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
Examiner acknowledges the priority to provisional application number 63/441,052.
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.
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 1,3,9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angeley (US 6282223 B1) in view of Mason et al. (hereinafter Mason) (US 20080037597 A1) and Bhawalkar et al. (hereinafter Bhawalkar) (US 20180254601 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Angeley discloses in Fig. 3,
A system [Fig. 3] (Col. 6, lines 1-5) comprising: a laser [34] (Col. 6, lines 1-5) that includes a laser rod [22] (Col. 4, lines 43-48) and at least one laser pump source [26],
wherein:
the laser pump source [26] (Col. 3, lines 33-37) is configured to pump energy into the laser rod [22] (Col. 3, lines 33-37) to thereby cause the laser to produce a laser beam that has wavelength of 2.94 µm (Col. 4, lines 11 and 12);
Angeley fails to disclose,
the laser beam has a maximum average power of at least 220 W; and
the laser beam includes a plurality of pulses that each have an energy of at least 1.5 J
Mason discloses in Fig. 2,
a laser beam with a maximum power of at least 220 W Para. [0055]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the laser power level as disclosed in Mason in the device of Angeley for the purpose of obtaining a high power laser output. (Mason Para. [0059])
Angeley in view of Mason fails to disclose,
the laser beam includes a plurality of pulses that each have an energy of at least 1.5 J
Bhawalkar discloses in Fig. 4,
a laser beam [116] (Para. [0052]) including a plurality of pulses that each have an energy of at least 1.5 J (Para. [0052])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the pulsed beam as disclosed in Bhawalkar in the modified device of Angeley for the purpose of generating high energy short duration pulses. (Bhawalkar Para. [0003])
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Angeley as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Angeley Fig. 3,
wherein the laser rod [22] has two concave faces [22A,22B] (Col. 4, lines 45-48) that each have a radius of curvature that is at least 200 mm and no more than 500 mm (Col. 6, lines 44,45).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Angeley as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Bhawalkar,
wherein the pulses each have an energy of at least 2.2 J (Bhawalkar Para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 12, Angeley discloses in Fig. 3,
A method comprising: pumping energy into a laser rod [22] (Col. 4, lines 43-48) to thereby cause a laser [34] (Col. 6, lines 1-5) to produce a laser beam that has wavelength of 2.94 µm (Col. 4, lines 11 and 12),
Angeley fails to disclose,
the laser beam has a maximum average power of at least 220 W; and
the laser beam includes a plurality of pulses that each have an energy of at least 1.5 J
Mason discloses in Fig. 2,
a laser beam with a maximum power of at least 220 W Para. [0055]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the laser power level as disclosed in Mason in the device of Angeley for the purpose of obtaining a high power laser output. (Mason Para. [0059])
Angeley in view of Mason fails to disclose,
the laser beam includes a plurality of pulses that each have an energy of at least 1.5 J
Bhawalkar discloses in Fig. 4,
a laser beam [116] (Para. [0052]) including a plurality of pulses that each have an energy of at least 1.5 J (Para. [0052])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the pulsed beam as disclosed in Bhawalkar in the modified device of Angeley for the purpose of generating high energy short duration pulses. (Bhawalkar Para. [0003])
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angeley in view of Mason and Bhawalkar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshikawa et al. (hereinafter Yoshikawa) (US 20070237190 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Angeley discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Angeley,
wherein the laser rod is [22] a Er:YAG laser rod (Col. 6, line 42).
The modified device of Angeley fails to disclose,
wherein the laser rod is a 50% doped Er:YAG laser rod.
Yoshikawa discloses,
A 50% doped ER:YAG laser rod (Paras. [0005,0015])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the doping level disclosed in Yoshikawa in the modified device of Angeley for the purpose of increasing the doping level due to the small gain of the Er:YAG laser. (Yoshikawa Para. [0005])
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Angeley as applied to claim 2 above further discloses,
wherein the laser rod [Angeley 22] is a 50% doped (Yoshikawa Para. [0005]) Er:YAG laser rod (Angeley Col. 6, lines 43,44) that has a laser rod diameter that is at least 4 mm and no more than 5 mm (Angeley Col. 6, lines 43,44).
Claims 4,5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angeley in view of Mason and Bhawalkar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bragagna et al. (hereinafter Bragagna) (US 20120165801 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Angeley in view of Mason and Bhawalkar discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein a pump power density of the laser rod is no more than 30 W per cubic mm while the laser rod is producing the laser beam.
Bragagna discloses,
a pump power density of a laser rod less than 30 W per cubic mm (Para. [0015])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the pump power density as disclosed in Bragagna in the modified device of Angeley for the purpose of achieving a desired density value with a high laser power.
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Angeley discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 4 above and further discloses in Angeley,
wherein the laser rod [22] has a laser rod diameter that is at least 4 mm and no more than 5 mm (Col. 6, lines 43,44).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Angeley discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein a pump power density of the laser rod is no more than 30 W per cubic mm while the laser is producing the laser beam.
Bragagna discloses,
a pump power density of a laser rod less than 30 W per cubic mm (Para. [0015])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the pump power density as disclosed in Bragagna in the modified device of Angeley for the purpose of achieving a desired density value with a high laser power.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angeley in view of Mason and Bhawalkar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eichenholz et al. (hereinafter Eichenholz) (US 20200076152 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Angeley discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein a full divergent angle of the laser beam is no more than 50 mrad.
Eichenholz discloses,
a full divergent angle of a laser beam less than 50mrad (Para. [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the full divergent angle disclosed in Eichenholz in the modified device of Angeley for the purpose of having a suitable beam divergence. (Eichenholz Para. [0028])
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angeley in view of Mason and Bhawalkar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshikawa and Bar-Joseph et al. (hereinafter Bar-Joseph) (US 20170125967 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Angeley discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses,
wherein the laser rod [Angeley 22] is a Er:YAG laser rod (Angeley Col. 6, lines 43,44) that has a laser rod diameter that is at least 4 mm and no more than 5 mm (Angeley Col. 6, lines 43,44)
Angeley in view of Mason and Bhawalkar fails to disclose,
The laser rod being a 50% doped Er:YAG laser rod and a laser rod length that is at least 126 mm and no more than 188 mm
Yoshikawa discloses,
A 50% doped ER:YAG laser rod (Paras. [0005,0015])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the doping level disclosed in Yoshikawa in the modified device of Angeley for the purpose of increasing the doping level due to the small gain of the Er:YAG laser. (Yoshikawa Para. [0005])
Angeley in view of Mason, Bhawalkar and Yoshikawa fails to disclose,
a laser rod length that is at least 126 mm and no more than 188 mm
Bar-Joseph discloses,
a laser rod length greater than 126mm and less than 188mm (Para. [0043])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the rod length disclosed in Bar-Joseph in the modified device of Angeley for the purpose of the use of known common components. (Bar-Joseph Para. [0043])
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angeley in view of Mason and Bhawalkar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bragagna, Eichenholz and Bar-Joseph.
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Angeley discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Angeley,
wherein: the laser rod [22] is an Er:YAG laser rod (Col. 6, line 42);
the laser rod [22] has a laser rod diameter that is at least 4 mm and no more than 5 mm (Col. 6, lines 43,44);
the modified device of Angeley fails to disclose,
a pump power density of the laser rod is no more than 30 W per cubic mm while the laser rod is producing the laser beam;
the laser rod has a laser rod length that is at least 126 mm and no more than 188 mm;
a pumping length of the laser that is at least 60 mm and no more than 120 mm; and
a full divergent angle of the laser beam is no more than 50 mrad.
Bragagna discloses,
a pump power density of a laser rod less than 30 W per cubic mm (Para. [0015])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the pump power density as disclosed in Bragagna in the modified device of Angeley for the purpose of achieving a desired density value with a high laser power.
Angeley in view of Mason, Bhawalkar and Bragagna fails to disclose,
the laser rod has a laser rod length that is at least 126 mm and no more than 188 mm;
a pumping length of the laser that is at least 60 mm and no more than 120 mm; and
a full divergent angle of the laser beam is no more than 50 mrad.
Eichenholz discloses,
a full divergent angle of a laser beam less than 50mrad (Para. [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the full divergent angle disclosed in Eichenholz in the modified device of Angeley for the purpose of having a suitable beam divergence. (Eichenholz Para. [0028])
The modified device of Angeley fails to disclose,
the laser rod has a laser rod length that is at least 126 mm and no more than 188 mm;
a pumping length of the laser that is at least 60 mm and no more than 120 mm;
Bar-Joseph discloses,
a laser rod length greater than 126mm and less than 188mm and a pumping length of a laser that is between 60mm and 120mm (Para. [0043])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the rod length disclosed in Bar-Joseph in the modified device of Angeley for the purpose of the use of known common components. (Bar-Joseph Para. [0043])
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angeley in view of Mason and Bhawalkar as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yoshikawa.
Regarding claim 13, the modified method of Angeley discloses the method outlined in the rejection of claim 12 above and further discloses in Angeley,
wherein the laser rod [22] is an Er:YAG laser rod (Col. 6, lines 43,44)
the modified method of Angeley fails to disclose,
wherein the laser rod is an Er:YAG laser rod 50% doped.
Yoshikawa discloses,
A 50% doped ER:YAG laser rod (Paras. [0005,0015])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the doping level disclosed in Yoshikawa in the modified method of Angeley for the purpose of increasing the doping level due to the small gain of the Er:YAG laser. (Yoshikawa Para. [0005])
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angeley in view of Mason, Bhawalkar and Yoshikawa as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Bragagna.
Regarding claim 14, the modified method of Angeley discloses the method outlined in the rejection of claim 13 above but fails to disclose,
wherein a pump power density of the laser rod is no more than 30 W per cubic mm while the laser rod is producing the laser beam.
Bragagna discloses,
a pump power density of a laser rod less than 30 W per cubic mm (Para. [0015])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the pump power density as disclosed in Bragagna in the modified method of Angeley for the purpose of achieving a desired density value with a high laser power.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angeley in view of Mason, Bhawalkar, Yoshikawa and Bragagna as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bar-Joseph.
Regarding claim 15, the modified method of Angeley discloses the method outlined in the rejection of claim 14 above and further discloses in Angeley,
wherein the laser rod [22] has a laser rod diameter that is at least 4 mm to 5 mm (Col. 6, lines 43,44)
The modified method of Angeley fails to disclose,
a laser rod length is in a range of 126 mm and no more than 188 mm.
Bar-Joseph discloses,
a laser rod length greater than 126mm and less than 188mm and a pumping length of a laser that is between 60mm and 120mm (Para. [0043])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the rod length disclosed in Bar-Joseph in the modified method of Angeley for the purpose of the use of known common components. (Bar-Joseph Para. [0043])
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angeley in view of Mason, Bhawalkar, Yoshikawa, Bragagna and Bar-Joseph as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Eichenholz.
Regarding claim 16, the modified method of Angeley discloses the method outlined in the rejection of claim 15 above but fails to disclose,
wherein a full divergent angle of the laser beam is no more than 50 mrad.
Eichenholz discloses,
a full divergent angle of a laser beam less than 50mrad (Para. [0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the full divergent angle disclosed in Eichenholz in the modified method of Angeley for the purpose of having a suitable beam divergence. (Eichenholz Para. [0028])
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angeley in view of Mason.
Regarding claim 17, Angeley discloses in Fig. 3,
A system [Fig. 3] (Col. 6, lines 1-5) comprising: a laser [34] (Col. 6, lines 1-5) that includes at least one laser pump source [26] (Col. 3, lines 33-37), and a laser rod [22] (Col. 4, lines 43-48),
wherein:
wherein the laser rod [22] has two concave faces [22A,22B] (Col. 4, lines 45-48) that each have a radius of curvature that is at least 200 mm and no more than 500 mm (Col. 6, lines 44,45);
the at least one laser pump source [26] (Col. 3, lines 33-37) is configured to pump energy into the laser rod [22] (Col. 3, lines 33-37) to thereby cause the laser to produce a laser beam that has wavelength of 2.94 µm (Col. 4, lines 11 and 12);
Angeley fails to disclose,
the laser beam has a maximum average power of at least 220 W.
Mason discloses in Fig. 2,
a laser beam with a maximum power of at least 220 W Para. [0055]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the laser power level as disclosed in Mason in the device of Angeley for the purpose of obtaining a high power laser output. (Mason Para. [0059])
Regarding claim 20, Angeley in view of Mason discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 17 above and further discloses in Angeley,
wherein the laser further includes a flat output coupler [18]
Angeley in view of Mason as applied to claim 17 fails to disclose,
a flat high reflector
Mason discloses in Fig. 2,
a flat output coupler [214] and a flat high reflector [216] (Para. [0036])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the reflector structure of Mason in the modified device of Angeley for the purpose of operating at high average powers and allowing hard optical pumping. (Mason Para. [0036])
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angeley in view of Mason as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Bhawalkar.
Regarding claim 18, Angeley in view of Mason discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 17 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the laser beam includes a plurality of pulses that each have an energy of at least 1.5 J.
Bhawalkar discloses in Fig. 4,
a laser beam [116] (Para. [0052]) including a plurality of pulses that each have an energy of at least 1.5 J (Para. [0052])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the pulsed beam as disclosed in Bhawalkar in the modified device of Angeley for the purpose of generating high energy short duration pulses. (Bhawalkar Para. [0003])
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angeley in view of Mason as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Rieger et al (hereinafter Rieger) (US 20020018288 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Angeley in view of Mason discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 17 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the at least one laser pump source is five laser diode packages that pump energy into the laser rod.
Rieger discloses in Fig. 8,
Five laser diode packages (Para. [0118]) that pump energy into a laser rod [160] (Para. [0118])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the pumping structure as shown in Rieger in the modified device of Angeley for the purpose of delivering high power and increased pumping uniformity. (Rieger Para. [0118])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights