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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 01/24/2024 and 07/26/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because it includes reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. See line 2 of said claim.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarsitano et al. (“Multilaser Herriott cell for planetary tunable laser spectrometers” 2007), hereinafter “Tarsitano”, in view of Herriott et al. (“Folded Optical Delay Lines” 1965), hereinafter “Herriott”.
Regarding claim 1, Tarsitano discloses a cavity for electromagnetic radiation (see Fig. 2), comprising: a first concave mirror (“far mirror”) having a focal length (see Pgs. 6925-6926 –A. Ray Propagation, Paragraph 1; see Fig. 2); a second concave mirror (“near mirror”) comprising the focal length and having an entry hole (“coupling hole”) for receiving a laser beam into the cavity (see Pgs. 6925-6926 – A. Ray Propagation, Paragraph 2; see Fig. 2), wherein: the second mirror and the first mirror face each other and are separated by a distance of slightly smaller than four times the focal length so that the cavity is in a near concentric configuration (see Fig. 2, Pg. 6926 – B. Re-entrant Condition, Paragraph 1, reference item 19 - Herriott et al. “Off-axis paths in spherical mirror interferometers” presents this Herriott cell configuration); a radial distance of the entry hole (“coupling hole”) from a center of the second concave mirror (“near mirror”) is: smaller than ½ of the radius of the mirror; and larger than a minimum distance required for at least 10 passes of the laser beam reflecting between the mirrors (see Pg. 6930 – A. Design Considerations, Paragraph 2, Lines 17-19, Paragraph 3; Figs. 9, 11). Tarsitano discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify and the laser beam is a near collimated gaussian beam having its focus adjusted so that all the passes of the laser beam overlap to buildup power of the electromagnetic radiation in a uniform intensity distribution in cross-sections perpendicular to a length of the cavity. In the same field of endeavor, Herriott discloses and the laser beam is a near collimated gaussian beam having its focus adjusted so that all the passes of the laser beam overlap to buildup power of the electromagnetic radiation in a uniform intensity distribution in cross-sections perpendicular to a length of the cavity (see pg. 886 – Mode Matching Requirements, Paragraphs 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cavity of Tarsitano with and the laser beam is a near collimated gaussian beam having its focus adjusted so that all the passes of the laser beam overlap to buildup power of the electromagnetic radiation in a uniform intensity distribution in cross-sections perpendicular to a length of the cavity of Herriott for the purpose of providing increased path length in a compact system (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Tarsitano further discloses wherein the input laser beam is angled and the mirrors are aligned such that the passes (see Pg. 6926 – B. Re-entrant Condition, Paragraph 1, Lines 1-2; Fig. 2): are arranged a circular pattern around a longitudinal axis of the cavity; and form consecutive reflection spots on opposite sides of the mirrors so that the passes are near a center of the cavity at a middle of the cavity (see Pg. 6926 – B. Re-entrant Condition, Paragraph 1, Lines 1-7; Figs. 3, 6, 7).
Regarding claim 3, Tarsitano further discloses wherein the all the beams substantially overlap with each other such that a total power of the passes in the cavity is n times the power of the inputted laser beam, where n is the number of passes of the laser beam in the cavity (see Pg. 6926 – B. Re-entrant Condition).
Regarding claim 4, Tarsitano and Herriott teach the cavity set forth above for claim 1, Herriott further discloses wherein along the length of the cavity, all the cross sections of the overlapping laser beams have the intensity distribution, in a plane perpendicular to the length, such that a minimum intensity at a center of the intensity distribution is higher than 1/e^2 of a maximum intensity of the input laser beam diverged or focused to the same size (see pg. 886 – Mode Matching Requirements, Paragraphs 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the cavity of Tarsitano with the teachings of Herriott for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Tarsitano and Herriott teach the cavity set forth above for claim 4, Herriott further discloses wherein a diameter D of the intensity distribution increases linearly with distance along the cavity axis from a center of the cavity and/or is given by:
PNG
media_image1.png
90
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where xo is the radial position of the entry hole and a = π− cos−1(1 − d/2 f ), the angle between consecutive laser spots on the same mirror (see pg. 886 – Mode Matching Requirements, Paragraphs 1-3). Since the limitations are presented as alternatives, Herriott satisfies the requirement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the cavity of Tarsitano with the teachings of Herriott for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Tarsitano further discloses wherein the radial distance is between ½ of the entry hole radius and ½ of the radius of the mirror (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 9, Tarsitano further discloses wherein the laser beam comprises one or more beams comprising different wavelengths (see Pg. 6934 – 4. Conclusion, Paragraph 3, Lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 10, Tarsitano further discloses an apparatus comprising the cavity of claim 1 to build up the power of the electromagnetic radiation for interacting with material, wherein the material does not substantially reflect or absorb the electromagnetic radiation (see Pg. 6923 – A. Planetary Gas Sampling Using Tunable Laser Spectroscopy, Paragraph 3, Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 11, Tarsitano further discloses comprising a trap wherein the material comprises ions, atoms, molecules or macroscopic particles such as silica microspheres (see Pg. 6925 – Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 15, Tarsitano and Herriott teach the cavity set forth above for claim 4, Herriott further discloses wherein along the length of the cavity, all the cross sections of the overlapping laser beams form the intensity distribution 118, in a plane perpendicular to the length, that is more uniformly spread out with smaller variation of the intensity from a mean value of the intensity, as compared to the variation of the intensity of the input beam in a first pass (see pg. 886 – Mode Matching Requirements, Paragraphs 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the cavity of Tarsitano with the teachings of Herriott for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Tarsitano discloses a method of making an cavity (see Fig. 2), comprising: positioning a first concave mirror (“far mirror”) having a focal length (see Pgs. 6925-6926 –A. Ray Propagation, Paragraph 1; see Fig. 2); positioning a second concave mirror (“near mirror”) having the focal length and an entry hole (“coupling hole”) (see Pgs. 6925-6926 – A. Ray Propagation, Paragraph 2; see Fig. 2), at a distance from the first mirror that is slightly less than four times the focal length (see Fig. 2, Pg. 6926 – B. Re-entrant Condition, Paragraph 1, reference item 19 - Herriott et al. “Off-axis paths in spherical mirror interferometers” presents this Herriott cell configuration); aligning the optical axis of the two mirrors facing each other, optionally allowing for a misalignment (see Fig. 2, Pg. 6928 – C. Characteristics Patterns of Families of Solutions, Paragraph 1); launching a laser beam through the entry hole so that the laser beam reflects back from the first mirror to a position just touching the entry hole and the subsequent reflected positions of the laser beam form a circle on the mirror (see Pg. 6926 – B. Re-entrant Condition, Paragraph 1, Lines 1-7). Tarsitano discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify a near-collimated laser beam; and adjusting a focus of the laser beam so that the circulating laser beams within the cavity overlap with each other and form a uniform intensity distribution on the mirrors and on cross sections along the length of the cavity. In the same field of endeavor, Herriott discloses a near-collimated laser beam; and adjusting a focus of the laser beam so that the circulating laser beams within the cavity overlap with each other and form a uniform intensity distribution on the mirrors and on cross sections along the length of the cavity (see pg. 886 – Mode Matching Requirements, Paragraphs 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Tarsitano with a near-collimated laser beam; and adjusting a focus of the laser beam so that the circulating laser beams within the cavity overlap with each other and form a uniform intensity distribution on the mirrors and on cross sections along the length of the cavity of Herriott for the purpose of providing increased path length in a compact system (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Tarsitano further discloses further comprising providing instructions for the positioning, aligning, the launching, and the adjusting (see Pg. 6925 – C. Requirements for the Tunable Laser Spectrometer 2009 Mars Science Laboratory Instrument, Pgs. 6930-6931 – A. Desing Considerations, Pg. 6932 – B. Cell Designs: Four- and Six-Laser Channel Herriott Cells).
Regarding claim 18, Tarsitano further discloses further comprising using the cavity to build up the power of the electromagnetic radiation for interacting with material, wherein the material does not substantially reflect or absorb the electromagnetic radiation (see Pg. 6923 – A. Planetary Gas Sampling Using Tunable Laser Spectroscopy, Paragraph 3, Figs. 1, 2).
Claims 6, 8, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarsitano (“Multilaser Herriott cell for planetary tunable laser spectrometers” 2007) in view of Herriott (“Folded Optical Delay Lines” 1965) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Silver (USPG Pub No. 2006/0158644).
Regarding claim 6, Tarsitano and Herriott disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein: the entry hole is sized such that the laser beam can be inputted through the entry hole without allowing substantial leakage of the circulating laser beam within the cavity; and the divergence of the laser beam is such that the laser spot of the first reflection back on the second mirror has an area larger than the entry hole. In the same field of endeavor, Silver discloses wherein: the entry hole is sized such that the laser beam can be inputted through the entry hole without allowing substantial leakage of the circulating laser beam within the cavity (Paragraphs 13, 58); and the divergence of the laser beam is such that the laser spot of the first reflection back on the second mirror has an area larger than the entry hole (Paragraphs 13, 58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cavity of Tarsitano and Herriott with wherein: the entry hole is sized such that the laser beam can be inputted through the entry hole without allowing substantial leakage of the circulating laser beam within the cavity; and the divergence of the laser beam is such that the laser spot of the first reflection back on the second mirror has an area larger than the entry hole of Silver for the purpose of obtaining the desired number of passes (Paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 8, Tarsitano and Herriott disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the mirrors are separated by the distance that is less than 15% smaller or less than 1% smaller than 4F (where F is the focal distance). In the same field of endeavor, Silver discloses wherein the mirrors are separated by the distance that is less than 15% smaller or less than 1% smaller than 4F (where F is the focal distance) (Paragraph 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cavity of Tarsitano and Herriott with wherein the mirrors are separated by the distance that is less than 15% smaller or less than 1% smaller than 4F (where F is the focal distance) of Silver for the purpose of providing stable conditions (Paragraph 12). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Tarsitano discloses a kit for making an optical cavity (see Fig. 2), comprising: a first concave mirror (“far mirror”) having a focal length (see Pgs. 6925-6926 –A. Ray Propagation, Paragraph 1; see Fig. 2); a second concave mirror (“near mirror”) comprising the focal length and having an entry hole (“coupling hole”) for receiving a laser beam (see Pgs. 6925-6926 – A. Ray Propagation, Paragraph 2; see Fig. 2), wherein: a radial distance of the entry hole (“coupling hole”) from a center of the second concave mirror (“near mirror”) is smaller than ½ of the radius of the mirror; and larger than a minimum distance required for at least 10 passes of the laser beam between the mirrors when the mirrors are separated in the near concentric configuration (see Pg. 6930 – A. Design Considerations, Paragraph 2, Lines 17-19, Paragraph 3; Figs. 9, 11). Tarsitano discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify the entry hole is sized such that the laser beam can fit within the entry hole without allowing substantial leakage of the circulating laser beam within the cavity; and a laser and focusing element configured for outputting the gaussian laser beam having its focus adjusted so that all the passes of the laser beam in the cavity overlap to buildup power of the electromagnetic radiation in a uniform intensity distribution across cross-sections perpendicular to the length of the cavity when the cavity is assembled. In the same field of endeavor, Herriott discloses and a laser and focusing element configured for outputting the gaussian laser beam having its focus adjusted so that all the passes of the laser beam in the cavity overlap to buildup power of the electromagnetic radiation in a uniform intensity distribution across cross-sections perpendicular to the length of the cavity when the cavity is assembled (see pg. 886 – Mode Matching Requirements, Paragraphs 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the kit of Tarsitano with and a laser and focusing element configured for outputting the gaussian laser beam having its focus adjusted so that all the passes of the laser beam in the cavity overlap to buildup power of the electromagnetic radiation in a uniform intensity distribution across cross-sections perpendicular to the length of the cavity when the cavity is assembled of Herriott for the purpose of providing increased path length in a compact system (see Abstract). In addition, in the same field of endeavor, Silver discloses the entry hole is sized such that the laser beam can fit within the entry hole without allowing substantial leakage of the circulating laser beam within the cavity (Paragraphs 13, 58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the kit of Tarsitano and Herriott with the entry hole is sized such that the laser beam can fit within the entry hole without allowing substantial leakage of the circulating laser beam within the cavity of Silver for the purpose of obtaining the desired number of passes (Paragraph 13). Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Lastly, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, Tarsitano, Herriott and Silver teach the kit set forth above for claim 19, Herriott further discloses further comprising instructions for assembling the cavity so that all the passes of the laser beam in the cavity overlap to buildup power of the electromagnetic radiation in a uniform intensity distribution across cross-sections perpendicular to the length of the cavity when the cavity is assembled (see pg. 886 – Mode Matching Requirements, Paragraphs 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the kit of Tarsitano and Silver with the teachings of Herriott for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 19.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarsitano (“Multilaser Herriott cell for planetary tunable laser spectrometers” 2007) in view of Herriott (“Folded Optical Delay Lines” 1965) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carr et al. (“Cold and ultracold molecules: science, technology and applications” 2009), hereinafter “Carr”.
Regarding claim 12, Tarsitano and Herriott disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify for manipulating quantum states, wherein the build up of power is configured for coherently manipulating the quantum states of the material. In the same field of endeavor, Carr discloses for manipulating quantum states, wherein the build up of power is configured for coherently manipulating the quantum states of the material (Abstract, see Fig. 5(d)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Tarsitano and Herriott with for manipulating quantum states, wherein the build up of power is configured for coherently manipulating the quantum states of the material of Carr for the purpose of selectively, precisely and efficiently controlling coherent evolutions among different internal energy states (see Pg. 51, Lines 3-6). Furthermore, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987).
Regarding claim 13, Tarsitano and Herriott disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the build up is configured to enhance initiation of a reaction of the material. In the same field of endeavor, Carr discloses wherein the build up is configured to enhance initiation of a reaction of the material (see Pg. 5, Paragraphs 1-3, Fig. 5(d)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Tarsitano and Herriott with wherein the build up is configured to enhance initiation of a reaction of the material of Carr for the purpose of controlling chemical reactions for making new materials (see Pg. 5, Paragraph 1). Furthermore, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d - 164 7 (1987).
Regarding claim 14, Tarsitano, Herriott and Carr teach the apparatus set forth above for claim 13, Carr further discloses wherein the reaction is a fusion reaction (see Pg. 20, Paragraph 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the apparatus of Tarsitano and Herriott with the teachings of Carr for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 13.
Prior Art Citations
Silver (USPG Pub No. 2006/0232772), Takehiro (EP 3809117 A1), Bauer et al. (USPG Pub No. 2023/0038729), Rubin (USPG Pub No. 2019/0049364), Silver et al. (USP No. 7,800,751), So et al. (USP No. 8,531,659) are each being cited herein to show a cavity for electromagnetic radiation relevant to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 4/18/2026
Prosecution Insights