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Claims 3, 5, 7-8, 13-15, 17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/01/2026.
The Examiner notes the Applicant also elected claims 9-10 and 16. Claims 9-10 depend from non-elected claim 8 which is directed to the unelected embodiment of fig.5. Additionally, Applicant elected claim 16 which depends from non-elected claim 15 which is directed to the unelected embodiment of fig.3.
Subsequently, claims 9-10 and 16 are also considered withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 11-12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Otake et al. (US 2008/0212630).
With respect to claim 1, Otake discloses a laser element (fig.6) comprising: a laminated semiconductor layer (fig.6 #111/112/113/114) including a first reflection layer (fig.6 #112) with respect to a first wavelength ([0028] wavelength of vcsel) and an active layer (fig.6 #113) that performs surface emission at the first wavelength; a laser medium (fig.6 #131) disposed on a rear side of an optical axis of the laminated semiconductor layer and including a second reflection layer (fig.6 #132) with respect to a second wavelength ([0043]) on a first surface (fig.6 #131 lower) facing the laminated semiconductor layer and a third reflection layer (fig.6 #116) with respect to the first wavelength ([0028]) on a second surface (fig.6 #131 top) on a side opposite to the first surface; a fourth reflection layer (fig.6 #133) with respect to the second wavelength ([0043]), the forth reflection layer being disposed on the second surface or disposed on a rear side of the optical axis with respect to the second surface; a first resonator that causes light of the first wavelength to resonate between the first reflection layer and the third reflection layer (see fig.1 lambda0); a second resonator that causes light of the second wavelength to resonate between the second reflection layer and the fourth reflection layer (see fig.1 lambda1); and a heat exhaust unit (fig.6 #119 + air gap #120) that is disposed between the laminated semiconductor layer and the laser medium, and exhausts heat generated in at least one of the laminated semiconductor layer or the laser medium (metal of #119 necessarily sinks heat, while air gap allows for convective cooling), wherein the optical axis of the laminated semiconductor layer and an optical axis of the laser medium are coaxially arranged (as seen in fig.1/6).
With respect to claim 2, Otake discloses the heat exhaust unit includes a first member (fig.6 #119) disposed between the laminated semiconductor layer and the laser medium and having a thermal conductivity higher than the laser medium ([0034] #119 is Au based metal having higher thermal conductivity than YAG).
With respect to claim 4, Otake discloses a second member (fig.6 air gap slit #120) that is bonded to a side surface of the laminated semiconductor layer, a side surface of the first member, and a side surface of the laser medium (fig.6 slit #120 bonded to the outlined elements based on connection at #119; note that ‘direct’ bonding/contact not claimed) and dissipates heat transmitted to the first member (based on convective cooling via air flow).
With respect to claim 11, Otake discloses a plurality of the first resonators and a plurality of the second resonators in a plane direction of the laminated semiconductor layer, the heat exhaust unit, and the laser medium (see fig.14).
With respect to claim 12, Otake discloses the heat exhaust unit has an air gap disposed between the laminated semiconductor layer and the laser medium (fig.6 air gap slit #120).
With respect to claim 19, Otake discloses the laminated semiconductor layer includes a fifth reflection layer (fig.6 #114) with respect to the first wavelength ([0028]) disposed on a side closer to the laser medium than the first reflection layer, and the fifth reflection layer transmits a part of the light of the first wavelength (necessarily true for pumping light to reach #131; see also lambda0 in fig.1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otake in view of Essaian et al. (US 9019999).
With respect to claim 6, Otake teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the first member contains at least one of sapphire or diamond, and the second member includes a metal material. Essaian teaches a similar diode pumped solid state laser (fig.1) which includes a sapphire endcap (fig.1 #6) formed on the solid state element and between the pump and solid state element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Otake by adding a sapphire endcap between the pump and solid state laser as taught by Essaian in order to remove heat and improve efficiency (Essaian, col.8 lines 15-20).
Note that after combination, the sapphire cap is labeled as the first member while the metal #119 of Otake is labeled as the second member and which continues to meet the limitations outlined in claims 1 and 4 above.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otake in view of Hirano (PCT/JP2019/042302; US 2022/0029377 used as a translation thereof).
With respect to claim 18, Otake teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the fourth reflection layer is an output coupling mirror in the second resonator. Hirano teaches a related diode pumped solid state laser (fig.1) which includes the option of using an end reflection coating (fig.7) or an outcoupling mirror (fig.1 #8) at the resonator end. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Otake to remove the fourth reflection layer and provide it’s function instead as a separate output coupling mirror as demonstrated by Hirano as Hirano has demonstrated each is a suitable option (see MPEP 2144.06 II) and spacing apart the end mirror would for adding components to the solid state laser cavity (see also MPEP 2144.04 V C).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otake in view of Shi et al. (US 2022/0345220).
With respect to claim 20, Otake teaches the device outlined above in the rejection of claim 1, but does not specify a control unit that performs control to emit light from the laser element. Shi teaches a related diode pumped element (fig.10a), with the pumped element being formed within the cavity of the diode (fig.10a #1040) and further the use of a driving control ([0118]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Otake to make use of a control unit to control the laser element as demonstrated by Shi in order to provide a source of current to allow the laser to produce light in a desired manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included pto892 form for a list of related art.
US 7039075, 6667999, 6101201, 5982802 are noted as teaching related cooling systems for devices similar to that outlined in claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights