DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/2025 has been entered.
Benefit of an Earlier Filing
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Foreign Application No. (EP) 14178605.3 filed on 25th July, 2014.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/12/2026, and 02/19/2013 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 2-12 and 17-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pushkarsky (US 2011/0080311) in view of applicant presented prior art Capron (US 2003/0279558 A1)
Referring to Claim 1, (Cancelled).
Referring to Claim 2, Pushkarsky teaches a device comprising:
a first laser source configured to produce a laser beam of a first wavelength ([0054] one of MIR laser sources 352);
at least a second laser source configured to produce a laser beam of a second wavelength ([0054] non-MIR laser source 354);
Pushkarsky doesn’t explicitly teach an optical combiner configured to combine the first and at least the second laser beams into a beam structure in which said beam of said first wavelength surrounds said beam of said second wavelength thereby to provide a single composite beam having at least two wavelengths, one of said wavelengths being selected to heat the atmosphere along the length of the beam to cause moisture and dust to dissipate and create a path for the beam of the second wavelength.
Capron teaches an optical combiner configured to combine the first and at least the second laser beams into a beam structure in which said beam of said first wavelength surrounds said beam of said second wavelength thereby to provide a single composite beam having at least two wavelengths ([0023]; [0047]; [0053]; Fig. 2; Fig. 5), one of said wavelengths being selected to heat the atmosphere along the length of the beam to cause moisture and dust to dissipate and create a path for the beam of the second wavelength ([0011]-[0014]; [0042]; [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device disclosed in Pushkarsky with the optical combiner taught in Capron with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have reduced optical interference between combined beams; thereby increasing the devices capacity through spatial multiplexing.
Referring to Claim 3, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the first wavelength and the second wavelength are selected for their different behaviours during atmospheric penetration ([0035]; [0057]; [0103]; wherein “the MIR beams propagate through the atmosphere with minimal absorption which caused mainly by water and carbon dioxide”; furthermore, [0057]; [0062]; wherein; “the non-MIR beam with higher power than the MIR beam, thus has a second effect” thereby having different behaviors).
Referring to Claim 4, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 4-_2, comprising at least three laser sources ([0053-0057], first MWIR laser 352A, second MWIR laser 352B, non-MIR laser 354), or at least four laser sources ([0056], Fig. 3C).
Claim 5 is essentially the same as Claim 2 and refers to the device of Claim 2; therefore Claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 2 above.
Referring to Claim 6, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 5, wherein the combined beam comprises the transport wavelength alongside or surrounding the second of the wavelengths, thereby to clear a path in the vicinity of the second of the wavelengths ([0057] teaches that both MIR and non-MIR wavelengths are selected so that the resulting assembly output beam (composed of the two wavelengths) propagates through the atmosphere with minimal absorption; [0103] teaches that the MIR beam(s) is tuned to a wavelength that allows for maximum transmission through and minimum attenuation by the atmosphere, so as to avoid wavelengths that are readily absorbed by water or carbon dioxide; [0035] teaches MIR beam wavelength selected for their ability to propagate through the atmosphere with minimal absorption due to water and carbon dioxide; [0075] teaches that the combined MIR and non-MIR beams are coaxial and parallel).
Referring to Claim 7, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 5, configured to provide an outer shape using said first beam and to provide said second beam inside said outer shape ([0075] teaches that the MIR and non-MIR beams are coaxial and parallel).
Claim 8 is essentially the same as Claim 2 and refers to the device of Claim 2; and further comprising, “the wavelength selected to exert a first, absorption, effect on the atmosphere; selected to exert a second, absorption, effect on the atmosphere, the second absorption effect being lower than the first absorption effect; to produce a composite effect on the atmosphere” (Pushkarsky [0057]). Therefore Claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 2 above.
Referring to Claim 9, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 8, further comprising an optical sensor, the optical sensor being aligned along the composite beam ([0036] (IR detector); alignment is inherently in order for the beam to be received at the detector).
Referring to Claim 10, Pushkarsky, as modified, explicitly lacks teaching of an astronomical sensor, but the disclosure does teach a variety of applications for IR laser sources, such as in pollution monitoring, analytical instruments, homeland security and industrial process control as well as the laser source assembly can be used for any application requiring transmittance of directed IR through the atmosphere at the distance of thousands of meters. It is also well known that laser sensors are commonly used in space-based technologies, which in some cases fall under the umbrella of homeland security or analytical element applications. Therefore, since the laser sensor of the disclosure is used in the atmosphere, and since it is known in the art that laser sensors are commonly used in space-based applications, it follows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious a modification of the IR sensor of Pushkarsky to include an astronomical sensor, so as to extend the range of capabilities and applications afforded to such a laser sensor.
Referring to Claim 11, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 8, further configured to use reflections from said wavelengths to optimize said combined beam in the face of atmospheric changes ([0100-0120] teach wavelength reflections tunable to achieve desired beam transmission and how beam transmission affects beam propagation through the atmosphere).
Referring to Claim 12, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 11, further configured to use radar or meteorological data to optimize said combined beam ([0035] teaches using water and carbon dioxide data to mitigate or prevent absorption).
Referring to Claim(s) 13-16, (Cancelled).
Referring to Claim 17, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 2, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein said combined beam is combined with at least one further combined beam to provide telescoped laser beam stages, thereby to increase an effective range. However, providing additional composite beam that would be combined with the composite beam in order to increase the effective range is considered to be related to implementation details that person skilled in the art would straightforwardly consider to employ without the exercise of inventive skill, in order to solve the problem posed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interpret the Prior Art of Pushkarsky to have also disclosed “said combined beam is combined with at least one further combined beam to provide telescoped laser beam stages, thereby to increase an effective range”, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Referring to Claim 18, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 2, but doesn’t explicitly teach “configured to provide a second combined beam alongside said combined beam, thereby to provide shielding from atmospheric disturbance” However, providing shielding from atmospheric disturbance is considered to be related to implementation details that person skilled in the art would straightforwardly consider to employ without the exercise of inventive skill, in order to solve the problem posed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interpret the Prior Art of Pushkarsky to have also disclosed “configured to provide a second combined beam alongside said combined beam, thereby to provide shielding from atmospheric disturbance”, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Referring to Claim 19, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 42combined with a weather sensing unit or a wind sensing unit ([0088]).
Referring to Claim 20, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 19, comprising a second combined beam to provide said weather sensing ([0053]-[0057]).
Claim 21, Pushkarsky teaches a device comprising:
a first laser source configured to produce a laser beam of a first wavelength wavelength ([0054] one of MIR laser sources 352);
at least a second laser source configured to produce a laser beam of a second wavelength ([0054] non-MIR laser source 354);
Pushkarsky doesn’t explicitly teach an optical combiner configured to combine the first and at least the second laser beams into a beam structure in which said beam of said first wavelength surrounds said beam of said second wavelength.
Capron teaches an optical combiner configured to combine the first and at least the second laser beams into a beam structure in which said beam of said first wavelength surrounds said beam of said second wavelength ([0023]; [0047]; [0053]; Fig. 2; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device disclosed in Pushkarsky with the optical combiner taught in Capron with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have reduced optical interference between combined beams; thereby increasing the devices capacity through spatial multiplexing.
Referring to Claim 22, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 21, wherein said beam of said first wavelength is selected to be absorbed in the atmosphere to a greater extent than said beam of said second wavelength ([0035]; [0057]; [0103]).
Referring to Claim 23, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said beam of said first wavelength is selected to be absorbed in the atmosphere to a greater extent than said beam of said second wavelength ([0035]; [0057]; [0103]).
Referring to Claim 24, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said combined beam is redirectable with reflectors to overcome curvature of the earth ([0053]-[0057]).
Referring to Claim 25, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 24, wherein said combined beam is useable together with other combined beams from other sources to interact with an object ([0064]).
Referring to Claim 26, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 21, wherein said combined beam is configured to carry communication with an object ([0036]).
Referring to Claim 27, Pushkarsky, as modified, teaches the device of claim 1, wherein said first wavelength and said second wavelength are respectively different wavelengths ([0053]-[0057]).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645