Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/347,240

POWER-SCALABLE CRYOGENIC OPTICAL REFRIGERATOR

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 05, 2023
Examiner
HOWARD, RYAN D
Art Unit
2882
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
794 granted / 997 resolved
+11.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1036
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
45.5%
+5.5% vs TC avg
§102
34.1%
-5.9% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 997 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Election/Restrictions Claims 5-8, 10 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/15/2025. Claim Objections Claims 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 16 the limitation, ‘the crystal’ in line 7 does not have an antecedent basis in the claim and should be claimed therefore with an indefinite article ‘a’. Claims 17-18 are objected to inasmuch as they depend from claim 16. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11-14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (US 6,041,610) in view of Hehlen et al. (First demonstration of an all-solid-state optical cryocooler), copy of NPL provided by applicant. Regarding claim 1, Edwards teaches a multi-pass optical cavity (10, Disk of cooling material, figure 1); A first mirrored glass (column 6 lines 34-35); A first mirror (14, Tuned dielectric mirror, figure 1) comprising a hole (26, figure 1) that allows a pump laser (24, figure 1) beam to enter, wherein the first mirror is positioned at a first end of the first mirrored glass (see lower side of 10, figure 1), A second mirror (12, Broadband dielectric mirror, figure 1), and A laser source (24, figure 1) that produces a divergent laser beam or that produces a laser beam that is made divergent using one or more optical elements that is coupled into the first mirrored glass (see 22 is made divergent by something upon entering 26 as shown in figure 1), Wherein the laser beam is reflected within the first mirrored glass between the first mirror and the second mirror by total internal reflection (column 5 lines 39-43). Edwards does not teach the working material is a crystal. Hehlen teaches the working material is a crystal of YB doped YLF material (see abstract) and making the laser beam divergent using a lens (Focusing lens, figure 1) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify solid state cryocooler of Edwards to use a crystal such as taught in Hehlen in order to improve cooling efficiency over Yb doped ZBLAN (see Introduction, page 1 left column). Regarding claim 2, Edwards teaches the first mirror comprises a spectrally selective coating (14, figure 1) to suppress amplified spontaneous emission and parasitic lasing to avoid undesired heat generation in a material being cooled in the multi-pass optical cavity and the spectrally selective coating is deposited on the mirrored Yb doped glass such that a stable laser resonator is not formed (column 5 lines 29-39). Edwards does not teach the working material is a crystal. Hehlen teaches the working material is a crystal of YB doped YLF material (see abstract) and making the laser beam divergent using a lens (Focusing lens, figure 1) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify solid state cryocooler of Edwards to use a crystal such as taught in Hehlen in order to improve cooling efficiency over Yb doped ZBLAN (see Introduction, page 1 left column). Regarding claim 3, Edwards teaches the spectrally selective coating of the first mirror comprises a long pass mirror coating and the spectrally selective coating of the second mirror comprises a short pass mirror coating (column 5 lines 9-20). Regarding claim 4 and 9, Edwards does not specify one or more optical elements comprise one or more lenses or one or more aberrator plates. Hehlen teaches an optical element comprises one or more lenses (Focusing lens, figure 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the cryogenic cooler of Edwards to use the lens of Hehlen in order to focus the laser onto a narrower opening in the spectrally selective mirror to improve efficiency. Regarding claim 11, Edwards does not specify a first mirrored crystal. Hehlen teaches the working material is a crystal of YB doped YLF material (see abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify solid state cryocooler of Edwards to use a crystal such as taught in Hehlen in order to improve cooling efficiency over Yb doped ZBLAN (see Introduction, page 1 left column). Regarding claim 12, Edwards teaches the spectrally selective coating introduces a loss at wavelengths longer than a pump laser and prevents buildup of ASE and eliminates laser oscillation at longer wavelengths by ensuring a net optical gain that never exceeds losses in each roundtrip in the multi-pass optical cavity (column 5 lines 29-39). Regarding claim 13, Edwards teaches the first mirror has a low reflectivity for longer wavelengths of a fluorescence spectrum (column 5 lines 1-8). Regarding claim 14, Edwards teaches the spectrally selective coating comprises a dielectric coating (Tuned dielectric mirror, figure 1). Regarding claim 16-18, Edwards teaches directing a divergent laser beam (see 24, 22, going through opening 26, wherein laser input is shown to be made divergent after passing through 26, figure 1) into a multi-pass optical cavity (10, figure 1), the multi-pass cavity comprising a first mirror (12, figure 1) positioned at a first end of the multi-pass cavity and a second mirror (14, figure 1) positioned at a second end of the multi-pass optical cavity, wherein the second mirror (tuned dielectric mirror, 14, figure 1) comprises a spectrally selective coating to suppress amplified spontaneous emission and parasitic lasing to avoid undesired heat generation in a material being cooled in the mutli-pass optical cavity (column 5 lines 15-21) and the spectrally selective coating is deposited onto the Yb doped glass such that a stable laser resonator is not formed (column 5 lines 29-39); and Optically cooling the material by repeated passes of the pump laser beam (column 5 lines 29-39). Edwards does not teach the working material is a crystal. Hehlen teaches the working material is a crystal of YB doped YLF material (see abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify solid state cryocooler of Edwards to use a crystal such as taught in Hehlen in order to improve cooling efficiency over Yb doped ZBLAN (see Introduction, page 1 left column). Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (US 6,041,610) in view of Hehlen et al. (First demonstration of an all-solid-state optical cryocooler), copy provided by Applicant, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Rubin (US 2019/0049364 A1). Regarding claim 15, Edwards in view of Hehlen does not teach an optical fiber that couples the laser source to the first mirrored crystal. Rubin teaches an optical fiber coupling a laser into a Herriott cell (56, figure 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the cryocooler of Edwards in view of Hehlen to use a fiber laser as taught in Rubin in order to allow more flexible placement of the laser to make the device more compact, while still keeping allow the laser heat source to be placed away from the working material. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sheik-Bahae et al. (US 11,088,506 B1) teaches a solid state cryocooling device. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D HOWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-5358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00. 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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 5712722303. 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. /RYAN D HOWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 1/2/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 05, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587621
LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE AND IMAGE PROJECTION DEVICE HAVING A LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587620
CONTROL METHOD, CONTROL DEVICE, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING CONTROL PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12565330
AIRCRAFT BIRD STRIKE REDUCTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12548980
Single Element Dot Pattern Projector
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12547009
EFFICIENT USER-DEFINED SDR-TO-HDR CONVERSION WITH MODEL TEMPLATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+10.3%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 997 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month