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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed August 4, 2026. Claims 4, 7, 11, and 17 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-24 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant argues, on pages 7-13 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose or make obvious all of the limitations of claim 1. Namely, applicant asserts that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose “a pulse stretcher arranged between a front focal plane of the first optical element and the first optical element.”
First, applicant argues that the limitation was “improperly dismissed as a mere design choice.” As set forth in the current and previous office action, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1, except a pulse stretcher arranged between a front focal plane of the first optical element and the first optical element.” However, reference to JP ‘672 discloses a pulse stretcher for increasing a pulse length of a pulse in the laser beam (i.e. of laser light source LS, see e.g. page 2, first full paragraph for pulse stretcher). Use of such a pulse stretcher in a laser system allows appropriate beam conditioning for the particular application. The combination of references does not disclose placing the pulse stretcher in a particular position such as applicant’s claimed location of between the first optical element and a focal plane of the optical element. However, it would have been within the level of routine skill to find an appropriate position within the system that results in the highest beam quality.
Second, applicant argues that none of the references used in the rejection of claim 1 disclose the placement of the pulse stretcher within the optical system. However, as noted above, it would have been within the level of routine skill to find an appropriate position within the system that results in the highest beam quality.
Third, applicant argues that a prima facia case of obviousness was not established. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the optical system of Koolen et al., as modified with the housing of Knowles et al. fails to disclose “a pulse stretcher arranged between a front focal plane of the first optical element and the first optical element.” However, as noted above, JP ‘672 discloses use of a pulse stretcher for increasing a pulse length of a pulse in the laser beam in an optical system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use such a pulse stretcher to achieve a desired pulse length of light/beam condition for the system. Further, it would have been within the level of routine skill to find an appropriate position within the system that results in the highest beam quality through routine optimization.
Similar arguments apply to independent claims 1, 15, and 19.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-24 are rejected, as set forth below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koolen et al. (US 2004/0257547 A1) in view of Knowles et al. (US 2002/0154668 A1) and further in view of JP (5688672), hereinafter JP ‘672.
In regard to claim 1, Koolen et al. discloses a laser system (i.e. including laser 2, see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0039]) comprising (see e.g. Figures 1, 3, 4):
a laser operable 2 to generate a laser beam (see e.g. paragraph [0039]);
an optical system (i.e. including at least 9) comprising a first optical element f (13 in Figure 4) and a second optical element f (14 in Figure 4) (see e.g. paragraph [0056]); and
an output through which the laser beam exits the laser system (see e.g. Figures 1 and 3 and note the light is output from the beam deliver system BD where BD in Figure 1 comprises the components of Figure 3);
the laser 2, the optical system (i.e. including at least 9) and the output are arranged such that the laser beam propagates to the first optical element f,13, the second optical element f,14 and the output sequentially (see e.g. Figures 1, 3, 4);
wherein the first optical element has a first focal length, the second optical element has a second focal length equal to the first focal length, and the second optical element is spaced from the first optical element by a distance of two times the first focal length (see e.g. paragraph [0056] where it is noted the lens are identical positive lenses with focal length f spaced at 2f).
Koolen et al. fails to disclose
a housing comprising an exit aperture,
the laser disposed in the housing,
the optical system disposed in the housing,
a first pulse stretcher arranged between a front focal plane of the first optical element and the first optical element, and
wherein the second optical element is located proximal to the exit aperture,
wherein the output is located at or proximal to the exit aperture.
However, Knowles et al. discloses
a housing 4 comprising an exit aperture 18 (denoted “shutter module”, (see e.g. Figure 1, paragraph [0055] ),
the laser disposed in the housing (see e.g. paragraph [0047]),
the optical system disposed in the housing (see e.g. paragraph [0047]),
wherein the output is located at or proximal to the exit aperture 18 (see e.g. Figure 1, paragraph [0055]).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a configuration in which the second optical element is located proximal to the exit aperture, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Given the teachings of Knowles et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al. with a housing comprising an exit aperture, the laser disposed in the housing, the optical system disposed in the housing, wherein the second optical element is located proximal to the exit aperture, wherein the output is located at or proximal to the exit aperture.
