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
The amendments made to claim 14 now include the limitation of “wherein the Q-switch comprises a birefringent organic solid crystal, wherein the birefringent organic solid crystal comprises alternating layers of mutually misoriented birefringent organic solid crystals.”
Examiner notes the limitation of “wherein the birefringent organic solid crystal comprises alternating layers of mutually misoriented birefringent organic solid crystals.” Is directed toward the embodiment shown in Fig. 2 of the claimed application and described in paragraph [0037] of the specification of the claimed application. The Remarks filed 12/02/2025 elected species 1a shown in Fig. 1 of the claimed application.
Therefore, claim 14 now includes limitations drawn to a non-elected species and will be considered withdrawn.
Claim 15 will also be understood to be withdrawn due to the dependency of claim 15 to claim 14.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 1,14 and 16. New claim 21 has been added. Claim 10 stands as cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7,9,11-13 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1,3,6,7,11-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seguin et al. (hereinafter Seguin) (US 20040179558 A1) in view of “Growth of high quality anthracene crystals by a simple solution technique” (hereinafter Madhurambal) and Malhotra et al. (hereinafter Malhotra) (US 20210191180 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Seguin discloses in Fig. 2A
A device [60] (Para. [0035]) comprising:
an active laser medium [32] (Paras. [0005,0035]) operative to emit spatially coherent light of a predetermined wavelength (Paras. [0068,0073]) along an optical axis [left and right Fig. 2A];
first [28] (Para. [0054]) and second [24] (Para. [0036]) mirrors aligned with the optical axis [left and right Fig. 2A] and defining a resonant cavity (Para. [0004]) enclosing the active laser medium [32] (Para. [0004]); and
a modulator [39] (Para. [0052]) comprising a solid crystal [46] (Para. [0039]) disposed along the optical axis [left and right Fig. 2A] between the first [28] and second [24] mirrors (Para. [0052]) and configured to change a polarization state of the emitted light (Para. [0039]).
Seguin fails to disclose,
The solid crystal comprising an organic solid crystal
wherein the organic solid crystal comprises a birefringence of at least approximately 0.05.
Madhurambal discloses,
a crystal made of an organic polyacene compound of anthracene (Page 4, Conclusion Paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the anthracene material of the crystal of Madhurambal as the organic solid crystal of Seguin for the purpose of growing a high quality crystal by a simple technique. (Page 4, conclusion paragraph).
Seguin in view of Madhurambal fails to disclose,
wherein the organic solid crystal comprises a birefringence of at least approximately 0.05.
Malhotra discloses,
an organic solid crystal (Para. [0034]) comprising a birefringence of at least approximately 0.05 (Para. [0034])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the birefringence disclosed in Malhotra in the solid crystal of the modified device of Seguin for the purpose of polarization sensitivibty in the material. (Malhotra Para. [0031])
Regarding claim 3, Seguin in view of Madhurambal and Malhotra as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Seguin
wherein the first mirror [28] (Para. [0014]) comprises a planar mirror having a reflectivity of at least approximately 95% (Para. [0014]).
Examiner notes that paragraph [0014] of Seguin states “…mirror 28 may be replaced by a fully reflective mirror…”
Regarding claim 6, Seguin in view of Madhurambal and Malhotra as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Seguin Fig. 2A,
wherein the modulator [39] comprises an electro-optic modulator (Paras. [0007, 0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Seguin in view of Madhurambal and Malhotra as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Seguin Fig. 2A,
further comprising:
a primary electrode [48] (Para. [0044]) disposed over a first surface [top surface of 46 Fig. 2A] of the organic solid crystal [46] (Para. [0044]); and
a secondary electrode [49] (Para. [0044]) at least partially overlapping the primary electrode [48] (Para. [0044]) and disposed over a second surface [bottom surface of 46 Fig. 2A] of the organic solid crystal [46] opposite to the first surface (Para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 11, Seguin in view of Madhurambal and Malhotra discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Malhotra,
wherein the organic solid crystal comprises a single crystal (Para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 12, Seguin in view of Madhurambal and Malhotra as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Madhurambal,
a crystal made of a polyacene compound of anthracene (Page 4, Conclusion Paragraph)
Regarding claim 13, Seguin in view of Madhurambal and Malhotra as applied to claim 1above further discloses in Madhurambal,
wherein the organic solid crystal comprises a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (Page 1, Introduction Paragraph 2) selected from the group consisting of anthracene (Page 4, conclusion paragraph), naphthalene, tetracene, and pentacene.
For the purpose of examination of the instant application, the interpretation of claim 13 is understood to be “wherein the organic solid crystal comprises a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon of anthracene”. As shown in the prior art rejection of claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 21, Seguin in view of Madhurambal and Malhotra discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Malhotra,
wherein the organic solid crystal comprises a uniaxial or biaxial crystal structure (Para. [0034])
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seguin in view of Madhurambal and Malhotra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fulbert et al. (hereinafter Fulbert) (US 6014393 A).
Regarding claim 2, Seguin in view of Madhurambal and Malhotra discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose
wherein the active laser medium comprises an ion-doped glass or an ion-doped crystalline solid.
Fulbert discloses,
An active laser medium [6] (Col. 4, lines 2-4) comprising an ion-doped crystalline material (Col. 3, lines 11-18)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the ion-doped active laser medium of Fulbert in place of the active laser medium of the modified device of Seguin for the purpose of having a laser medium with a high absorption coefficient and producing high yield laser media with a low threshold. (Fulbert Col. 2, lines 46-51)
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seguin in view of Madhurambal and Malhotra as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mu et al. (hereinafter Mu) (US 20100272130 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Seguin in view of Madhurambal and Malhotra discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the second mirror comprises a non-planar output coupler having a reflectivity of less than 100%.
Mu discloses in Fig. 5,
a second mirror [534] (Para. [0064]) comprising a non-planar output coupler having a reflectivity of less than 100% (Para. [0064])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the concave output coupler of Mu as the second mirror of the modified device of Seguin for the purpose of effective output coupling of light. (Mu Para. [0064])
Regarding claim 5, Seguin in view of Madhurambal, Malhotra and Mu as applied to claim 4 above further discloses,
wherein the first mirror [Seguin 28 Fig. 2A] comprises a planar mirror having a reflectivity of at least approximately 95% (Seguin Para. [0014]), the second mirror [Mu 534 Fig. 5] (Mu Para. [0064]) comprises an output coupler having
a reflectivity of less than 100% (Mu Para. [0064]), and the modulator [Seguin 39 Fig. 2A] (Seguin Para. [0052]) is disposed between the active laser medium [Seguin 32 Fig. 2A] and the output coupler.
Examiner notes the non-planar output coupler of Mu is implemented in the same location as the mirror [24] of Seguin, therefore meeting the structural limitations of the modulator being disposed between the active laser medium and the output coupler.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seguin in view of Madhurambal and Malhotra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Direct Kerr electro-optic effect in noncentrosymmetric materials” (hereinafter Melnichuk).
Regarding claim 9, Seguin in view of Madhurambal and Malhotra discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose
wherein the organic solid crystal comprises a non-centrosymmetric crystal.
Melnichuk discloses,
The use of non-centrosymmetric crystal materials (Page 2, left columns, paragraph 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the noncentrosymmetric properties of the crystal described in Melnichuk with the crystal of the modified device of Seguin for the purpose of allowing Pockles and Kerr optic effects and improvement of applications due to the lack of inversion symmetry (Melnichuk Page 1 top paragraph and Page 9, right column, paragraph 1)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner particularly notes (WO 2014065294 A1) which discloses a plurality of birefringent crystalline layers stacked on one another. See PTO-892 form.
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 HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights