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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species 1, FIG. 12, Claims 1-13 and 18-19 in the reply filed on 03/04/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-17 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/04/26.
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 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by JP2006269628A (hereafter JP’628, 09/28/23 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, JP’628 discloses a laser apparatus (FIG. 13, [0028]) comprising:
a grating system (a grating 5, FIG. 13, [0006]);
an actuator system (rotation angle control actuators 42b/43b, FIG. 13, [0030]) configured to adjust a first incident angle (θ1, see annotated FIG. 13 below, [0008]) on the grating system and a second incident angle (θ2, FIG. 13, [0009]) on the grating system, the first incident angle being an angle of a first part of an optical beam (interpreted to comprise beams 7/8, where beam 8 is considered a first part of the optical beam, FIG. 13, [0008]) incident on the grating system, the second incident angle being an angle of a second part of the optical beam (beam 7 is considered a second part of the optical beam, FIG. 13, [0009]) incident on the grating system; and
a processor (a controller 41, FIG. 13, [0030]) configured to control the actuator system to periodically vary the first and second incident angles so that the first and second incident angles are different from each other in at least one of phase and variation range (“The controller 41 calculates each value of λ1t−λ1d and λ2t−λ2d, and transmits a control signal to the drivers 42a and 43a so that the calculated values are within a predetermined allowable range,” [0030]).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, JP’628 discloses a first mirror (6a, FIG. 13) disposed on an optical path of the first part; and a second mirror (6b, FIG. 13) disposed on an optical path of the second part.
Regarding claim 3, JP’628 discloses a laser chamber (a metal laser chamber 1, FIG. 13, [0006]) that outputs the optical beam; and at least one prism (a prism beam expander 4, FIG. 13, [0006]) that increases a beam width of the optical beam so that the optical beam is incident across the first and second mirrors.
Regarding claim 4, JP’628 discloses the actuator system includes a first actuator (43b, FIG. 13, [0030]) configured to vary the first incident angle, and a second actuator (42b, FIG. 13, [0030]) configured to vary the second incident angle.
Regarding claim 8, JP’628 discloses the processor varies the first and second incident angles ([0030]) so that the first incident angle has a variation range of a first value to a second value larger than the first value (it’s implicitly taught that θ1 can be varied from a minimum value to a maximum value in a range), and the second incident angle has a variation range of a third value larger than the first value to a fourth value larger than the third value (it’s implicitly taught that θ2 can be varied from a minimum value to a maximum value in a range).
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.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’628.
Regarding claim 9, JP’628 has disclosed the variation ranges outlined in the rejection to claim 8 above except the third value is equal to or larger than the second value. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second value (the maximum value for the first incident angle) and the third value (the minimum value for the second incident angle) of JP’628 so that the third value is equal to or larger than the second value in order to maximize tuning ranges.
Regarding claim 11, JP’628 has disclosed the variation ranges outlined in the rejection to claim 8 above except a difference between the first value and the second value is equal to a difference between the third value and the fourth value. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the variation ranges of JP’628 with a difference between the first value and the second value being equal to a difference between the third value and the fourth value in order to obtain synchronized tuning.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’628 in view of YATSUDA et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0175054 A1).
Regarding claims 18-19, JP’628 has disclosed the laser apparatus outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except the processor varies each of the first and second incident angles in a triangular wave shape or a sinusoidal shape. YATSUDA discloses scanning frequencies of sine wave or triangular wave (FIGS. 15a-15b, [0126]) for driving a pair of actuator and rotating angles of a mirror ([0120]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor of JP’628 with a triangular shape or a sinusoidal shape drive signals to the actuators as taught by YATSUDA in order to obtain desired tuning accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 10 and 12-13 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 5-7
The cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest “the processor varies the first and second incident angles so that the first and second incident angles have a phase difference of 7π/8 radian to 9π/8 radian inclusive” as recited in claim 5. Therefore, claim 5 is allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and claims 6-7 are also allowable as they directly depend on claim 5.
Claim 10
The cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest “a difference between the second value and the third value is equal to or smaller than a variation width of any of the first and second incident angles per pulse of a pulse laser beam output from the laser apparatus” as recited in claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12
The cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest “a difference between a first pulse spectrum central wavelength when the first incident angle is the second value and a second pulse spectrum central wavelength when the second incident angle is the third value is equal to a full width at half maximum of a pulse spectrum waveform of any of the first and second parts” as recited in claim 12. Therefore, claim 12 is allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13
The cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest “a first integration spectrum waveform when the first incident angle is periodically varied and a second integration spectrum waveform when the second incident angle is periodically varied intersect each other at a half maximum of the integration spectrum waveforms” as recited in claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 is allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0007522 A1, 09/28/23 IDS) discloses an external cavity laser comprising a grating and a pair of actuators attached to the grating to tune the grating with a control signal from a tuner similar to the claimed invention (see FIG. 5).
Bushida (US PG Pub 2002/0141464 A1) discloses a laser apparatus similar to the claimed invention (see FIG. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUANDA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM - 6:30 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, 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.
/YUANDA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828