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 with traverse of Species 1, FIG. 2, Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10, and 12-16 in the reply filed on 07/16/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant submits that Fig. 3 is a subset of Fig. 2 and there would not be an undue examination burden for reviewing claims encompassing Fig. 3”. This is not found persuasive because the species contain mutually exclusive characteristics which result in search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3, 5-7, 11, and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/16/26. The Examiner notes that claim 7 is withdrawn as it directs to non-elected Species 2, FIG. 3, disclosing the first and second solid-state elements 2A/2B comprising a plurality of solid-state elements and claim 15 is also withdrawn as it directs to non-elected Species 3, FIG. 5, disclosing the first, second, and third solid-state elements 2A/2B/2C being arranged in different cooling enclosures 5A/5B/5C.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erlandson et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0076150 A1, 02/10/25 IDS) in view of Perry et al. (US PG Pub 2003/0161365 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Erlandson discloses a laser amplifier (FIGS. 8, 10A, and 10B) comprising:
a volume (formed between 102/104, FIG. 8, [0065]) configured to receive pump light (108/110, FIG. 8, [0065]) from laser diodes pump source,
a gain medium (100, FIG. 8, [0065]) arranged within the volume and configured to amplify light in response to receiving the pump light,
the gain medium comprising a first solid-state element (201/202/206/207, FIG. 10A) configured to emit a first laser radiation having a peak centered at a first peak fluorescence wavelength (σ-axis gain with a peak wavelength at about 1905 nm, FIG. 10B) and a second solid-state element (203-205, FIG. 10A, [0068]) configured to emit a second laser radiation having a peak centered at a second peak fluorescence wavelength (π-axis gain with a peak wavelength at about 1880 nm, FIG. 10B), each of the first and the second solid-state elements containing respective active laser ions (Tm:YLF, [0068]),
wherein a difference between the first peak fluorescence wavelength and the second peak fluorescence wavelength is larger than or equal to 10 nm and smaller than or equal to 60 nm (about 25 nm difference between the σ-axis gain peak wavelength and the π-axis gain peak wavelength, FIG. 10B), and
wherein the first solid-state element and the second solid-state element are cooled (gas cooling 106, FIG. 8, [0065]).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
296
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
364
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Erlandson does not explicitly disclose the pump light emitted from an array of laser diodes pump source.
Perry discloses a plurality of solid-state elements (14, FIG. 4, [0031]) pumped by an array of semiconductor laser diodes (18, FIG. 4, [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser diodes pump source of Erlandson with the array of semiconductor laser diodes as taught by Perry in order to maximize pump power to the gain medium.
Regarding claim 4, the combination has disclosed the laser amplifier outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except a cooling fluid directly contacting the solid-state elements. Perry further discloses “a cooling fluid flows about the solid-state elements and a semiconductor laser diode provides optical pump radiation into the volume of the laser chamber such that laser emission from the device passes through the gain medium and the fluid.” (see abstract) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas-cooled laser amplifier of the combination with the liquid-cooled configuration as taught by Perry in order to maximize cooling of the gain medium.
Regarding claim 8-9, the combination has disclosed the laser amplifier outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above except the first peak fluorescence wavelength is larger than 1000 nm and smaller than 1060 nm, or the first peak fluorescence wavelength is centered around 1053 nm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first solid-state element and the second solid-state element with materials having a first peak fluorescence wavelength centered around 1053 nm and a corresponding second peak fluorescence wavelength in order to obtain desired output wavelength, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 10, Erlandson discloses the difference between the first peak fluorescence wavelength and the second peak fluorescence wavelength is larger than or equal to 20 nm and smaller than or equal to 30 nm (about 25 nm difference between the σ-axis gain peak wavelength and the π-axis gain peak wavelength, FIG. 10B).
Regarding claim 16, same rejection as applied to claim 1 is maintained since the method claim 16 contains substantially the same limitations as the product claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 are allowed.
Claim 2 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MASON et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0153194 A1) discloses a laser amplifier comprising optically pumping a plurality of gas cooled solid-state elements similar to the claimed invention (see FIG. 1).
Adachi (US PG Pub 2007/0297481 A1) discloses a laser amplifier comprising optically pumping a plurality of different solid-state elements similar to the claimed invention (see FIG. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUANDA ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM - 6:30 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, 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.
/YUANDA ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights