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
Claims 15-30 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/17/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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 “amplified pulse” and “first Gaussian profile and second Gaussian profile” from claim 1,
the “combiner device” (e.g. Fig. 1 does not label the combiner device, instead there is a label for a “microlens array” which is not described in the Specification) from claim 1,
the “dispenser device” in claim 9,
the “thermal sink” in claim 12,
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 § 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) 1, 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvanauskas (US Patent US-9865986-B2 cited in the IDS) in the view of Gord (US Patent US-11177622-B1) hereinafter Gord, and Li (US Patent US-20240322528-A1), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 1, Galvanauskas teaches a laser system (Fig. 4a & 9 pulse stacking system; from abstract the stacking system is a laser pulse stacking system) comprising:
a pulse laser device configured to emit a laser beam (Fig. 9 pulse train 91; column 8 line line 1 states “A single periodic pulse train 91 is again input”; hence it is inherent that Fig. 9 comprises a pulse laser device that generates pulse train 91);
a beam splitter device (Fig. 9 beam splitter 92) coupled to the pulse laser device (Fig. 9 splitter 92 is coupled to the pulse laser device that generates laser pulse 91), and
configured to receive the laser beam and divide the laser beam into N paths (Fig. 9 beam splitter 92 receives 91; 92 divides the laser beam in N channels as seen in Fig. 9 and column 5 lines 32-35), each laser beam in each path is amplified (Fig. 9 each channel is amplified by optical amplifier 97) from a first energy level to a second energy level (it is inherent that each amplified channel is amplified from a first energy level to a second energy level), and
each laser beam in each path is phase matched (Fig. 9 each channel has a phase-locker modulator 96; hence phase is matched) to a predetermined polarization (column 6 lines 37-39 states “Configurations in FIGS. 4A and 4B require external separation between the incident reflection-path and the combined beams….using a standard polarization beam splitter and a suitable waveplate or a Faraday rotator”; hence each laser beam is phase matched to a predetermined polarization);
a combiner device (Fig. 9 beam combiner 98) configured to receive the N laser beams (Fig. 9 combiner 98 is configured to receive the N channels ) and configured to spatially (Fig. 9 shows the “amplified pulse-burst”) or temporarily combine the N laser beams into an amplified pulse (Fig. 9 shows the “amplified pulse-burst”);
an auxiliary device coupled to the combiner device (Fig. 9 AM 93 & PM 94 coupled to the combiner 98).
a Fabry Perot cavity (Fig. 9 pulse-burst stacker 99 uses Fabry Perot cavity from Fig. 4a, see column 6 lines 16-19) configured to receive the amplified pulse (Fig. 9 pulse-burst stacker 99 receives the amplified pulse burst), and
comprising a first mirror device (Fig. 4 mirror R1) and a second mirror device (Fig. 4 mirror R2), and a free space defined between the first mirror device and the second mirror device to form a pair of mirror devices (Fig. 4 space between R1 and R2) such that
the amplified pulse propagating from the pulse laser device increases in energy intensity from a first intensity to a second intensity to an Mth intensity for M cycles of the amplified pulse propagating between the pair of mirror devices (column 9 lines 49-55 states “energy benefit when combining these pulsed bursts. This means that the total energy of the solitary output pulse should be more than N times larger (N being the number of inputs into the combining arrangement) than the highest energy of any individual pulse in all the incident pulse bursts” ).
Galvanauskas failed to teach where N is an integer from 2 to 1000; an auxiliary device coupled configured to shape the amplified pulse from a first Gaussian profile into a second Gaussian profile; where M is greater than 10,000 cycles.
However, having N paths, where N is an integer from 2 to 1000, and having M cycles, where is greater than 10,000 cycles can be reached through routine optimization (Galvanauskas already teaches a beam splitter with N channels in Fig. 9 ; and a Fabry Perot that cycles the beam for N number of times, as seen in Fig. 4), see MPEP 2144.05 IIA. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas’s device with a beam splitter with 2 to 1000 paths and a Fabry Perot cavity with 10,000 cycles as taught by Galvanauskas because it would allow to increase energy of the solitary output burst (from Galvanauskas column 9 lines 49-55).
Modified Galvanauskas’s device above fails to teach an auxiliary device configured to shape the amplified pulse from a first Gaussian profile into a second Gaussian profile.
However, Gord teaches an auxiliary device configured to shape the amplified pulse into a second Gaussian profile (Fig. 1 spatial filter 503; column 3 lines 35-40 state “The spatial filter 503 removes multiple-order energy peaks to produce a beam with a smoother intensity profile, ideally passing only the central maximum of the beam pattern to produce a so-called “clean Gaussian beam.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas’s device in further view of Galvanauskas with an auxiliary device configured to shape the amplified pulse into a second Gaussian profile (e.g. adding the spatial filter from Gord as part of the auxiliary device from Galvanauskas) because it would allow to remove multiple-order energy peak to produce a beam with a smoother intensity profile (from Gord column 3 lines 35-40).
Modified Galvanauskas’s device above fails to teach a first Gaussian profile.
However, Li teaches a combiner (Fig. 4 phase mask 110 & mirror 102) which output is a Gaussian profile (Fig. 4 output 112 is a Gaussian beam, see [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas’s device in further view of Galvanauskas and Gord with a first Gaussian profile (e.g. having output of the combiner 98 from Galvanauskas to be a Gaussian profile) as taught by Li because it would have a smother profile output.
Regarding claim 2, Galvanauskas’s modified device teaches the system of claim 1 further comprising a detection device coupled to a portion of one of the mirror devices (from Galvanauskas Fig. 9 mirrors from pulse-burst stacker 999 coupled to controller “DT”), the detection device is configured to measure a signal from the amplified pulse to detect a phase and a shape of the amplified pulse (from Galvanauskas see column 8 lines 9-10); wherein the first Gaussian profile comprises a similar Gaussian like profile and the second Gaussian profile comprises a similar Gaussian like profile (from Gord and Lin first and second Gaussian profile comprises a Gaussian profile).
Regarding claim 4, Galvanauskas’s modified device teaches the system of claim 1 further comprising a controller system (from Galvanauskas see column 8 lines 9-10) coupled to the pulse laser device and coupled to a detection device (As seen in Fig. 9 the controller -not shown in the figure- is coupled to the laser device that generates signal 91 and module/phase-error recognition).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvanauskas (US Patent US-9865986-B2 cited in the IDS) in the view of Gord (US Patent US-11177622-B1), and Li (US Patent US-20240322528-A1), as per claim 1, in further view of Zhang (US Patent US-9151667-B1), hereinafter Zhang, and Chun (US Patent US-20050083567-A1).
Regarding claim 3, Galvanauskas’s modified device teaches the system of claim 1.
Galvanauskas’s modified device fails to teach further comprising a charge coupled device CCD camera coupled to a portion of one of the mirror devices, the CCD camera is configured to measure an attenuated signal from the amplified pulse to detect a phase and a shape of the amplified pulse, the CCD camera comprising a plurality of detectors configured to detect a signal of electromagnetic radiation from about 400nm to 2000nm.
However, Zhang teaches CCD camera to detect a phase (column 14 lines 11-16 “the illumination received by the phase-shifting interferometer may be detected utilizing a detector of the phase-shifting interferometer, such as a CCD camera”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas’s device in the view Gord, and Li with a CCD camera as taught by Zhang (e.g. having a CCD camera couple with a portion of the mirror devices ) because it would allow to detect phase shifting (see from Zahng column 14 lines 11-16).
Galvanauskas’s modified above fails to teach the CCD camera is configured to detect a shape of the amplified signal, the CCD camera comprising a plurality of detectors configured to detect a signal of electromagnetic radiation from about 400nm to 2000nm.
However, Chun teach a CCD camera comprising a plurality of detectors (Fig. 3 &4 Si CCD camera 22, with plurality of photodetectors) configured to detect shape of a signal (Fig. 9b is a captured CCD image, see [061]) and a signal of electromagnetic radiation from about 400nm to 2000nm (see [0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas’s device in the view Gord, Li, and Zhang with a CCD camera comprising a plurality of detectors (e.g. CCD camera from Zhang having a plurality of detectors to additionally detect the shape) as taught by Chun because it would allow to detect infrared wavelength (from Chun see [0013] & [0014]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvanauskas (US Patent US-9865986-B2 cited in the IDS) in the view of Gord (US Patent US-11177622-B1), and Li (US Patent US-20240322528-A1), as per claim 1, in further view of Moriya (US Patent US-20130037693-A1), hereinafter Moriya.
Regarding claim 5, Galvanauskas’s modified device teaches the system of claim 1 further comprising a controller system coupled to the pulse laser device and a detection device (from Galvanauskas see column 8 lines 9-10; As seen in Fig. 9 the controller -not shown in the figure- is coupled to the laser device that generates signal 91 and module-error/phase-error recognition); a feedback signal is detected from the detection device and sent to the controller device (Fig. 9 shows the feedback signal of the modulation-error/phasing error recognition; it is inherent that the modulation-error/phasing error recognition sent to the controller) to adjust the shape (Fig. 9 AM 93 adjust the amplitude; therefore it adjust the shape of the laser beam 91) and phase of the laser beam (Fig. 9 PM 94 adjust the phase of the laser beam 91).
Galvanauskas’s modified device fails to teach a feedback signal to adjust a focus of the laser beam from the pulse laser device.
However, Moriya teaches a feedback signal to adjust a focus of a laser beam (Fig. 5 controller 160; [0113] states “the focus control unit 160 may use feedback-control based on the obtained focus condition of the guide laser beam 44 to adjust the focus condition of the pulsed laser beam 33” ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas’s device in the view Gord, and Li with a feedback signal to adjust a focus of a laser beam (e.g. adding the controller from Galvanauskas the capability to adjust the focus of the laser beam) as taught by Moriya because it would allow to move the laser beam to a desired position (from Moriya [0113]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvanauskas (US Patent US-9865986-B2 cited in the IDS) in the view of Gord (US Patent US-11177622-B1), and Li (US Patent US-20240322528-A1), as per claim 1, in further view of Moriya (US Patent US-20130037693-A1), hereinafter Moriya, and Lee (US Patent US-20220326468-A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 6, Galvanauskas’s modified device teaches the system of claim 1 further comprising a controller system coupled to the pulse laser device and a detection device (from Galvanauskas see column 8 lines 9-10; As seen in Fig. 9 the controller -not shown in the figure- is coupled to the laser device that generates signal 91 and module-error/phase-error recognition) such that a feedback signal from the amplified pulse is detected from the detection device and sent to the controller device (Fig. 9 shows the feedback signal detected by modulation-error/phasing error recognition; it is inherent that the modulation-error/phasing error recognition sent to the controller)to adjust a phase (Fig. 9 PM 94 adjust the phase of the laser beam 91), shape (Fig. 9 AM 93 adjust the amplitude; therefore it adjust the shape of the laser beam 91) of the laser beam from the pulse laser device
Galvanauskas’s modified device fails to teach a feedback signal to adjust a focus of the laser beam from the pulse laser device; feedback to adjust for a deformation of either pair of mirrors.
However, Moriya teaches a feedback signal to adjust a focus of a laser beam (Fig. 5 controller 160; [0113] states “the focus control unit 160 may use feedback-control based on the obtained focus condition of the guide laser beam 44 to adjust the focus condition of the pulsed laser beam 33” ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas’s device in the view Gord, and Li with a feedback signal to adjust a focus of a laser beam (e.g. adding the controller from Galvanauskas the capability to adjust the focus of the laser beam) as taught by Moriya because it would allow to move the laser beam to a desired position (from Moriya [0113]).
Galvanauskas’s modified device above fails to teach feedback to adjust for a deformation of either pair of mirrors.
However, Lee a feedback to adjust for a deformation of either pair of mirrors (see [0093]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas’s device in the view Gord, Li, and Moriya to have a feedback to adjust for a deformation of either pair of mirrors as taught by Lee because it would allow to detect and stabilize the vibration of the detecting interference pattern (from Lee [0093]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvanauskas (US Patent US-9865986-B2 cited in the IDS) in the view of Gord (US Patent US-11177622-B1), and Li (US Patent US-20240322528-A1), as per claim 1, in further view of Moriya (US Patent US-20130037693-A1), hereinafter Moriya, and Asari (US Patent US-5798878-A), hereinafter Asari.
Regarding claim 7, Galvanauskas’s modified device the system of claim 1 further comprising a controller system coupled to the pulse laser device and a detection device (from Galvanauskas see column 8 lines 9-10; As seen in Fig. 9 the controller -not shown in the figure- is coupled to the laser device that generates signal 91 and module-error/phase-error recognition) such that a feedback signal from the amplified pulse is detected from the detection device and sent to the controller device (Fig. 9 shows the feedback signal detected by modulation-error/phasing error recognition; it is inherent that the modulation-error/phasing error recognition sent to the controller)to adjust a phase (Fig. 9 PM 94 adjust the phase of the laser beam 91), shape (Fig. 9 AM 93 adjust the amplitude; therefore it adjust the shape of the laser beam 91) of the laser beam from the pulse laser device
Galvanauskas’s modified device fails to teach a feedback signal to adjust a focus of the laser beam from the pulse laser device; feedback to adjust for a deformation of either pair of mirrors caused by the increase in energy intensity (column 1 lines 40-45).
However, Moriya teaches a feedback signal to adjust a focus of a laser beam (Fig. 5 controller 160; [0113] states “the focus control unit 160 may use feedback-control based on the obtained focus condition of the guide laser beam 44 to adjust the focus condition of the pulsed laser beam 33” ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas’s device in the view of Gord, and Li with a feedback signal to adjust a focus of a laser beam (e.g. adding the controller from Galvanauskas the capability to adjust the focus of the laser beam) as taught by Moriya because it would allow to move the laser beam to a desired position (from Moriya [0113]).
However, Asari teaches a feedback signal to adjust for a deformation of either pair of mirrors caused by the increase in energy intensity.
However, Asari teaches a feedback to adjust the deformation of mirrors (Fig. 1 wavefront distortion data 4 sent signal to controller 5 to adjust mirror 1; see column 6 lines 25-35 ) caused by the increase in energy intensity ().
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas’s device in the view of Gord, Li and Moriya with a feedback (e.g. having a controller from Asari that adjust mirrors from Galvanauskas) as taught as Asari because it would allow high quality rays as well as improving the safety and safety life of the mirrors (from Asari column 6 lines 25-35).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvanauskas (US Patent US-9865986-B2 cited in the IDS) in the view of Gord (US Patent US-11177622-B1), and Li (US Patent US-20240322528-A1), as per claim 1, in further view of Nakamura (US Patent US-20260155271-A1), hereinafter Nakamura.
Regarding claim 8, Galvanauskas’s modified device teaches the system of claim 1.
Galvanauskas’s modified device fails to teach the Fabry Perot cavity is configured to a reactor device configured for a fusion reaction.
However, Nakamura teaches a Fabry Perot cavity (Fig. 12 optical enhancement cavity OEC, [0095] states “the optical enhancement cavity OEC is a Fabry-Perot cavity”]) is configured to a reactor device (Fig. 12 fusion reactor) configured for a fusion reaction (Fig. 12 fusion reactor, see [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas’s device in the view Gord, and Li with a Fabry Perot cavity is configured to a reactor device configured for a fusion reaction as taught by Nakamura because it would allow dumping the laser beam from a cavity region for nuclear waste treatment (see [006]).
