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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlov et al (wo 2020131652) in view of Mauda et al (applied Physics Express 2013).
The Perlov et al reference teaches a method and product of a periodically poled non linear crystal, note entire reference. A periodically poled seed crystal is placed in to a melt of either strontium tetraborate or lithium triborate, note para 34. The melt does comprise a mixture of the elements to create the compound, note para 035. A change in the conditions is preformed to create the periodically poled crystal as it is solidified, note para 034. The crystal has the quasi phase matching, note para 011. The sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the heating and cooling step to create the poling. However, the Mauda et al reference teaches applying heat in various spots, heating and then cooling a melt of a borate crystals to create the periodically poled solid crystals, note figure 2. This creates a stacked crystal, note figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Perlov et al reference by the teachings of the Mauda et al reference to use heating and cooling to pole the crystal periodically in order to have a uniform dimension poled areas across the crystal.
With regards to claim 10, the Mauda et al reference teaches a stacked crystal with inverted second crystal, note fig 1.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlov et al (wo 2020131652) in view of Mauda et al (applied Physics Express 2013) and Tanaka et al (applied physics express 2018).
The Perlov et la and Mauda et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ form the instant claim in the see affix to an alumina tube in a platinum crucible. However, the Tanaka et al reference teaches borate growth using platinum crucibles and a seed fixed to the Almunia tube, note fig 1 and page 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Perlov et al reference to use a platinum crucible and an attached seed in order to lower impurities in the melt from the apparatus composition.
Claim(s) 3 to 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlov et al (wo 2020131652) in view of Mauda et al (applied Physics Express 2013) and Tanaka et al (applied physics express 2018).
The Perlov et al Tanaka et al and Mauda et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims in the starting materials and temperature of the melt. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious and well within the skill of the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable starting materials, and temperature in the combined references in order to fully melt the materials and have proper amounts of the needed elements for the final product.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlov et al (wo 2020131652) in view of Mauda et al (applied Physics Express 2013) and Tanaka et al (applied physics express 2018).
The Perlov et al Tanaka et al and Mauda et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the polishing step. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious and well within the skill of the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable polishing the crystals in the combined references in order to use the crystal in laser devices.
Claim(s) 11 to 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlov et al (wo 2020131652) in view of Mauda et al (applied Physics Express 2013) and Tanaka et al (applied physics express 2018).
The Perlov et al Tanaka et al and Mauda et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims in the wavelength generated. However, it would have been obvious and well within the skill of the art before the filing date of the instant invention to have the stack with a set wavelength in the combined references in order to use the crystal in different laser devices, noting similar compounds are taught.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlov et al (wo 2020131652) in view of Mauda et al (applied Physics Express 2013) and Tanaka et al (applied physics express 2018).
The Perlov et al Tanaka et al and Mauda et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims in the thickness of each crystal slab. However, it would have been obvious and well within the skill of the art before the filing date of the instant invention to have the stack with a set thicknesses in the combined references in order to obtain the desired property.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlov et al (wo 2020131652) in view of Mauda et al (applied Physics Express 2013) ,Tanaka et al (applied physics express 2018) and WO202307298
The Perlov et al Tanaka et al and Mauda et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims in the specific optical system. However, the WO 201307298 reference teaches a light source configured to generate light having a wavelength in a range between 180 nm and 200 nm; and an optical system configured to direct the light onto a sample, wherein the light source comprises: a first fundamental laser configured to generate a fundamental laser beam having a corresponding fundamental frequency with a corresponding fundamental wavelength in a range of approximately 720 nm to approximately 800 nm; one or more intermediate frequency conversion stages collectively configured to generate an intermediate frequency light using the fundamental laser beam, wherein the one or more intermediate frequency conversion stages comprise: a first frequency doubling stage optically coupled to the first fundamental laser and configured to double the frequency of at least a first portion of the first fundamental laser beam to generate second harmonic light; a final frequency doubling stage configured to pass the intermediate frequency light through a nonlinear crystal, and wherein the nonlinear crystal includes a plurality of strontium tetraborate (SBO) crystal plates disposed in a stacked configuration such that each first SBO crystal plate is adjacent to at least one second crystal plate (see paragraph [0025]; and claims 20, 25). It would have been obvious and well within the skill of the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Perlov et al reference by the teachings of the WO 202307298 reference to use the crystal in the optical systems in order to improve the output of the system.
Claim(s) 19, 20 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlov et al (wo 2020131652) in view of Ishibashi
The Perlov et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims in the pulling of the crystal. However, Ishibashi et al reference teaches pull a borate crystal through a platinum nozzle to form a nonlinear crystal, note figure 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Perlov et al reference by the teachings of the Ishibashi reference to pull the crystal to create a poled periodically crystal in order to create the desired shape.
With regards to claim 20, the reference teach a melt temperature.
With regard to claim 24, the Ishibashi reference teaches a narrow tube opening, fig. 4
Claim(s) 21 to 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlov et al (wo 2020131652) in view of Ishibashi
The Perlov et al and Ishibashi references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claims in the temperature and composition of the melt. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious and well within the skill of the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable starting materials, and temperature in the combined references in order to fully melt the materials and have proper amounts of the needed elements for the final product.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714