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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim 1, drawn to a system for measuring metrics of an atmosphere, classified in G01N 21/255.
II. Claims 2-20, drawn to a system for optical mode matching, classified in H01S 3/1109.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination is used for the controlling the path of the light signals and does not need the projector, receivers, and calculator for guiding the light signal. The subcombination has separate utility such as the projectors, receivers, and calculator can be used to measure the properties of gases in an enclosed environment.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The search would require searching across different CPC subsets.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with John Leighton on January 22, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, claims 2-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 1 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonardo et al. (2007/0248136) in view of Seitel (2006/0171429).
Claim 2
Leonardo et al. (2007/0248136) discloses a system (Fig. 1E, Ref. 150) for a plurality of optical beams (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1154-1157) to a corresponding plurality of optical power amplifiers (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1144-1147), the system including: a laser (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1021) configured to generate a laser beam (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103; Para. 0045, coherent light); a plurality of beam splitters (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1041-1043) configured to split the mode-matched optical beam (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103) into a plurality of beam-split portions (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1091-1096); and a plurality of optical power amplifiers (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1144-1147), each configured to receive and amplify a corresponding one of the plurality of beam-split portions (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1091-1096) of the mode-matched optical beam (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103), optical path lengths between the mode-matching optics and the plurality of optical power amplifiers (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1144-1147) being substantially equal to one another (See Fig. 1E, path lengths Ref. 1091-1096 are substantially equal) thereby enabling optical mode matching of the mode-matched optical beam (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103) to each of the plurality of optical power amplifiers (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1144-1147).
PNG
media_image1.png
732
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Leonardo et al. (2007/0248136) substantially teaches the claimed invention except that it does not show mode-matching optics configured to receive the laser beam generated by the laser and to generate a mode-matched optical beam therefrom. Seitel (2006/0171429) shows that it is known to provide mode-matching optics configured to receive the laser beam generated by the laser and to generate a mode-matched optical beam therefrom (Fig. 2, Ref. 42; Para. 0022) for a laser emitting device. It would have been obvious to combine the device of Leonardo et al. (2007/0248136) with the mode-matching optics of Seitel (2006/0171429) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing optics that efficiently couple light between components, therefore maximizing power transfer and efficiency.
Claim 3
Leonardo et al. (2007/0248136) discloses each of the plurality of beam-split portions (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1091-1096) of the mode-matched optical beams (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103) has an amplitude that is substantially equal in amplitude (since the path lengths between Ref. 1091-1096 are equal the amplitudes would be equal) with others of the plurality of beam-split portions (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1091-1096) of the mode-matched optical beams (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103).
Claim 13
Leonardo et al. (2007/0248136) discloses matching a plurality of optical beams (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1091-1096) to a corresponding plurality of optical power amplifiers (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1144-1147), the system including: generating, via a laser (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1021), a laser beam (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103); splitting, via a plurality of beam splitters (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1041-1043), the mode-matched optical beam (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103) into a plurality of beam-split portions (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1091-1096); amplifying, via each of a plurality of optical power amplifiers (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1144-1147), a corresponding one of the plurality of beam-split portions (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1091-1096) of the mode-matched optical beam (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103); and configuring the plurality of splitters (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1041-1043) and the plurality of optical power amplifiers (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1144-1147) so as to make substantially equal (See Fig. 1E, path lengths Ref. 1091-1096 are substantially equal) to one another optical path lengths (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1091-1096) between the mode-matching optics (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103) and the plurality of optical power amplifiers (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1144-1147), thereby enabling optical mode matching of the mode-matched optical beam (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103) to each of the plurality of optical power amplifiers (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1144-1147).
Leonardo et al. (2007/0248136) substantially teaches the claimed invention except that it does not show generating, via mode-matching optics, a mode-matched optical beam from the laser beam. Seitel (2006/0171429) shows that it is known to generating, via mode-matching optics, a mode-matched optical beam from the laser beam (Fig. 2, Ref. 42; Para. 0022) for a laser emitting device. It would have been obvious to combine the device of Leonardo et al. (2007/0248136) with the mode-matching optics of Seitel (2006/0171429) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing optics that efficiently couple light between components, therefore maximizing power transfer and efficiency.
Claim 14
Leonardo et al. (2007/0248136) discloses splitting the mode-matched optical beam (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103) into a plurality of beam-split portions (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1091-1096) is done in such manner as to make amplitudes of the plurality of beam-split portions (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1091-1096) substantially equal to one another (since the path lengths between Ref. 1091-1096 are equal the amplitudes would be equal).
Claim 15
Leonardo et al. (2007/0248136) discloses splitting the mode-matched optical beam (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103) includes: splitting, via first (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1041), second (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1042), and third beam splitters (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1043), the mode-matched optical beam (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103) into first (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1091), second (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1092), third (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1093), and fourth beam-split portions (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1094).
Claim 16
Leonardo et al. (2007/0248136) discloses wherein splitting the mode-matched optical beam (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103) includes: splitting, via a first beam splitter (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1041), the mode-matched optical beam (Fig. 1E, Ref. 103) into first (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1091) and second intermediate beams (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1092) that are substantially equal in amplitude with one another; splitting, via a second optical splitter (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1042), the first intermediate beam (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1091) into the first (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1093) and second beam-split portions (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1094) that are substantially equal in amplitude with one another; and splitting, via a third optical splitter (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1043), the second intermediate beam (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1092) into the third (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1095) and fourth beam-split portions (Fig. 1E, Ref. 1096) that are substantially equal in amplitude with one another (path lengths are equal).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-12, 17-20 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious a first and second right-triangular isosceles prisms sandwiching a beam-splitting layer between hypotenuse faces of the first and second right-triangular isosceles prisms, and in combination with the other recited limitations of claims 2, 3. Claims 5-12 would be allowable by the virtue of dependency on the allowable subject matter of claims 2-4.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious guiding, via first and second beam-guide prisms, the first and second intermediate beams from the first beam splitter to the second and third beam splitters respectively, and in combination with the other recited limitations of claims 13-16. Claims 18-20 would be allowed by the virtue of dependency on the allowable subject matter of claims 13-17.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK STAFIRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2430. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/MICHAEL P STAFIRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 January 22, 2026