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. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bayramian et al . US PGPUB No. 2020/0198060 A1. Fig. 4. Is annotated below . Regarding claim 1, Bayramian discloses “ A system for providing a uniform laser beam (high flux laser system 400) , the system comprising: a seed laser projecting a laser beam having a first laser beam shape (pulsed laser source 401) ; at least one pre-amplifier positioned to receive the laser beam and amplify laser beam power to output an amplified laser beam (1 st pre-amp annotated which outputs a beam to a quarter wave plate and polarizer and from there to the system which comprises 404, 405 and 406, and additional elements) ; a homogenizer ( A podizer) positioned to receive the amplified laser beam from the at least one pre-amplifier and alter the first laser beam shape (beam expansion) into a second laser beam shape ( A podizer both both 1 st and 2 nd pre-amps, annotated. Also see paragraphs [0064] through [0066] for example .) ; and a main amplifier (pair of power amplifiers 403) positioned to receive the amplified laser beam having the second laser beam shape from the homogenizer and further amplify laser beam power to output a further amplified laser beam (both amplifiers receive the beam expanded laser beam, amplify it and output that beam to a Faraday rotator and a mirror)” . Regarding claim 2 , Bayramian discloses “ The system of claim 1, wherein the further amplified laser beam from the main amplifier is directed toward a target in a two-dimensional additive manufacturing system ” . See Figure 2 of Bayramian which illustrates an apparatus 200 for two-dimensional additive manufacturing, paragraph [0023]. The printing area 203 of the vision system 206 is targeted. Regarding claim 3, Bayramian discloses “ The system of claim 1, further comprising a patterning device positioned between the homogenizer and the main amplifier ” . Both Pockels Cells and Faraday Rotators have recognized patterns. Also see paragraphs [0028] and [0029] of Bayramian . Regarding claim 4, Bayramian discloses “ The system of claim 1, wherein the main amplifier is a slab amplifier ” . See paragraph [0072] of Bayramian . Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gasda et al . U.S. Patent No. 11,467,090 B1. Regarding claim 7 , Gasda discloses “ A system for providing a uniform laser beam (laser pulse 108 , collimated beam, column 9, lines 29 through 33 ), the system comprising: a pre-amplifier a positioned to receive the laser beam (intensifier, pulse generator 120 , column 8 lines 18 through 21 ) and amplify laser beam power to output an amplified laser beam (pulsed laser source 106 , column 8, lines 1 through 5 ) ; a non-cylindrical homogenizer positioned to receive the amplified laser beam from the pre-amplifier and alter the first laser beam shape into a second laser beam shape (divergence optics 122, column 8 lines 39 through 67 and column 9, lines 1 through 55. For example, “Divergence and homogenization can provide distributions that match, align, or better fit detection system geometries”, etc . ) ; and a main amplifier having a non-cylindrical cross section that is positioned to receive the amplified laser beam having the second laser beam shape from the homogenizer and amplify laser beam power to output a further amplified laser beam (See column 8 , lines 61 through 67, and column 9, lines 1 and 2. For example, “In further examples, a separate homogenization component can be provided to homogenize intensity , e.g., with a light pipe ”, etc. ) . Claim s 13 , 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meissner et a l. U.S. Patent No. 5,936,984. * Note: Meissner shows that Figs 3 and Figs.9 comprise elements used together in Fig. 11. Regarding claim 13, Meissner discloses, ” A laser amplifier system (See BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION, column 1, lines 15 through 19) comprising: a main amplifier rod having a non-cylindrical cross section ( Fig 3. Shows rod 101 which may have a square cross-section, see column 5, lines 1 through 7 and can be used with the embodiment of Fig. 11 .); and an interface plate (sealing member 909 working with interface 1115) surrounding and in contact with the main amplifier rod to create a cylindrical o-ring interface (o-rings seal cooling jacket 907, See the SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION, column 3, lines 36 and 37) ” . And s ee any of interfaces 305 (Fig. 3), 903 (Fig. 9) and 1115 (Fig. 11) and column 3, lines 1 through 9 of Meissner . Regarding claim 16 , Meissner discloses , “ The system of claim 13, wherein the main amplifier has a square shaped cross section”. Meissner s hows in Fig. 3 rod 101 which may have a square cross-section. See column 5, lines 1 through 7 which can be used with the embodiment of Meissner’s Fig. 11. Also see Fig. 6 and column 5, lines 49 through 58. Both claims 16 and 20 are met by Meissner for essentially the same reasons. 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. 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 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayramian in view of Meissner. Regarding claim 5 , Bayramian discloses all of the elements of claim 5 except for “ wherein the main amplifier is a non-cylindrical shaped rod ” . In paragraph [0072] Bayramian teaches “ The thermal management of power amplifiers can include many embodiments both in geometry of the amplifier (rods, slabs, disks), cooling direction (edge cooling, face cooling), and cooling media (solid conduction, liquid, or gas)”. However, Bayramian is silent to the shape of the rod. Meissner s hows in Fig. 3 rod 101 which may have a square cross-section. See column 5, lines 1 through 7 which can be used with the embodiment of Meissner’s Fig. 11. 