Regarding claim 9, Galvanauskas’s modified device teaches the system of claim 1.
Galvanauskas’s modified device fails to teach a reactor device coupled to the Fabry Perot cavity; and a dispenser device configured to inject a target into the reactor device such that the target device interacts with the amplified pulse to initiate a fusion reaction
However, Nakamura teaches a reactor device coupled to the Fabry Perot cavity (Fig. 12 Fig. 12 optical enhancement cavity OEC, [0095] states “the optical enhancement cavity OEC is a Fabry-Perot cavity”; couple to fusion reactor ); a dispenser device (Fig. 12 fuel pellet injector) configured to inject a target into the reactor device (Fig. 12 fuel pellet injector injects fuel pellet into fusion reactor) such that the target device interacts with the amplified pulse to initiate a fusion reaction (see [0087]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas’s device in the view Gord, and Li with a Fabry Perot cavity is configured to a reactor device configured for a fusion reaction as taught by Nakamura because it would allow dumping the laser beam from a cavity region for nuclear waste treatment (see [006]).
Claim(s) 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvanauskas (US Patent US-9865986-B2 cited in the IDS) in the view of Gord (US Patent US-11177622-B1), and Li (US Patent US-20240322528-A1), as per claim 1, in further view of Kurita (US Patent US-20220263292-A1), hereinafter Kurita.
Regarding claim 10, Galvanauskas’s modified device teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the pulse laser device comprises an oscillator device coupled to an modulating (from Galvanauskas Fig. 9 phase modulator 94) configured to adjust a phase of the laser beam (from Galvanauskas phase modulator 94 adjust the phase of the laser beam 91), and an modulator (from Galvanauskas Fig. 9 amplitude modulator 93) configured to adjust an amplitude of the laser beam (from Galvanauskas Fig. 9 amplitude modulator 93 adjust the amplitude of 91) before being received by the beam splitter device (Fig. 9 modulators 93 and 94 modulate the amplitude and phase before reaching the beam splitter 92).
Galvanauskas’s modified device fails to teach electro optic modulator and an acousto-optic modulator.
However, Kurita teaches an electro optic modulator and an acousto-optic modulator (Fig. 1 “L3”; [0119] states “the waveform of the laser light L3 after the combining may be controlled by an optical switch such as an acousto-optical modulation element and an electro-optical modulation element”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas in the view Gord an Li to have a electro optic modulator and an acousto-optic modulator (e.g. to have an AM 93 from Galvanauskas to be an acousto-optical modulation element while having PM 94 from Galvanauskas to be a electro-optical modulation element) as taught by Kurita because it would allow to control the waveform of the laser beam (from Kurita [0119]).
Regarding claim 13, Galvanauskas’s modified device teaches the system of claim 1, comprises the auxiliary device (Fig. 9 AM 93 & PM 94) to adjust a phase of the laser beam (Fig. 9 phase modulator 94) and to adjust an amplitude (Fig. 9 amplitude modulator 93) of the laser beam before being received by the beam splitter (Fig. 9 AM 93 & PM 94 modulates the laser beam 91 before received by the splitter 92).
Galvanauskas’s modified device fails to teach wherein the auxiliary device comprises an electro optic modulator configured to adjust a phase of the laser beam, and an acousto-optic modulator configured to adjust an amplitude of the laser beam before being received by the beam splitter.
However, Kurita teaches an electro optic modulator and an acousto-optic modulator (Fig. 1 “L3”; [0119] states “the waveform of the laser light L3 after the combining may be controlled by an optical switch such as an acousto-optical modulation element and an electro-optical modulation element”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas in the view Gord an Li to have a electro optic modulator and an acousto-optic modulator (e.g. to have an AM 93 from Galvanauskas to be an acousto-optical modulation element while having PM 94 from Galvanauskas to be a electro-optical modulation element) as taught by Kurita because it would allow to control the waveform of the laser beam (from Kurita [0119]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvanauskas (US Patent US-9865986-B2 cited in the IDS) in the view of Gord (US Patent US-11177622-B1), and Li (US Patent US-20240322528-A1), as per claim 1, in further view of Vry (US Patent US-5185643-A), hereinafter Vry.
Regarding claim 11, Galvanauskas’s modified device teaches the system of claim 1.
Galvanauskas’s modified device fails to teach wherein each of the first mirror device and the second mirror device comprises a sapphire, a quartz, or a silicon carbide, or combinations.
However, Vry teaches wherein each of the first mirror device and the second mirror device comprises a quartz (Fig. 1b Fabry-Perot 4, mirrors 4b & 4c; column lines states that mirrors of Fabry-Perot interferometer are made of quartz, see column 5 lines 29-31).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas in the view Gord an Li to have the first mirror device and the second mirror device made of quartz as taught by Vry because it would result in partially transmitting mirrors (from Vry column 5 lines 29-31).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvanauskas (US Patent US-9865986-B2 cited in the IDS) in the view of Gord (US Patent US-11177622-B1), and Li (US Patent US-20240322528-A1), as per claim 1, in further view of Ota (Foreign Patent WO-2016148020-A1), hereinafter Ota.
Regarding claim 12, Galvanauskas’s modified device teaches the system of claim 1.
Galvanauskas’s modified device fails to tach wherein each of the first mirror device and the second mirror device is directly or indirectly attached to a thermal sink including a heat dissipation and cooling system with cooling fluid comprising water, other liquid circulating system, or a cooled gas cooling system to maintain a temperature of each of the first mirror device and the second mirror device within a predetermined temperature range.
However, Ota teaches a laser chip having Farby-Perot resonator (Fig. 1a-b laser chip 2; it is inherent that Fabry Perot would comprise mirrors) indirectly attached to a thermal sink including a heat dissipation and cooling system with cooling fluid comprising water (Fig. 1a-b laser chip 2 is indirectly attached to heat sink 15 comprising a water-cooling system, from translated document page 4 paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas in the view Gord an Li to include a thermal sink as taught by Ota to maintain a temperature of each of the first mirror device and the second mirror device within a predetermined temperature range (it is inherent thermal sink from Ota would allow to have the mirrors from Galvanauskas in a predetermined temperature range) because having a thermal sink would allow to control the temperature of the resonator.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvanauskas (US Patent US-9865986-B2 cited in the IDS) in the view of Gord (US Patent US-11177622-B1), and Li (US Patent US-20240322528-A1), as per claim 1, in further view of Urakawa (Us Patent US-20160190766-A1), hereinafter Urakawa.
Regarding claim 14, Galvanauskas’s modified device teaches the system of claim 1 comprises the Fabry Perot cavity (from Galvanauskas Fig. 4a Fabry Perot cavity)
Galvanauskas’s modified device fails to teach wherein the Fabry Perot cavity is characterized by an average laser power of more than 1 MegaWatt.
However, having a Fabry Perot cavity characterized by an average laser power of more than 1 MegaWatt can be reached by routine optimization (Urukawa teaches an optical resonator system in Fig. 1 to accumulate a mega-watt, see [0029]), see MPEP 2144.05 II A. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Galvanauskas in the view Gord an Li with Fabry Perot cavity is characterized by an average laser power of more than 1 MegaWatt because it would allow to generate pulse strength of 1 mJ or more (from Urukawa [0029]) which it would be result of routine optimization, MPEP 2144.05 II B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDA ADRIANA CAMACHO ALANIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm Friday off.
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.
/FERNANDA ADRIANA CAMACHO ALANIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights