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 .
Priority
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(i) means for spatially combining (claim 1, line 6)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Means for spatially combining (claim 1, line 6) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language
Means for spatially combining the individual blue lasers without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Means for spatially combining (claim 1, line 6) is the group consisting of alignment plane parallel plates and wedges (0017), polarization combiner (0017), collimator (0017), patterned mirror on a glass substrate (0017); Raman convertor (0020) of the published specification).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention since the structure of the terms interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph/35 U.S.C. 112(f) are not described in the specification.
It is unclear from the specification which means for spatially combining; the group consisting of alignment plane parallel plates and wedges (0017), polarization combiner (0017), collimator (0017), patterned mirror on a glass substrate (0017); Raman convertor (0020) of the published specification) results in “the combined laser beam has a brightness equal to or greater than a respective brightness of each of the individual blue laser beams”.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Goutain (US 2014/0086539) in view of Chann (US 2011/0216792).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Goutain teaches a laser system (Figs 5, 6, 10-12, 0012) for performing laser operations, the system comprising: a laser diode assembly (Figs 3-5, 10-13, laser diodes, 0013, 0036, 0074); the laser diode assembly comprising a plurality of laser diodes capable of producing an individual blue laser beam (Abstract, 0012, laser emitters, which emit red, green, or blue electromagnetic radiation) along a laser beam path; a means for spatially combining the individual blue laser beams to make a combined laser beam having a single spot in the far-field (Fig 9, 0082, optics combine individual lasers into one combined laser beam which would produce a single spot) that is capable of being coupled into an optical fiber (Fig 2, single fiber) for delivery to a target material; and the means for spatially combining the individual blue laser beams on the laser beam path and in optical association with each laser diode (Fig 9, shows optics align with the central laser path).
Goutain discloses the claimed invention except for the laser system comprising a plurality of laser diode assemblies; each laser diode assembly comprising a plurality of laser diodes; explicitly showing the means for spatially combining the individual lasers to make a combine laser having a single spot in the far field; and the combined laser beam has a brightness equal to or greater than a respective brightness of each of the individual blue laser beams.
However, Chann discloses the laser system (Figs 2A, 2B, cavity 200A, 0075) comprising a plurality of laser diode assemblies (Figs 2A, 2B, individual laser input modules 252, 0075); each laser diode assembly comprising a plurality of laser diodes (Figs 2A, 2b, laser elements 250 having at least 3 diodes with 3 output beams shown from each element 250, 0075, 0062); explicitly showing the means for spatially combining the individual lasers to make a combine laser (Fig 2A, transform optics 208, diffraction grating 214, 0075) having a single spot in the far field (Fig 2A, shows multiple beams combined into one single spot); and the combined laser beam has a brightness equal to or greater than a respective brightness of each of the individual blue laser beams (Fig 2B, 0077, 10 times more laser elements can be combined or roughly 10x brighter system) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the laser system of Goutain having a laser diode assembly comprising a plurality of laser diodes capable of producing an individual blue laser beam with the laser system comprising a plurality of laser diode assemblies; each laser diode assembly comprising a plurality of laser diodes; explicitly showing the mean for spatially combining the individual lasers to make a combine laser having a single spot in the far field of Chann for the purpose of providing a known laser system that divides stacks of emitters into individual modules with a smaller beam-input profile to allows for optical elements with a smaller numerical aperture to be used (0074). Additionally, the modularizing of the stacks allows for a system with greater flexibility that includes the ability to replace one module at a time, adding additional modules to a system when increased power is required (0074).
It would also have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the laser system of Goutain having a means for spatially combining with the combined laser beam has a brightness equal to or greater than a respective brightness of each of the individual blue laser beams for the purpose of providing a known laser system that has increased output power, as well as spatial and/or spectral brightness when utilizing or combining a plurality of lasers (Abstract).
Response to Amendments
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 1 is pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued on page 3-4 of the Remarks on 1014/2025 that Goutain in view of Chann fails to disclose the amended claim limitations of “the means for spatially combining the individual blue laser beams on the laser beam path and in optical association with each laser diode and wherein the combined laser beam has a brightness equal to or greater than a respective brightness of each of the individual blue laser beams”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
From figure 2B and paragraph 0077, Chann discloses that 10 times more laser elements can be combined or roughly 10.times. brighter system, meaning that the combined brightness (10x) is equal to the an equal number of laser beam elements (10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday [8:00-5:00].
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/THIEN S TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 1/27/2026