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 non-cylindrical shaped rod taught by Meissner in the system of Bayramian, as suggested by Bayramian as a matter of design choice dictated by the target image in the two-dimensional additive manufacturing system , and other factors . Regarding claim 6 , Bayramian does not teach “ wherein the main amplifier has interface plate adapting a non-cylindrical shaped rod to a standard o-ring interface ” . See column 5, lines 35 through44 of Meissner. 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 non-cylindrical shaped rod with a standard o-ring interface as taught by Meissner in the system of Bayramian, to improve overall performance of the device . Also see column three lines 20 through 24 of Meissner. Regarding claim 7 , in view of the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 5 set forth above, the combination of Bayramian and Meissner is applied for the same reasons. Claim 8 is met for the same reasons already applied in the rejection of claim 5 above. Claim 9 is met for the same reasons already applied in the rejection of claim 3 above. Claim 10 is met for the same reasons already applied in the rejection of claims 5 and 6 above. Regarding claim 11 , Meissner discloses “ The system of claim 7, wherein the main amplifier is a non-cylindrical shaped rod attached to cylindrical end caps ” . See Fig. 1 and column 4, lines 9 through 14. Regarding claim 12, Meissner discloses “ The system of claim 7, wherein the main amplifier has interface plate adapting a non-cylindrical shaped rod to a standard o-ring interface ” . See any of interfaces 305 (Fig. 3), 903 (Fig. 9) and 1115 (Fig. 11) and column 3, lines 1 through 9 of Meissner . Claims 14, 15, 17 and 18 a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner in view of Bayramian. Regarding claim 14 , Meissner does not teach “ a target in a two-dimensional additive manufacturing system ” . See Figure 2 of Bayramian which illustrates an apparatus 200 for two-dimensional additive manufacturing, paragraph [0023]. The printing area 203 of the vision system 206 is targeted. 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 amplifier system of Meissner with the main amplifier of Bayramian as a matter of design choice dictated by the target image in the two-dimensional additive manufacturing system , and other factors. This is because there are many applications for the laser amplifier taught by Meissner and the power amplifier module 403 shown in Fig. 4 of Bayramian are not limited to particular devices. See paragraphs [0072] and [0073] of Bayramian. Regarding claim 15 , Meissner and Bayramian are combined for the same reasons given for the rejection of claim 14 above. Meissner does not teach “ The system of claim 13, further comprising a pre-amplifier a positioned to receive a laser beam and amplify laser beam power to output an amplified laser beam; and a non-cylindrical homogenizer positioned to receive the amplified laser beam from the pre-amplifier and alter the first laser beam shape into a second laser beam shape matching the non-cylindrical cross section of the main amplifier rod ” . See the rejection of claim 1 under Bayramian. Regarding claim 17, Meissner and Bayramian are combined for the same reasons given for the rejection of claim 14 above. Meissner does not teach “ The system of claim 13, wherein the main amplifier is a multipass amplifier ” . However, Bayramian suggests in paragraph [0073] that main amplifier 403 can comprise a multipass amplifier. Regarding claim 18, Meissner and Bayramian are combined for the same reasons given for the rejection of claim 14 above. Meissner does not teach “ The system of claim 13, further comprising a patterning device positioned to relay a laser beam toward the main amplifier rod ” . As shown in Fig. 4 of Bayramian, b oth Pockels Cells and Faraday Rotators have recognized patterns. Also see paragraphs [0028] and [0029] of Bayramian. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner in view of Bayramian, and further in view of Shaw et al . U.S. Patent No. 5,048, 026 . Regarding claim 19 , the combination of Meissner in view of Bay ra mian is silent to the type of sealant used for sealing member 909 as disclosed by Meissner . In an analogous amplifier device as disclosed by Shaw, the use of optical cement is well known to those having ordinary skill in the art with Nd:Yag rod amplifiers to meet necessary cooling requirements. See Fig. 7 and column 8, lines 63 through 68 and column 9, lines 15 through 17 of Shaw . 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 amplifier system of Meissner with the main amplifier of Bayramian, and employ a sealant device such as an optical cement to ensure performance in a high-powered laser device and prevent coolant leakage, a concern of all three teachings. Also s ee column 2, lines 42 through 45 of Shaw . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MELISSA J KOVAL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2121 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Telework M, T, W, F, on campus Thurs. General schedule is 7:30 am to 4:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Alejandro Rivero can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3641 . 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. /MELISSA J KOVAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6216