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 and Claim Status
1. Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 07/06/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not independent and distinct. This is not found persuasive because claim 1 is directed to an irradiation assembly with the intended purpose of “a laser-based fusion reaction” whereas claim 11 is to a “method of triggering a laser based fusion reaction. Thus, the apparatus of claim 1 could be used for purposes other than the recited intended use. Further, claim 1 recites structure that is not recited in claim 11, so the method of claim 11 could be performed by a materially different apparatus. The differences in recitations between the two claims result in a divergent search because a search for claim 1 would focus on laser system component structure, whereas a search for claim 11 would focus on fusion process steps, so different search queries would be necessary and the prior art applicable to one invention would not necessarily also be applicable to the other. Moreover, the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112. If claim 10 were amended to depend from claim 1 (and amended to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b)), it could be rejoined upon allowance of claim 1. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Species A3 in the reply filed on 07/06/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) of “evidence now of record showing that Figs. 1 through 5 disclose different versions of the same inventive concept.” The traversal is persuasive, and the election of species requirement is withdrawn. Pursuant to the office action dated 05/06/26, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species (see paragraph 12). It is noted that this admission will be applicable to continuing applications of the present application now that the election of species requirement has been withdrawn.
3. Accordingly, claims 1-12 are pending with claims 11-12 withdrawn. Claims 1-10 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the profile forming component “including at least one of one or more deformable mirrors…; one or more phase plates…; and one or more deformable phase plates…” it, does not reasonably provide enablement for the profile forming component including “one or more focusing lenses…and one or more focusing mirrors.” The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
5. The specification (citations refer to the published application US 2024/0177875) sets forth 3 embodiments of the invention:
Fig. 2 contains a deformable mirror profile forming component with a steering mirror and a lens
Fig. 3 contains both a deformable mirror and a phase plate with a steering mirror and a lens
Fig. 4 contains two deformable mirrors and a lens
Fig. 5 contains a deformable mirror and a focusing mirror
There is no embodiment disclosed that includes only one or more focusing lenses or one or more focusing mirrors. As disclosed in the specification, there is no description of how “one or more focusing lenses” or “one or more focusing mirrors” alone can function as the claimed “profile forming component configured to shape the initial phase distribution of the laser beam so that the initial transverse intensity profile is transformed into a final transverse intensity profile at the fusion fuel pellet.” The specification does describe how the deformable mirror and/or phase plates shape the laser profile ([0022-4]). Thus, the scope of claim 2 is broader than the subject matter enabled by the specification.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
7. The term “Gaussian-like” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “Gaussian-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E).
8. Regarding claim 7, the recitation “the laser beam with a near flattop spatial profile” lacks antecedent basis. Further the term “near flattop” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim Interpretation
9. Claims 1-10 recite limitations that are either method steps of using the claimed apparatus or statements of results desired or achieved by the claimed structure. These limitations, like statements of intended use, do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the prior art reference(s) as long as the structure of the cited reference is capable of performing the recited function (MPEP 2111-2115). As stated in MPEP 2114(II): “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
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.
For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
10. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campbell, US 2014/0044226.
11. Regarding claim 1, Campbell disclose an irradiation assembly (see at least Figs. 2 and 6) for a laser-based fusion reaction, the laser-based fusion reaction being an initiation of a fusion reaction in a fusion fuel pellet by a laser beam ([0003], [0005]), the irradiation assembly comprising: an optical input (620) for the laser beam originating from a laser source (610), the laser beam having an initial transverse phase distribution and an initial transverse intensity profile (625); a profile forming component (660) configured to shape the initial phase distribution of the laser beam so that the initial transverse intensity profile is transformed into a final transverse intensity profile at the fusion fuel pellet (665; [0096]: the cos2 Θ profile is an approximation of a Gaussian distribution1), wherein the final transverse intensity profile has a Gaussian-like profile when arriving at the fusion fuel pellet; and at least one steering element (630) configured to steer the laser beam towards the profile forming component.
12. Regarding claims 2 and 4, Campbell discloses the irradiation assembly of claim 1 and further disclose an irradiation assembly wherein the profile forming component includes a phase plate (660; [0147]). Although Campbell is silent as to the details of its phase plate, it is known that phase plates have with variable thickness configured to shape the initial phase distribution of the laser beam and include a transparent substrate with a pattern of transparent layers formed on a surface to provide a pattern of different optical distances for the laser beam upon passing through the phase plates.2
13. Regarding claim 5, Campbell discloses the irradiation assembly of claim 1 and further discloses an irradiation system wherein the profile forming component is configured to shape the initial phase distribution to produce the final transverse intensity profile that is Gaussian-like with a predetermined size of at most a size of the fusion fuel pellet when hitting the fusion fuel pellet ([0095]).
14. Regarding claim 6, Campbell discloses the irradiation assembly of claim 1 and further discloses an irradiation system further comprising a control device (1800) configured to optimize the final transverse intensity profile by controlling, during operation the at least one steering element to steer the laser beam ([0162-3]).
15. Regarding claim 6, Campbell discloses the irradiation assembly of claim 1 and further discloses an irradiation system further comprising a laser amplifier (Fig. 2, 201) configured to amplify the initial laser beam and to provide the laser beam at the optical input ([0142]).
16. Regarding claim 8, Campbell discloses an irradiation system (Fig. 3) comprising multiple irradiation assemblies (410) arranged to irradiate the fusion fuel pellet from different directions with respective laser beams ([0143]), each of the irradiation assemblies comprising: an optical input (620) for the laser beam originating from a laser source (610), the laser beam having an initial transverse phase distribution and an initial transverse intensity profile (625); a profile forming component (660) configured to shape the initial phase distribution of the laser beam so that the initial transverse intensity profile is transformed into a final transverse intensity profile at the fusion fuel pellet (665; [0096]: the cos2 Θ profile is an approximation of a Gaussian distribution3), wherein the final transverse intensity profile has a Gaussian-like profile when arriving at the fusion fuel pellet; and at least one steering element (630) configured to steer the laser beam towards the profile forming component.
17. Regarding claim 9, Campbell discloses the irradiation system of claim 8 and further discloses an irradiation system wherein each irradiation assembly directs a laser beam onto a respective surface portion of the fusion fuel pellet, wherein the surface portions have some degree of overlap with each other ([0171]).
18. Regarding claim 10, Campbell discloses the irradiation system of claim 8 and further discloses an irradiation system wherein the fusion fuel pellet is positioned at the center of a target chamber with multiple ports for the multiple laser beams, the multiple irradiation assemblies are arranged to provide the multiple laser beams through at least one of the multiple ports (see Fig. 3 and [0143]).
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.
For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
19. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell, US 2014/0044226.
20. Regarding claim 3, Campbell discloses the irradiation assembly of claim 2 but does not disclose deformable mirrors. However, claim 3 is directed to an alternative embodiment of the disclosed invention. Applicant provided evidence in the arguments dated 07/06/26 that the disclosed embodiments of the invention are obvious variations of one another. Thus claim 3 is rejected as an obvious modification of Campbell.
Interviews
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-272-6878. 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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 See “Why is the cos2 envelope…” (attached).
2 See Paschotta, Rüdiger. "Phase Corrector Plates." RP Photonics Encyclopedia (2021). (Attached).
3 See “Why is the cos2 envelope…” (attached).
Prosecution Insights