Providing a housing to the laser system and its optical elements would provide protection from the external environment (i.e. dust, humidity, etc.).
Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., fails to disclose
a first pulse stretcher arranged between a front focal plane of the first optical element and the first optical element.
However, JP ‘672 discloses
a pulse stretcher for increasing a pulse length of a pulse in the laser beam (i.e. of laser light source LS, see e.g. page 2, first full paragraph for pulse stretcher). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a first pulse stretcher arranged between a front focal plane of the first optical element and the first optical element, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of JP ‘672, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. with a first pulse stretcher arranged between a front focal plane of the first optical element and the first optical element.
Providing the system with a pulse stretcher allows for an increase in the pulse length of a laser beam, conditioning the beam for the particular application.
In regard to claim 2, Koolen et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the laser 2 comprises an excimer laser (see e.g. paragraph [0039]).
In regard to claim 3, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, abut fails to disclose
the first pulse stretcher is configured to increase a pulse length of a pulse in the laser beam.
However, JP ‘672 discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
the first pulse stretcher is configured to increase a pulse length of a pulse in the laser beam (i.e. of laser light source LS, see e.g. page 2, first full paragraph for pulse stretcher).
Given the teachings of JP ‘672, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., with the first pulse stretcher is configured to increase a pulse length of a pulse in the laser beam.
Providing the system with a pulse stretcher allows for an increase in the pulse length of a laser beam, conditioning the beam for the particular application.
In regard to claim 5, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, but fails to disclose
a pulse of increased pulse length exits the pulse stretcher through an output of the first pulse stretcher.
However, JP ‘672 discloses wherein the pulse stretcher comprises
a pulse stretcher output through which a pulse of increased pulse length may exit the pulse stretcher (i.e. of laser light source LS, see e.g. page 2, first full paragraph for pulse stretcher).
Given the teachings of JP ‘672, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., with a pulse of increased pulse length exits the pulse stretcher through an output of the first pulse stretcher.
Providing the system with a pulse stretcher allows for an increase in the pulse length of a laser beam, conditioning the beam for the particular application.
In regard to claim 6, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, abut fails to disclose
the first pulse stretcher is configured to increase a pulse length of a pulse in the laser beam.
However, JP ‘672 discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
the first pulse stretcher is configured to increase a pulse length of a pulse in the laser beam (i.e. of laser light source LS, see e.g. page 2, first full paragraph for pulse stretcher).
Given the teachings of JP ‘672, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., with the first pulse stretcher is configured to increase a pulse length of a pulse in the laser beam.
Providing the system with a pulse stretcher allows for an increase in the pulse length of a laser beam, conditioning the beam for the particular application.
In regard to claim 8, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, but fails to disclose
a pulse of increased pulse length exits the pulse stretcher through an output of the first pulse stretcher.
However, JP ‘672 discloses wherein the pulse stretcher comprises
a pulse stretcher output through which a pulse of increased pulse length may exit the pulse stretcher (i.e. of laser light source LS, see e.g. page 2, first full paragraph for pulse stretcher).
Given the teachings of JP ‘672, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., with a pulse of increased pulse length exits the pulse stretcher through an output of the first pulse stretcher.
Providing the system with a pulse stretcher allows for an increase in the pulse length of a laser beam, conditioning the beam for the particular application.
In regard to claim 9, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 8 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a distance between the output of the first pulse stretcher and the first optical element is less than the first focal length.
However, JP ‘672 discloses the laser light source may include the pulse stretcher (i.e. of laser light source LS, see e.g. page 2, first full paragraph for pulse stretcher).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange wherein a distance between the output of the first pulse stretcher and the first optical element is less than the first focal length, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Given the teachings of JP ‘672, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., with wherein a distance between the output of the first pulse stretcher and the first optical element is less than the first focal length.
Providing the system with a pulse stretcher allows for an increase in the pulse length of a laser beam, conditioning the beam for the particular application.
In regard to claim 10, Koolen et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the second optical element f, 14 receives the laser beam directly from the first optical element f, 13 (see e.g. Figures 3-4).
In regard to claim 12, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a distance between the exit aperture and the second optical element is less than the first focal length.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a configuration in which a distance between the exit aperture and the second optical element is less than the first focal length, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., with wherein a distance between the exit aperture and the second optical element is less than the first focal length.
Selecting the distance between the exit aperture and the second optical element would provide desired beam characteristics and is considered within ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 13, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
the second optical system comprising a third optical element and a fourth optical element; wherein the third optical element has a third focal length, the fourth optical element has a fourth focal length equal to the third focal length, and the fourth optical element is spaced from the third optical element along an optical axis by a distance of two times the third focal length.
However, JP ‘672 discloses
multiple relay systems (i.e. 10, 12 in Figure 2). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the second optical system comprising a third optical element and a fourth optical element, since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of parts. A duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize using a configuration in which the third optical element has a third focal length, the fourth optical element has a fourth focal length equal to the third focal length, and the fourth optical element is spaced from the third optical element along an optical axis by a distance of two times the third focal length, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Given the teachings of JP ‘672, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., with the second optical system comprising a third optical element and a fourth optical element; wherein the third optical element has a third focal length, the fourth optical element has a fourth focal length equal to the third focal length, and the fourth optical element is spaced from the third optical element along an optical axis by a distance of two times the third focal length.
Providing additional optics for conditioning of the beam would be considered within ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 14, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. and JP ‘672, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 13 above, but fails to disclose
a second pulse stretcher.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include a second pulse stretcher, since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of parts. A duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. and JP ‘672, with a second pulse stretcher.
Providing additional optics for conditioning of the beam would be considered within ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 15, Koolen et al. discloses a lithographic apparatus (see e.g. paragraph [0033]) comprising (see e.g. Figure 1):
a laser system (i.e. including laser 2, see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0039]) comprising (see e.g. Figures 1, 3, 4):
a laser operable 2 to generate a laser beam (see e.g. paragraph [0039]);
an optical system (i.e. including at least 9) comprising a first optical element f (13 in Figure 4) and a second optical element f (14 in Figure 4) (see e.g. paragraph [0056]); and
an output through which the laser beam exits the laser system (see e.g. Figures 1 and 3 and note the light is output from the beam delivery system BD where BD in Figure 1 comprises the components of Figure 3);
the laser 2, the optical system (i.e. including at least 9) and the output are arranged such that the laser beam propagates to the first optical element f,13, the second optical element f,14 and the output sequentially (see e.g. Figures 1, 3, 4);
wherein the first optical element has a first focal length, the second optical element has a second focal length equal to the first focal length, and the second optical element is spaced from the first optical element by a distance of two times the first focal length (see e.g. paragraph [0056] where it is noted the lens are identical positive lenses with focal length f spaced at 2f).
Koolen et al. fails to disclose
a housing comprising an exit aperture,
the laser disposed in the housing,
the optical system disposed in the housing,
a first pulse stretcher arranged between a front focal plane of the first optical element and the first optical element,
wherein the second optical element is located proximal to the exit aperture,
wherein the output is located at or proximal to the exit aperture.
However, Knowles et al. discloses
a housing 4 comprising an exit aperture 18 (denoted “shutter module”, (see e.g. Figure 1, paragraph [0055] ),
the laser disposed in the housing (see e.g. paragraph [0047]),
the optical system disposed in the housing (see e.g. paragraph [0047]),
wherein the output is located at or proximal to the exit aperture 18 (see e.g. Figure 1, paragraph [0055]).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a configuration in which the second optical element is located proximal to the exit aperture, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Given the teachings of Knowles et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al. with a housing comprising an exit aperture, the laser disposed in the housing, the optical system disposed in the housing, wherein the second optical element is located proximal to the exit aperture, wherein the output is located at or proximal to the exit aperture.
Providing a housing to the laser system and its optical elements would provide protection from the external environment (i.e. dust, humidity, etc.).
Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., fails to disclose
a first pulse stretcher arranged between a front focal plane of the first optical element and the first optical element.
However, JP ‘672 discloses
a pulse stretcher for increasing a pulse length of a pulse in the laser beam (i.e. of laser light source LS, see e.g. page 2, first full paragraph for pulse stretcher). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a first pulse stretcher arranged between a front focal plane of the first optical element and the first optical element, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of JP ‘672, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. with a first pulse stretcher arranged between a front focal plane of the first optical element and the first optical element.
Providing the system with a pulse stretcher allows for an increase in the pulse length of a laser beam, conditioning the beam for the particular application.
In regard to claim 16, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., discloses the limitation as applied to claim 15 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the pulse stretcher is configured to increase a pulse length of a pulse in the laser beam, and
wherein a pulse of increased pulse length exits the first pulse stretcher through an output of the first pulse stretcher.
However, JP ‘672 discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein the pulse stretcher is configured to increase a pulse length of a pulse in the laser beam (i.e. of laser light source LS, see e.g. page 2, first full paragraph for pulse stretcher).
wherein a pulse of increased pulse length exits the first pulse stretcher through an output of the first pulse stretcher (i.e. of laser light source LS, see e.g. page 2, first full paragraph for pulse stretcher).
Given the teachings of JP ‘672, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., with wherein the pulse stretcher is configured to increase a pulse length of a pulse in the laser beam, and wherein a pulse of increased pulse length exits the first pulse stretcher through an output of the first pulse stretcher.
Providing the system with a pulse stretcher allows for an increase in the pulse length of a laser beam, conditioning the beam for the particular application.
In regard to claim 18, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a distance between the exit aperture and the second optical element is less than the first focal length.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a configuration in which a distance between the exit aperture and the second optical element is less than the first focal length, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., with wherein a distance between the exit aperture and the second optical element is less than the first focal length.
Selecting the distance between the exit aperture and the second optical element would provide desired beam characteristics and is considered within ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 19, Koolen et al. discloses a laser system (i.e. including laser 2, see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0039]) comprising (see e.g. Figures 1, 3, 4):
a laser operable 2 to generate a laser beam (see e.g. paragraph [0039]);
an optical system (i.e. including at least 9) comprising a first optical element f (13 in Figure 4) and a second optical element f (14 in Figure 4) (see e.g. paragraph [0056]); and
an output through which the laser beam exits the laser system (see e.g. Figures 1 and 3 and note the light is output from the beam delivery system BD where BD in Figure 1 comprises the components of Figure 3);
the laser 2, the optical system (i.e. including at least 9) and the output are arranged such that the laser beam propagates to the first optical element f,13, the second optical element f,14 and the output sequentially (see e.g. Figures 1, 3, 4);
wherein the first optical element has a first focal length, the second optical element has a second focal length, and the second optical element is spaced from the first optical element by a distance substantially equal to the sum of the first focal length and the second focal length (see e.g. paragraph [0056] where it is noted the lens are identical positive lenses with focal length f spaced at 2f).
Koolen et al. fails to disclose
a housing comprising an exit aperture,
the laser disposed in the housing,
the optical system disposed in the housing,
a first pulse stretcher arranged between a front focal plane of the first optical element and the first optical element,
wherein the second optical element is located proximal to the exit aperture,
wherein the output is located at or proximal to the exit aperture.
However, Knowles et al. discloses
a housing 4 comprising an exit aperture 18 (denoted “shutter module”, (see e.g. Figure 1, paragraph [0055] ),
the laser disposed in the housing (see e.g. paragraph [0047]),
the optical system disposed in the housing (see e.g. paragraph [0047]),
wherein the output is located at or proximal to the exit aperture 18 (see e.g. Figure 1, paragraph [0055]).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a configuration in which the second optical element is located proximal to the exit aperture, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Given the teachings of Knowles et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al. with a housing comprising an exit aperture, the laser disposed in the housing, the optical system disposed in the housing, wherein the second optical element is located proximal to the exit aperture, wherein the output is located at or proximal to the exit aperture.
Providing a housing to the laser system and its optical elements would provide protection from the external environment (i.e. dust, humidity, etc.).
Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al., fails to disclose
a first pulse stretcher arranged between a front focal plane of the first optical element and the first optical element.
However, JP ‘672 discloses
a pulse stretcher for increasing a pulse length of a pulse in the laser beam (i.e. of laser light source LS, see e.g. page 2, first full paragraph for pulse stretcher). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a first pulse stretcher arranged between a front focal plane of the first optical element and the first optical element, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of JP ‘672, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. with a first pulse stretcher arranged between a front focal plane of the first optical element and the first optical element.
Providing the system with a pulse stretcher allows for an increase in the pulse length of a laser beam, conditioning the beam for the particular application.
In regard to claim 20, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. and JP ‘672, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the optical system is configured to reduce an effective propagation length of the laser beam by a distance equal to four times the first focal length.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the optical system is configured to reduce an effective propagation length of the laser beam by a distance equal to four times the first focal length, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. and JP ‘672, with wherein the optical system is configured to reduce an effective propagation length of the laser beam by a distance equal to four times the first focal length.
Optimizing the system to have a reduced propagation length would provide a device with a smaller footprint.
In regard to claim 21, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. and JP ‘672, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 20, but fails to disclose
wherein a reduction in the effective propagation length of the laser beam influences one or more characteristics of the laser beam.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the changing the propagation length of the beam would at least affect quality and stability of the beam as well as shape and size of the beam due to the effects of diffraction and other optical phenomena.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. and JP ‘672, with wherein a reduction in the effective propagation length of the laser beam influences one or more characteristics of the laser beam.
Optimizing the system to have a desired propagation length would provide a device with a smaller footprint and quality laser beam characteristics.
In regard to claim 22, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. and JP ‘672, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 21, but fails to disclose
wherein the one or more characteristics of the laser beam comprises a beam size, a beam shape, or beam stability.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the changing the propagation length of the beam would at least affect quality and stability of the beam as well as shape and size of the beam due to the effects of diffraction and other optical phenomena.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. and JP ‘672, with wherein the one or more characteristics of the laser beam comprises a beam size, a beam shape, or beam stability.
Optimizing the system to have a desired propagation length would provide a device with a smaller footprint and quality laser beam characteristics.
In regard to claim 23, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. and JP ‘672, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 15, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the optical system is configured to reduce an effective propagation length of the laser beam by a distance equal to four times the first focal length.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the optical system is configured to reduce an effective propagation length of the laser beam by a distance equal to four times the first focal length, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. and JP ‘672, with wherein the optical system is configured to reduce an effective propagation length of the laser beam by a distance equal to four times the first focal length.
Optimizing the system to have a reduced propagation length would provide a device with a smaller footprint.
In regard to claim 24, Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. and JP ‘672, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 23, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein a reduction in the effective propagation length of the laser beam influences one or more characteristics of the laser beam, the one or more characteristics of the laser beam comprising a beam size, a beam shape, or beam stability.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the optical system is configured to reduce an effective propagation length of the laser beam by a distance equal to four times the first focal length, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Koolen et al., in view of Knowles et al. and JP ‘672, with wherein a reduction in the effective propagation length of the laser beam influences one or more characteristics of the laser beam, the one or more characteristics of the laser beam comprising a beam size, a beam shape, or beam stability.
Optimizing the system to have a reduced propagation length would provide a device with a smaller footprint.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights