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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I shown in claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 08/26/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/13/2024 and 05/08/2025 were filed after the filing date of the claimed application on 02/14/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a polarizer and a polarization rotating element disposed between the optical beam splitter and the spatial filtering element in the optical path of the combined feedback input beam” as disclosed in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1,2 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zimer et al. (hereinafter Zimer) (US 20160336714 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zimer discloses in Fig. 6,
An external cavity laser apparatus [Fig. 6] (Paras. [0046,0048,0058]) comprising:
a plurality of beam emitters [111] (Para. [0048]) configured to emit a plurality of emitted beams [151] (Para. [0048]), each emitted beam having a respective wavelength (Para. [0049]);
an angular dispersive optic [514] (Para. [0049]) disposed in an optical path of the plurality of emitted beams [151] (Para. [0050]) and configured to combine the plurality of emitted beams into a combined input beam [153] (Para. [0049]);
an optical beam splitter [115] (Para. [0050]) disposed in an optical path of the combined input beam [153] (Para. [0050]) and having a first reflectance for a first polarization state and a first transmittance for the first polarization state (Para. [0037]), the first transmittance being unequal to the first reflectance (Paras. [0037,0050,0063]), the optical beam splitter [115] configured to:
reflect a primary portion of the combined input beam as a combined output beam [158] (Para. [0058]); and
transmit a secondary portion of the combined input beam as a combined feedback input beam [174] (Para. [0059]);
a spatial filtering element [611] disposed in an optical path of the combined feedback input beam [174] (Para. [0060]); and
a first high reflectance (HR) mirror [615] (Para. [0060]) disposed in the optical path of the combined feedback input beam [174] downstream from the spatial filtering element [611] (Pata. [0060]), the first HR mirror [615] configured to reflect the combined feedback input beam transmitted through the spatial filtering element [611] once back through the spatial filtering element [611] again to form a combined feedback beam [177] (Para. [0060]);
wherein a primary portion of the combined feedback beam [177] is reflected by the optical beam splitter [115] (Paras. [0050,0051,0054]), and a secondary portion of the combined feedback beam [177] is transmitted by the optical beam splitter [115] toward the angular dispersive optic [514] (Para. [0062]); and
wherein the secondary portion of the combined feedback beam is directed by the angular dispersive optic [514] back to the plurality of beam emitters [111] to stabilize the wavelengths of the plurality of emitted beams [151] (Para. [0038] and see claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Zimer discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 6,
further comprising a second HR mirror [121] (Para. [0051]) disposed in an optical path of the primary portion of the combined feedback beam reflected by the optical beam splitter [115] (Paras. [0051,0054,0062]), the second HR mirror [121] configured to reflect the primary portion of the combined feedback beam back toward the optical beam splitter [115] (Paras. [0051,0054,0062]).
Regarding claim 9, Zimer discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 6,
wherein the angular dispersive optic [514] is a polarization insensitive grating (Para. [0055], see claim 4).
Regarding claim 10, Zimer discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 6,
further comprising a first position-to-angle transform optic [112] (Para. [0030]) disposed in the optical path of the plurality of emitted beams [151] upstream from the angular dispersive optic [514] (Para. [0030]), the first position-to-angle transform optic [112] configured to impart upon each of the plurality of emitted beams an angle of incidence with respect to the angular dispersive optic (Paras. [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Zimer discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 10 above and further discloses in Fig. 6,
wherein the angular dispersive optic [514] has a wavelength-dependent angular dispersion function (Para. [0049]), so that the angular dispersive optic [514] combines the plurality of emitted beams [151] into the combined input beam [153] by imparting a wavelength-dependent angular spectrum determined by the wavelength-dependent angular dispersion function on the plurality of emitted beams [151] (Para. [0049]).
Regarding claim 12, Zimer discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 11 above and further discloses in Fig. 6,
wherein the spatial filtering element [611] comprises:
a second position-to-angle transform optic [612] (Para. [0060]);
a third position-to-angle transform optic [614] (Para. [0060]); and
an aperture [613] (Para. [0060]) disposed between the second position-to-angle transform optic [612] and the third position-to-angle transform optic [614] (Para. [0060]).
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 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.
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 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimer in view of Richman et al. (hereinafter Richman) (US 20060132766 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zimer discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 2 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the second HR mirror has a reflectance that is greater than 98%.
Richman discloses,
a mirror with a reflectivity greater than 99.99% (Para. [0020])
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 high reflectance disclosed in Richman as the reflectivity of the HR mirror of Zimer for the purpose of having low loss from the mirror. (Richman Para. [0020])
Regarding claim 8, Zimer discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the first HR mirror has a reflectance that is greater than 98%.
Richman discloses,
a mirror with a reflectivity greater than 99.99% (Para. [0020])
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 high reflectance disclosed in Richman as the reflectivity of the HR mirror of Zimer for the purpose of having low loss from the mirror. (Richman Para. [0020])
Claims 4,6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimer in view of Li et al. (hereinafter Li) (CN 115473121 A).
Examiner notes an attached machine translation will be used for the claim mapping of Li for the remainder of the instant application. See PTO-892 form
Regarding claim 4, Zimer discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the first reflectance is greater than the first transmittance.
Li discloses in Fig. 1,
A splitter [4] with a first reflectance of a polarization state greater than a first transmittance (Li Para. [14])
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 reflectivity and transmittance values as disclosed in Li in the device of Zimer for the purpose of allowing a desired amount of the polarization direction of light. (Li Paras. [12,24])
Regarding claim 6, Zimer in view of Li discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 4 above and further discloses in Li,
wherein the first reflectance is greater than 80 %, and the first transmittance is less than 20% (Li Para. [14]).
Regarding claim 7, Zimer in view of Li discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 6 above and further discloses in Li,
wherein the first reflectance is greater than 90 %, and the first transmittance is less than 10% (Li Para. [14]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimer in view of Li as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ferdinand et al. (hereinafter Ferdinand) (GB 2582378 A).
Regarding claim 5, Zimer in view of Li discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 4 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the optical beam splitter has a second reflectance for a second polarization state orthogonal to the first polarization state, the second reflectance being greater than 98%.
Ferdinand discloses,
a reflectance of a second polarization state orthogonal to a first polarization state, the second reflectance being greater than 98% (Ferdinand Page 12, line 38 – page 13, line 1)
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 reflectance value of the second polarization state as disclosed in Ferdinand in the modified device of Zimer for the purpose of high reflectance of the desired polarization direction (Ferdinand Page 12, line 38 – page 13, line 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimer in view of Benda et al. (hereinafter Benda) (US 5185753 A).
Regarding claim 13, Zimer discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
further comprising a polarizer and a polarization rotating element disposed between the optical beam splitter and the spatial filtering element in the optical path of the combined feedback input beam.
Benda discloses in Fig. 1,
a polarizer [215] (Col. 3, lines 24 and 25) and a polarization rotating element [210] (Col. 3, lines 35-38) disposed between an optical beam splitter [222] (Col. 5, lines 41,42) and a gain element [150] in an optical path of a feedback beam (Col. 5, lines 33-38). 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 polarizer and polarization rotating element as disclosed in Benda in the device of Zimer for the purpose of controlling the polarization to a desired direction in the device. (Benda Col. 3, lines 19-23)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes (US 12072618 B2) which discloses polarization dependent mirrors with differing reflectance and transmittance values. Further, (US 20170222401 A1) which discloses a similar structure of a plurality of emitted beams converted into a singular beam which imparts on a beam splitter and reflective structure. See PTO-892 form.
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
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights