DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election filed on April 22, 2026. Claims 1-24 remain pending (claims 1-4 and 20-24 are withdrawn from consideration as being related to non-elected Groups).
Claims 5-19 are examined herein in a 1st office action on the merits, with claim 5 as the sole examined independent claim.
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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 5-19, in the reply filed on April 22, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4 and 20-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on May 7, 2025, August 21, 2023, and August 1, 2023 (two (2) PTO-1449 documents on 8/1/23), have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (two (2) pages) were received on May 25, 2023. These drawings are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: regarding sole examined independent claim 5:
-In Section (b), the term “the primary beam” should read “the polychromatic beam”; while the term “each secondary beam” should read “each monochromatic secondary beam”; and the phrase “in all the other secondary beams” should read “in all the other monochromatic secondary beams.”
-In Section (d), the term “the optical parametric amplifier” should read “the multistage collinear optical parametric amplifier” for consistency.
-In Section (e), the term “multiplexing and synchronizing means” should read “a multiplexing and synchronizing means.” Also in this section, the phrase “pulses will be used in the optical parametric amplifier” should read “pulses will be used in the multistage collinear optical parametric amplifier”, for consistency (of this defined “OPA”). Further, the phrase “pulses will be used in a sum-frequency generator located downstream…” should read “pulses will be used in an N2-stage sum-frequency generator located downstream…”, because this is the first claiming of such term (the “SFG”). Although Applicant later defines the “N2-stage sum-frequency generator” as part of section (f), it is acceptable to define this feature within another (prior) section. Also in this section, all instances of the OPA should read “the multistage collinear optical parametric amplifier.”
-In Section (f), the term “an N2-stage sum-frequency generator located downstream…” should read “in the N2-stage sum-frequency generator being located downstream…”, in consideration of such earlier claiming in section (e) and for consistency of terms. Also in this section, the term “unique driver pulses” should read “unique laser driver pulses”, for consistency of terms and to create such feature for (subsequent) dependent claims. Also in this section, all instances of the OPA should read “the multistage collinear optical parametric amplifier” for consistency akin with section (e) above.
-In Section (g), the term “the sum frequency generator” should read “the N2-stage sum-frequency generator” for consistency. Also in this section, all instances of the OPA should read “the multistage collinear optical parametric amplifier” for consistency akin with sections (e) – (f) above. Also in this section, the generic term “them” should not be used in US Patent Claims and should be replaced by a reference to the actual structure. Also, the phrase “to temporally synchronize them temporally…” appears redundant (uses the same term twice) and should be re-drafted more clearly.
-In Section (h), the term “synchronization and combination means” should read “a synchronization and combination means.” Also in this section, the term “unique short-wavelength pulses” should be consistent as “unique laser driver pulses of short-wavelength” as claimed prior. Finally in this section, the phrase “and combining them in such a manner as to cause all of them to arrive at an optical output simultaneously” should be re-drafted to remove the “them” language that is objectionable under US PTO standards. Also, Applicant may consider re-drafting the last portion of this section as “to arrive simultaneously at an optical output”, which reads smoother.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 6-19 are at least objected to as being dependent from claim 5. However, in the following paragraph note further issues for some of these dependent claims.
Regarding dependent claims:
-Claim 6: the term “the primary beam” should read “the polychromatic primary beam”; the term “the beam of pump pulses” should read “the monochromatic beam of pump pulses.” Note that in claim 6, the term “medium wavelengths” is proper because this term is defined in the specification (para [0019]).
-Claim 7: the term “the primary beam” should be “the polychromatic primary beam” for consistency.
-Claim 8: the term “the N1 stages of the collinear optical parametric amplifier” should read “the N1 stages of the multistage collinear optical parametric amplifier” for consistency akin with claim 5 above.
-Claim 9: the term “the N2 stages of the sum-frequency generator” should read “the N2 stages of the N2-stage sum-frequency generator” for consistency with claim 5.
-Claim 10: the term “the sum-frequency generator” should read “the N2-stage sum-frequency generator.” Also in this claim, the term “the optical output means” is objected to because this exact term is not defined in claim 5.
-Claim 11: this claim should depend from “claim 10” (and not “claim 5”) because the “each optical path” feature is defined in claim 10. Also in this claim, the term “the optical output means” is objected to because this exact term is not defined in claim 5.
-Claim 12: this claim should depend from “claim 11” (and not “claim 5”) because the “beamline filter” feature is defined in claim 11.
-Claim 13: the term “the pump pulses” should read “the monochromatic beam of pump pulses” for consistency with claim 5.
-Claim 14: the feature “the nonlinear optical elements” should clarify which feature (either the OPA or SFG) is being referred. Note the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below for lack of proper antecedent basis.
--Claim 15: the feature “optical synchronizing means” should be changed / clarified because this exact feature is not found in claim 5. There are two similar features (“multiplexing and synchronizing means” and “synchronization and combination means”) in claim 5. Note the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below for lack of proper antecedent basis.
-Claim 16: this claim should depend from “claim 10” (and not “claim 5”) because the “each optical path” feature is defined in claim 10.
-Claim 19: the phrase “can be less than N” is both conditional (“if”, “may”) and should use positive claim language. Further, it is not clear how the N1 and N2 values could be less than the number of primary beam pulses (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b)).
The following is a general comment about claims 5-19. The use of “means” in the claims should be reviewed. There are many instances of “means” and such terms should be used with care under US PTO Claims. Consideration is respectfully requested, as distinct structural features (without “means”) may serve similar purposes.
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 5-19 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. Claim 5 lacks proper antecedent basis as noted below, while claims 6-19 depend directly from claim 5. Further, issues are noted with some dependent claims themselves to follow.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “a sum-frequency generator” and “an N2-stage sum-frequency generator" in the claim body. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s). Such terms appear to be the same, and should use the same identifiers throughout the claim(s). Using different identifiers for the “SFG” causes confusion and should be consistent. Further, claim 5 recite phrases “delaying the pump pulses to temporally synchronize them temporally” and “synchronizing and combining them in such a manner as to cause all of them to arrive…” The use of generic terms (“them”, “it”, “they”, “those”) should NOT be used in US PTO claims, and do not proper clear and proper antecedent basis of terms (exactly what structure is being referred). Also, terms of the “optical output” are inconsistent, such as the “unique driver pulses of short wavelength” and “unique short-wavelength pulses” (also note “laser driver pulses” in claim 6 below). All terminology should be consistent throughout the claims. For these combined reasons, independent claim 5 lacks proper antecedent basis and is rejected as being indefinite under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Further regarding dependent claim 6, the term “the laser driver pulses” lacks proper antecedent basis because this term is not defined in claim 5. Regarding claims 10-11, the term “the optical output means” lacks proper antecedent basis because this term is not defined in claim 5. Regarding claim 14, the term “the nonlinear optical elements” should be clarified as it lacks proper antecedent basis. This term is defined in claim 5, but there are two such sub-elements (both in the OPA and/or SFG, these two larger features both include “nonlinear optical elements”). Clarification is required to avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues of proper antecedent basis. Regarding claim 15, the term “the optical synchronizing means” lacks proper antecedent basis because this term is not defined in claim 5. There are two similar features (“multiplexing and synchronizing means” and “synchronization and combination means”) in claim 5. Regarding claim 19, this claim is confusing and unclear (“can be less than N”). How can the N1 and N2 be less than N? Such feature is not clearly outlined by the specification and therefore the metes-and-bounds (scope) of such value of N is not immediately distinct and clear. Therefore, dependent claims 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 19 are further rejected as being indefinite under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Other than the minor informalities of claim terms, and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as listed above, examined claims 5-19 would be allowable over the closest prior art found in the current record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art found in the record (Cunningham et al. NPL “Pulse contrast enhancement via non-collinear sum-frequency generation…”) does not expressly teach or reasonably suggest, in combination, each and every structural feature of independent claim 5, as arranged. The Examiner must consider all features as found for the “laser driver module” which produces fusion energy, in Sections (a) – (h), and how these features interrelate with each other to form such fusion energy, and arrive simultaneously at the optical output in Section (h). The context of such combination is provided in Applicant’s Figure 1, which interrelates such structure with the OPA and downstream SFG. Although using OPA and a downstream SFG in combination is not novel (see Cunningham NPL Fig. 1), the Examiner is unable to show sufficient motivation to combine all such features of Sections (a) – (h) together as integrated and positioned. For these reasons, the Examiner is unable to present an anticipation rejection (under 35 U.S.C. 102) or a prima facie case of obviousness (under 35 U.S.C. 103) for sole examined independent claim 5. Claims 6-19 would also be allowable for the same reasons (but-for the “Claim Objections” and “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112(b)”) listed prior.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references A, B, N, and O (U is the English translation of reference N), which pertain to the state of the art of pump/lasers/pulses being inserted into nonlinear optical features, such as OPA’s and SFG’s, for resultant outputs with generated laser lights.
In order to place this application in condition for allowance, Applicant should make the proper changes as indicated in “Claim Objections” and “Claim Rejections – 112(b)” as listed above. Finally, Applicant must formally cancel non-elected claims 1-4 and 20-24.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571)272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 May 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights