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 .
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.
Claims 18, 19, 21-24, 26, 27, 29 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zayhowski et al. (US 5,132,977) in view of Raring et al. (US 10,587,090) and Lee et al. (US 5,825,054).
Regarding claim 18, Zayhowski et al. disclose: a Q-switch structure comprising: a solid-state laser medium (10) (Fig. 2c, col. 4, lines 32-62); and a magneto-optical material (230), wherein the solid-state laser medium and the magneto-optical material are joined and integrated (Fig. 2c, col. 4, lines 32-62).
Zayhowski et al. do not disclose: a first anti-reflecting film for adhesive is formed on a surface of the solid-state laser medium; a second anti-reflecting film for adhesive is formed on a surface of the magneto-optical material; and the first anti-reflecting film for adhesive on the solid-state laser medium and the second anti-reflecting film for adhesive on the magneto-optical material are bonded via a translucent material having a transparency at a laser oscillation wavelength of laser oscillated from the solid-state laser medium.
Raring et al. disclose: a translucent material having a transparency at a laser oscillation wavelength (low melting point glass) of laser oscillated from the solid-state laser medium is used as a bonding material (col. 45, line 1-14). 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 Zayhowski by bonding the solid-state laser medium with the magneto-optic material using a translucent material in order to align the two elements permanently.
Zayhowski as modified do not disclose: a first anti-reflecting film for adhesive is formed on a surface of the solid-state laser medium; a second anti-reflecting film for adhesive is formed on a surface of the magneto-optical material.
Lee et al. disclose: coating AR (anti-reflection)-coated on both sides of a translucent material (col. 2, lines 25-47). 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 Zayhowski as modified by forming anti-reflecting film on both sides of the translucent bonding material in order to reduce reflections at the two interfaces of the bonding material. The device as modified disclose: the first anti-reflecting film for adhesive on the solid-state laser medium and the second anti-reflecting film for adhesive on the magneto-optical material are bonded via a translucent material having a transparency at a laser oscillation wavelength of laser oscillated from the solid-state laser medium.
PNG
media_image1.png
284
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2c of Zayhowski
Regarding claim 19, Zayhowski as modified disclose: wherein the translucent material is an organic adhesive with a Shore D hardness of 80 or less or an inorganic translucent material (inorganic translucent material i.e. low melting point glass) (Raring, col. 45, line 1-14).
Regarding claim 21, Zayhowski as modified disclose: wherein the inorganic translucent material is a water glass or a glass material including a low melting point glass (see the rejection of claim 1).
Zayhowski as modified do not disclose: a glass transition point of 500° C. or less.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a Q-switch structure comprising a translucent material (low melting point glass) used to bond a solid-state laser medium and a magneto-optical material, the low melting point glass has a glass transition temperature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the glass transition temperature by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 22, Zayhowski as modified do not disclose: wherein the transparency of the translucent material at the laser oscillation wavelength has a transmittance of 95% or more.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.05 II, Optimization of Ranges: Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In the prior art the general conditions are disclosed, a Q-switch structure comprising a translucent material (low melting point glass) used to bond a solid-state laser medium and a magneto-optical material, the low melting point glass has a transmittance at the laser oscillation wavelength. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to obtain a workable range of values for the transmittance at the laser oscillation wavelength by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 23, Zayhowski as modified disclose: wherein the magneto-optical material is an yttrium iron garnet (Zayhowski, col. 4, lines 32-45).
Zayhowski as modified do not disclose: a bismuth-substituted rare earth iron garnet.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use known materials such as a bismuth-substituted rare earth iron garnet for the magneto-optical material based on its suitability for the device.
Regarding claim 24, Zayhowski as modified do not disclose: wherein the solid-state laser medium is selected from any one of ceramics selected from the group comprised of Y3Al5O2, Gd3Ga5O12, and YVO4 doped with any one selected from the group comprised of Nd, Yb, and Cr.
However, In accordance with MPEP 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use known materials such as Y3Al5O2, Gd3Ga5O12, and YVO4 doped with any one selected from the group comprised of Nd, Yb, and Cr as the solid-state gain medium based on its suitability for the device.
Regarding claim 26, the apparatus of claim 18 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 18).
Regarding claim 27, the apparatus of claim 19 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 19).
Regarding claim 29, the apparatus of claim 21 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 21).
Regarding claim 31, the apparatus of claim 22 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 22).
Regarding claim 32, the apparatus of claim 23 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 23).
Regarding claim 33, the apparatus of claim 24 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 24).
Claims 20 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zayhowski et al. (US 5,132,977) in view of Raring et al. (US 10,587,090), Lee et al. (US 5,825,054) and Taira et al. (US PG Pub 2017/0358898).
Regarding claim 20, Zayhowski as modified do not disclose: wherein the organic adhesive is any one of silicone resin, silicone-modified epoxy resin, and epoxy resin.
Taira et al. disclose: epoxy resin used as an adhesive ([0004], [0005]). 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 Zayhowski as modified by using epoxy resin for bonding the solid-state laser medium and the magneto-optical material because epoxy-resin is resistant to environmental stress.
Regarding claim 28, the apparatus of claim 20 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 20).
Claims 25 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zayhowski et al. (US 5,132,977) in view of Raring et al. (US 10,587,090), Lee et al. (US 5,825,054) and Inoue et al. (WO 2017069272).
Regarding claim 25, Zayhowski as modified disclose: a magnetic flux generator (electro-magnet 232) (Zayhowski, col. 4, lines 32-45).
Zayhowski as modified do not disclose: a magnetic flux generator being arranged between a pair of resonant mirrors.
Inoue et al. disclose: the magneto-optical film 10, and the exciting coil 12a are integrated (Fig. 13, page 6 of the translation). 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 Zayhowski as modified by integrating a magnetic flux generator with the magneto-optic material in order to reduce the size of the device. The device as modified disclose: a magnetic flux generator being arranged between a pair of resonant mirrors.
Regarding claim 34, the apparatus of claim 25 discloses the claimed method (see the rejection of claim 25).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zayhowski et al. (US 5,132,977) in view of Raring et al. (US 10,587,090), Lee et al. (US 5,825,054) and Tanaka (US PG Pub 2018/0307014).
Regarding claim 30, Zayhowski as modified do not disclose: wherein the glass material is bonded to the first anti-reflecting film for adhesive and the second anti-reflecting film for adhesive by thermal diffusion bonding or by close bonding under a vacuum.
Tanaka discloses: bonding an optical coating on a substrate using thermal diffusion bonding ([0066]). 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 Zayhowski as modified by bonding the first anti-reflecting film for adhesive and the second anti-reflecting film for adhesive on the glass material using thermal diffusion bonding in order to produces bonds without porosity, cracks, or discontinuities.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fulbert et al. (US 5,832,010) disclose: a microlaser cavity to a microlaser incorporating an active solid medium (38) and means (44) for switching the cavity, whilst also having, within said cavity, at least one element (46) of an optically nonlinear material, making it possible to multiply the basic frequency of the laser cavity by a factor n. Nettleton et al. (US PG Pub 2002/0097756) disclose: a laser cavity assembly for high power optical range-finders consisting of two rods of lasing material co-axially mounted on a thin substrate of the same or thermally equivalent material, selected end-faces of the rods being bonded to layers or wafers of optical materials chosen from a group consisting of materials used in Q-switches, filters, matching transformers, linear polarizers and reflecting mirrors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, 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.
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights