combination as a polarizer in order to generate polarized light.
For claim 28, Ozyilmaz teaches the optical element comprises a metamaterial (fig. 4, repeating layers of graphene and PVDF).
For claim 29, Ozyilmaz teaches the frequency selective structure comprises a plurality of frequency selective layers configured to at least partially determine the frequency response of the optical element (fig. 4, repeating layers of graphene and PVDF).
For claim 32, Ozyilmaz teaches the signal is configured to: control a bias level of a switching component of the optical element (fig. 4, V); and,
control a timing between a laser output command of the CO2 laser and an initiation of Q-switching of the CO₂ laser (col. 5, 40-41, saturation speed).
For claim 35, Anantha and Ozyilmaz are applied according to the rejection of claim 1 above. The additional recitation in the preamble of claim 35 recites an intended use which does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention from the previous combination of Anantha and Ozyilmaz.
For claim 36, Anantha teaches a method of Q-switching a carbon dioxide (CO2) laser to produce infrared electromagnetic radiation comprising:
exciting a C02 gain medium of the C02 laser (fig. 3, 302; [0040]); and,
generating a signal (fig. 3, 304,IR radiation) to change a frequency response of a frequency selective structure (fig. 5, absorption response changes from 502 to 504; [0058]) and thereby produce a pulse of infrared electromagnetic radiation (fig. 3, 308; [0044]).
Anantha does not teach the optical element comprises graphene where the optical element comprising graphene has a frequency selective structure having a substantially periodic pattern of features, wherein a frequency response is configured to change upon receipt of the signal.
However, Ozyilmaz teaches a Q-switching element (fig.4 and 5; col. 6, l. 1-11) comprising graphene (fig.4 and 5, graphene layers; col. 6, l. 1-11) where the optical element comprising graphene has a frequency selective structure (col. 10, l. 14-17 and claims 7-8) having a substantially periodic pattern of features (fig. 4, periodic layers or fig. 5, periodic array), wherein a frequency response is configured to change upon receipt of the signal (claims 7 and 8) in order to tune the resonant wavelength from pulse to pulse (claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Q-switching element of Ozyilmaz with the invention of Anantha in order to enable the device to tune the resonant wavelength from pulse to pulse.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0355639 (Anantha) in view of US 9,184,553 (Ozyilmaz) and US 2009/0110019 (Houde-Walter).
For claim 39, Anantha teaches a method comprising:
exciting a C02 gain medium of a C02 laser (fig. 3, 302; [0040]);
generating a signal (fig. 3, 302; [0040]) to Q-switch the C02 laser by changing a frequency response of a frequency selective structure of an optical element of the C02 laser (fig. 1, element 100, and fig. 5, absorption response changes from 502 to 504; [0058]) thereby producing a pulse of infrared electromagnetic radiation ((fig. 3, 308; [0044]).
Anantha does not teach the optical element comprises graphene where the optical element comprising graphene has a frequency selective structure having a substantially periodic pattern of features, wherein a frequency response is configured to change upon receipt of the signal.
However, Ozyilmaz teaches a Q-switching element (fig.4 and 5; col. 6, l. 1-11) comprising graphene (fig.4 and 5, graphene layers; col. 6, l. 1-11) where the optical element comprising graphene has a frequency selective structure (col. 10, l. 14-17 and claims 7-8) having a substantially periodic pattern of features (fig. 4, periodic layers or fig. 5, periodic array), wherein a frequency response is configured to change upon receipt of the signal (claims 7 and 8) in order to tune the resonant wavelength from pulse to pulse (claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Q-switching element of Ozyilmaz with the invention of Anantha in order to enable the device to tune the resonant wavelength from pulse to pulse.
The combination of Anantha and Ozyilmaz does not teach directing the pulse of infrared electromagnetic radiation to a target (i.e. marking the target).
However, Houde-Walter teaches directing the electromagnetic radiation output of a CO2 laser radiation to a target in order to mark the target so that may be viewed by a thermal imager ([0005] and [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to direct the pulse of infrared electromagnetic radiation (Anantha and Ozyilmaz) to a target as taught by Houde-Walter in order to mark the target so that may be viewed by a thermal imager.
Claims 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0355639 (Anantha) in view of US 9,184,553 (Ozyilmaz) and US 2003/0161358 (Mueller).
For claim 2, Anantha teaches a laser cavity comprising a CO2 gain medium ([0020]). The previous combination does not teach a radio frequency excitation source configured to excite the CO₂ gain medium to produce infrared electromagnetic radiation; and, a control system configured to: provide the signal to the optical element to Q-switch the CO2 laser: and provide a separate control signal to the radio frequency excitation source to excite the CO2 gain medium.
However, Mueller teaches a radio frequency excitation source configured to excite the CO₂ gain medium to produce infrared electromagnetic radiation (fig. 5-7, 60); and, a control system (fig. 5-7, 72) configured to: provide the signal to the optical element to Q-switch the CO2 laser (fig. 5-7, signal from 72 to 70): and provide a separate control signal to the radio frequency excitation source to excite the CO2 gain medium (fig. 5-7, signal from 72 to 60) in order to control the power supply and driver of the q-switch element ([0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the excitation source and controller of Mueller with the previous combination in order to control the power supply and driver of the q-switch element.
For claim 4, Anantha teaches the optical element forms part of a mirror of the CO2 laser ([0043]-[0044]). While Anantha does not specify the mirror is a rear mirror, Mueller teaches the Q-switching element may be used as the rear mirror (fig. 5, 20) a folding mirror (fig. 6, 20) or the output coupler (fig. 7, 20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the optical switching element of the previous combination with the back mirror as taught by Mueller as a suitable location for the optical element of the previous combination.
For claim 5, Anantha teaches the optical element forms part of a mirror of the CO2 laser ([0043]-[0044]). The previous combination does not teach the CO2 laser has a folding mirror where the optical element is part of the folding mirror.
However, Mueller teaches a folding mirror allows multiple passes through the gain medium (fig. 6) and the Q-switching element may be used as the rear mirror (fig. 5, 20) a folding mirror (fig. 6, 20) or the output coupler (fig. 7, 20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a folding mirror as taught by Mueller in order to allow multiple passes through the gain medium and the optical switching element of the previous combination with the folding mirror as taught by Mueller as a suitable location for the optical element of the previous combination.
For claim 6, Anantha teaches the optical element comprises silicon or GaAs ([0021], substrate). Ozyilmaz also teaches the saturable absorber may be provided on a substrate or mirror (col. 3, l. 45-48).
For claim 7, Anantha teaches the optical element forms part of a mirror of the CO2 laser ([0043]-[0044]). While Anantha does not specify the mirror is an output coupler, Mueller teaches the Q-switching element may be used as the rear mirror (fig. 5, 20) a folding mirror (fig. 6, 20) or the output coupler (fig. 7, 20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the optical switching element of the previous combination with the output coupler as taught by Mueller as a suitable location for the optical element of the previous combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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.
/Michael Carter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights