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 § 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 1-2,15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by "Spatio‐temporal distortions and propagation of wavefront aberrated beams in grating pairs” (Figueira).
For claim 1, Figueira teaches an optical arrangement for pulse compression of a pulsed laser beam, the optical arrangement comprising:
a grating arrangement comprising at least one diffraction grating (fig. 1, G1 and G2), and
a divergent pulsed laser beam that enters the grating arrangement divergently (fig. 1, curved pulse with spatial width w and temporal width ct; page 155, 1st paragraph “finite input radii of curvature” and 2nd paragraph “divergent…input beams”). .
Figueira further teaches a beam-expanding device comprising at least one beam-expanding optical element for forming the divergent pulsed laser beam (page 156, 2nd paragraph, “introducing a controlled wavefront curvature” and 2nd paragraph with a conventional deformable mirror).
For claim 2, Figueira teaches at least one deflection device for deflecting the pulsed laser beam) following a first passage through the at least one diffraction grating, the deflection device being configured to steer the pulsed laser beam back to the at least one diffraction grating for a second passage therethrough (fig. 1, mirror to right of G2).
For claim 15, Figueira teaches at least one phase correction device for at least partial compensation of a deterioration in a beam quality of the laser beam during a passage through the grating arrangement, the deterioration being able to be traced back to the divergence of the laser beam when entering into the grating arrangement (page 156, paragraphs 2 and 3, deformable mirror may be considered a phase correction device).
For claim 16, Figueira teaches the phase correction device is arranged upstream of the grating arrangement in a beam path or downstream of the grating arrangement in the beam path (page 156, paragraph 3, precompensation).
For claim 20, Figueira teaches a laser system, comprising: a laser source for producing a pulsed laser beam (page 150, 1st paragraph, “Pulse compressor…at the end of high power laser chains”), and an optical arrangement according to claim 1 for pulse compression of the pulsed laser beam (see rejection of claim 1 above).
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 3-7, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Spatio‐temporal distortions and propagation of wavefront aberrated beams in grating pairs” (Figueira) in view of DE 10 2018 109 405 (Enzmann).
For claim 3, Figueira does not teach the deflection device is configured to produce a beam offset in at least one beam offset direction, and the deflection device has at least two reflection surfaces for deflecting the pulsed laser beam.
However, Enzmann does teach a grating compressor (fig. 2) with a deflection device configured to produce a beam offset in at least one beam offset direction(fig. 3, 15), and the deflection device has at least two reflection surfaces for deflecting the pulsed laser beam (fig. 2, 15 two reflective surfaces) with one advantage being separate paths for the input and output beam (fig. 2, 5 and 19).
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 deflection device of Enzmann with the invention of Figueira in order to provide separate paths for the input and output beam.
For claim 4, Enzmann further teaches the deflection device (the deflection device in fig. 2 may be considered the collection of reflector 15 and the corner cubes between 11A and 11B) is configured to produce the beam offset in two beam offset directions (fig. 2, first offset between R1 and R2 and a second offset between R2 and R3), and the deflection device has at least three reflection surfaces for deflecting the pulsed laser beam (R1, R2,R3) in order to form a folded compressor and reduce the overall footprint of the compressor (fig. 2).
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 additional reflection surfaces of Enzmann with the previous combination in order to form a folded compressor and reduce the overall footprint of the compressor.
For claim 5, Figueira teaches the grating arrangement comprises a first diffraction grating and a second diffraction grating (fig. 1, G1 and G2), wherein the pulsed laser beam passes the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating in succession (fig. 1), and wherein the deflection device is configured to steer the laser beam back to the second diffraction grating (fig. 1).
Figueira does not teach the laser beam is steered back with a beam offset that runs in a beam offset direction aligned perpendicular to a diffraction plane of the grating arrangement.
However, Enzmann teaches the laser beam is steered back (fig. 2, by 15) with a beam offset that runs in a beam offset direction aligned perpendicular to a diffraction plane of the grating arrangement (fig. 2, input beam and beam diffracted from 11A define a diffraction plane and the output beam is offset in a perpendicular direction) with one advantage being separate paths for the input and output beam (fig. 2).
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 offset of Enzmann with the invention of Figueira in order to provide separate paths for the input and output beam.
For claim 6, the combination does not teach the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating are arranged offset from one another by a lateral offset in the beam offset direction that runs perpendicular to the diffraction plane of the grating arrangement.
However, the examiner takes official notice that Optical element alignment and positioning were well-known, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as results effective variables for proper beam propagation and interaction with various optical elements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the acceptable positioning of the first and second grating including a lateral offset in the beam offset direction in order to form the grating compressor, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 7, Enzmann further teaches at least one further deflection device arranged between the first diffraction grating and the second diffraction grating (fig. 2, corner cube between 11A and 11B), the at least one further deflection device being configured to produce a lateral offset of the pulsed laser beam in the beam offset direction that runs perpendicular to the diffraction plane of the grating arrangement (fig. 2, between R1 and R2) in order to form a folded compressor and reduce the overall footprint of the compressor (fig. 2).
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 additional deflection device of Enzmann with the previous combination in order to form a folded compressor and reduce the overall footprint of the compressor.
For claim 10, Enzmann further teaches the at least one further deflection device is configured to produce, in addition to the lateral offset, a second beam offset in the beam offset direction, the second beam offset corresponding to an absolute value of the beam offset produced by the deflection device in the beam offset direction (fig. 2, between R2 and R1 on the return path through the compressor).
For claim 11, Figueira teaches the grating arrangement comprises a single diffraction grating (fig. 1, G2), and the optical arrangement further comprises a first deflection device (fig. 1, reflector to right of G2)
Figueira does not teach the first deflection device for producing a first beam offset in a first beam offset direction and a second deflection device for producing a second beam offset in a second beam offset direction, with the first deflection device and the second deflection device being arranged on opposite sides of the diffraction grating.
However, Enzmann teaches the first deflection device for producing a first beam offset in a first beam offset direction (fig. 2, 15) and a second deflection device for producing a second beam offset in a second beam offset direction (fig. 2, left corner cube), with the first deflection device and the second deflection device being arranged on opposite sides of the diffraction grating (fig. 2, 11B) in order to form a folded compressor and allow the output beam to be displaced from the input beam (fig. 25 and 19).
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 deflection devices of Enzmann with the invention of Figueira in order to form a folded compressor and allow the output beam to be displaced from the input beam.
Claims 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Spatio‐temporal distortions and propagation of wavefront aberrated beams in grating pairs” (Figueira).
For claim 13, Figueira does not teach an extent in a direction perpendicular to a diffraction plane of a beam cross section of the laser beam emerging from the grating arrangement is greater than an extent in the direction perpendicular to the diffraction plane of the beam cross section of the laser beam entering the grating arrangement by a factor of at least 1.5. However, factor is a measure of the non-collimation of the beam which is a results effective variable (Figueira, p. 156, 1st paragraph, wavefront curvature corresponds to the claimed factor). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine the optimal factor between the emerging and entering beam, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 14, Figueira does not teach the beam-expanding device is configured to produce a divergence angle of the laser beam upon entrance into the grating arrangement, the divergence angle being between 0.5 mrad and 100 mrad. However, divergence angle is a measure of the non-collimation of the beam which is a results effective variable (Figueira, p. 156, 1st paragraph, wavefront curvature corresponds to the claimed factor). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine the optimal divergence angle, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 17, Figueira does not teach the phase correction device comprises a diffractive optical element. However, the examiner takes official notice that adaptive diffractive lenses were well-known alternatives to deformable mirrors 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 use a well-known adaptive diffractive lens as a simple substitution for the deformable mirror of Figueira as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative wave front adjustment. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Spatio‐temporal distortions and propagation of wavefront aberrated beams in grating pairs” (Figueira) in view of US 3,822,943 (Mason).
For claim 19, Figueira does not teach a collimating device for collimating the laser beam following a passage through the grating arrangement. However, Mason teaches placing a collimating device (fig. 3, 38) in a beam path in order to reduce divergence (col. 2, l. 33-40). 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 collimating device of Mason with Figueira after the grating arrangement in order to reduce divergence.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 12, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: For claims 8-9, 12 and 18, Figueira represents the closest prior art. There is no suggestion or motivation to set the lateral offset to the particular value recited in claims 8-9 and 12. There is no suggestion or motivation to integrate the phase correction device in the at least one diffraction grating as recited in claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9,385,502 (Plewicki) teaches a grating compressor with a non-expanding input.
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