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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed May 4, 2026, with respect to the 102 rejection in view of Keefe ‘190 based on the amendments to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection in view of Keefe ‘190 of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed May 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues that Hackel ‘977 does not disclose that elastic members may be placed within each of the expansion slots when the frame (90 of Hackel ‘977) in the structure show in Figure 3. However, it is noted that amended claim 1 and previous claim 7 do not disclose multiple elastic members (in addition, multiple elastic members do not appear to supported by the original specification and drawings). Claim 7 and claim (as amended) disclose “a first elastic member” and state that the “first elastic member” is disposed in each of the plurality of slits. In addition, it is noted that the amendments to claim 1 introduce a new combination of limitations, specifically combining limitations from previous claim 1, 2, 5-7, wherein the claim 7 was dependent on claim 5 (dependent from claim 1). The inclusion of the limitations of claims 2 and 6 introduced a new combination of limitations that does not appear to correspond to the drawings. Specifically, is the first elastic member a single member or multiple members. As previously written, the first elastic member was a single member in each of the slits as addressed in the prior action and rejected under Hackel ‘977. Regardless, Hackel ‘977 teaches that the wherein the deformation allowing portion includes a plurality of slits (openings formed between 41 and 40-Figure 2a, and openings 58-Figure 2b) that extends from the inside to the outside of the holding body when viewed from the direction intersecting with the pair of end surfaces (openings in Figure 2a-2b and slots not shown in Figure 3) and wherein the first elastic member is disposed in each of the plurality of slits ([0047 and 0060], wherein epoxy is disposed within the slits).
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the first elastic member is disposed in each of the plurality of slits” creates a lack of clarity because it is not clear if the first elastic member is a single member or multiple members in each of the slits. For purposes of examination, the assumed meaning is that there are elastic members in each of the slits.
Claims 3-4, 6, and 8-16 are rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Hackel US 2009059977, herein referred to as Hackel ‘977.
Regarding claim 1, Hackel ‘977 discloses a laser medium unit (Figures 2a, 2b, 3) comprising: a laser medium (crystal slab or disk 36 [0047], 86 [0060]) having a pair of end surfaces; a first elastic member (epoxy 46/88), and a holding body (Figure 2a, 2b: cladding pieces 42, [0047]-[0050], Figure 3 : frame 90, [0060]) configured to surround the laser medium when viewed from a direction intersecting with the pair of end surfaces and to hold the laser medium (Figure 2a, 2b, 3), wherein the holding body includes a deformation allowing portion that extends from the inside to the outside of the holding body when viewed from the direction intersecting with the pair of end surfaces (Figure 2a, 2b: expansion joints/gaps 58, [0058], Figure 3, Frame 90 has expansion slots (not shown) cut at the corners, [0060] similar to 58 in Figure 2b), wherein the laser medium and the holding body are in contact with each other (Figure 2b, [0058], Figure 3, [0066]), and wherein a contact region of the holding body with the laser medium has a width in the direction intersecting with the pair of end surfaces and extends along an outer edge of the laser medium when viewed from the direction intersecting with the pair of end surfaces (Figure 2a, 2b, 3, [0058], [0060]-[0066]), wherein the laser medium (36/86) has a plate shape with each of the pair of end surfaces as a main surface (Shown in Figures 2b and 3), wherein the deformation allowing portion includes a plurality of slits (openings formed between 41 and 40-Figure 2a, and openings 58-Figure 2b) that extends from the inside to the outside of the holding body when viewed from the direction intersecting with the pair of end surfaces (openings in Figure 2a-b and slots not shown in Figure 3) and wherein the first elastic member (46, as this limitation is understood) is disposed in each of the plurality of slits ([0047 and 0060], wherein epoxy is disposed within the slits).
Regarding claim 3, Hackel ‘977 further discloses that the holding body has a main body portion including the deformation allowing portion (joints/gap/slots) and a stress relieving portion (46/88-epoxy, [0060]) provided between the laser medium and the main body portion (Figure 2A and Figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Hackel ‘977 further discloses that the laser medium has a light amplification region and a light absorption region that surrounds the light amplification region when viewed from the direction intersecting with the pair of end surfaces ([0004] and [0011-0019], claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Hackel ‘977 further discloses wherein the plurality of slits are disposed at equal angular intervals when viewed from the direction intersecting with the pair of end surfaces (Shown in Figure 2b).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackel ‘977 in view of Keefe ‘190.
Regarding claim 8, Hackel ‘977 discloses that the slit is each of a plurality of slits, but does not specifically disclose an attachment member that surrounds the holding body when viewed from the direction intersecting with the pair of end surfaces. In the same field of endeavor, Keefe ‘190 teaches of an attachment member (11) surrounding the holding body (7b) when viewed from the direction intersecting with the pair of end surfaces (Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of an attachment member of Keefe ‘190 with the laser device of Hackel ‘977 for the purpose of holding the discs in place for allowing coolant to pass (col. 1, line 47-col. 2, line 37).
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackel ‘977 in view of Keefe ‘190, and further in view of Matovich US 3628172, herein after Matovich ‘172.
Regarding claim 9, Hackel ‘977 and Keefe ‘190 do not specifically disclose a second elastic member disposed between the holding body and the attachment member. In the same field of endeavor (Abstract, , Matovich ‘172 teaches of an elastic member (32, wherein the spacer member is made of stainless steel which is a resilient metal that can endure strain without breaking-col 3, lines ) disposed between a holding body (laser element holder 12 holding laser disc 13) and an attachment member (11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a second elastic member of Matovich ‘172 with the laser device of Hackel ‘977 and Keefe ‘190 for the purpose of holding the discs in place for allowing fluid to pass over the laser disc (col. 3, lines 38-53).
Regarding claim 10, Keefe ‘190 further teaches that a thermal expansion coefficient of the attachment member (11-glass tube) is smaller than a thermal expansion coefficient of the holding body (7b-rubber).
Regarding claim 11, Keefe ‘190 further teaches that a thermal expansion coefficient of the attachment member (11-glass tube) has a larger thermal expansion coefficient than the holding body (12-pyrex) member as taught by Matovich ‘172.
Regarding claim 12, Keefe ‘190 further discloses a laser device comprising the laser medium unit (Abstract/title, Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 13, Keefe ‘190 further discloses a chamber (Figure 1) configured to accommodate the laser medium unit and to allow a coolant (liquid coolant 20) to flow therethrough (Col. 3, lines 8-27).
Regarding claim 14, Keefe ‘190 further discloses that the laser medium unit (10) is each of a plurality of laser medium units (Figure 1 and col. 2, line 51), and wherein each of the plurality of laser medium units is disposed with a gap through which the coolant flows (Figure 1, col. 3, lines 8-27).
Regarding claim 15, Keefe ‘190 further discloses a laser light source (col 3, lines 28-56, wherein light is pumped into the laser discs and excited through the laser medium) configured to emit laser light to be amplified by the laser medium unit (10) and an excitation light source (15) configured to emit excitation light that excites the laser medium (col. 3, lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 16, Keefe ‘190 further discloses that the excitation light source (15) is each of a first excitation light source and a second excitation light source (shown in Figure 1), wherein the first excitation light source is disposed on one side in the direction intersecting with the pair of end surfaces with respect to the laser medium unit (Figure 1) and wherein the second excitation light source is disposed on the other side in the direction intersecting with the pair of end surfaces with respect to the laser medium unit (Figures 1-2).
Conclusion
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 JESSICA S MANNO whose telephone number is (571)272-2339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Kiesha Bryant can be reached at 571-272-3606. 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.
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights