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Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01 April 2026 of Invention I, directed to Claims 1-8.
Therefore, Claims 1-8, directed to Invention I, are presently under consideration in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the optical pumps" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the one or more optical pumps” to match the language of the other instances of this limitation in the claims. Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Claims 2-8 are rejected for depending on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites the limitation "the temporal delay" in multiple sections of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and it is unclear as to whether these limitations are referring to the same or different temporal delays. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “a first temporal delay”, “a second temporal delay”, etc. respectively. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Regarding Claims 2-4, the claims recite the limitation "the plurality of electrical pulses". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “a plurality of temporally spaced apart electrical pulse components” as recited in Claim 1. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites the limitation "the frequency”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “a frequency”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites the limitation "a plurality of sets of electrical pulses, each set of electrical pulses of the plurality of sets of electrical pulses comprising a plurality of temporally spaced apart electrical pulses”. It is unclear therefore indefinite whether these are referring to or encompassing “the plurality of temporally spaced apart electrical pulse components” as recited in Claim 1. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the plurality of temporally spaced apart electrical pulse components comprise a plurality of sets of electrical pulses, each set of electrical pulses of the plurality of sets of electrical pulses comprising a plurality of temporally spaced apart electrical pulses”. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budker et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0025323) in view of Bulatowicz (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0276741).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Budker et al. discloses a laser system (Paragraph 0025-0027, 0034, see 200, Fig. 3) comprising:
a controller (control/processing modules, 112, 152, Figs. 1-2; Paragraph 0027-0028, 0033-0034) configured to send a modulated control signal to one or more optical pumps to cause the optical pumps to generate optical pump light (modulated pump light source/optical pump, Paragraph 0023-0028, 0040-0041, 0050);
a lasing medium arranged to output a laser beam in response to the optical pump light (“polarized optical pump light source 100 emits a beam 101 through a chamber 102 comprising an atomic vapor”, Fig. 1; Paragraph 0025; laser output, Paragraph 0025-0027, 0034; Claim 6);
and a pump chamber configured to direct the optical pump light to the lasing medium (chamber 102, Figs. 1-2; Paragraph 0025-0028, 0031-0032),
wherein the modulated control signal comprises a plurality of temporally spaced apart electrical pulse components configured to dampen a relaxation oscillation of the laser beam (detuning/damped oscillator, Paragraph 0036, 0044, 0028; pulsed modulation, Claim 27; Paragraph 0029),
and wherein the modulated control signal comprises a plurality of sets of electrical pulses (Paragraph 0029, 0036, 0041, 0007-0009), each set of electrical pulses of the plurality of sets of electrical pulses comprising a plurality of temporally spaced apart electrical pulses (pulsed modulation, Claim 27; Paragraph 0029, 0036).
Budker et al. further discloses wherein the control signal is an amplitude or frequency modulated control signal (Paragraph 0025, 0007). However, Budker et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the control signal is explicitly a pulse width modulated control signal. Bulatowicz teaches a laser system (Paragraph 0003) configured to send a pulse width modulated control signal to one or more optical pumps to cause the optical pumps to generate optical pump light (“A pump beam control system pulse-width modulates a frequency of the pump beam to provide a pulse-width modulated (PWM) pump beam”, Paragraph 0003, see also Paragraph 0004-0005, 0010-0011, see Fig. 2 for pulse-width modulated signal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control signal to specifically be a pulse width modulated control signal, as taught by Bulatowicz, in the laser system disclosed by Budker et al., in order to control duty cycle such as to direct polarization uniformity of the medium and to mitigate shifting effects, as also taught by Bulatowicz (Paragraph 0003-0004).
Regarding Claims 2-4, Budker et al. discloses wherein the temporal delay between electrical pulses may be adjusted and the magnitude of electrical pulses may be adjusted (amplitude/frequency modulation, Paragraph 0025, 0007; adjustment of delays/magnitude of pulses, Paragraph 0029, 0036-0037, 0041-0042; Claim 27). Bulatowicz also teaches a laser system wherein the temporal delay between electrical pulses may be adjusted and the magnitude of electrical pulses may be adjusted (adjustment of pulse parameters, Paragraph 0004, 0011, 0019, 0022-0023, 0037).
Neither Budker et al. nor Bulatowicz explicitly discloses wherein the temporal delay between a first electrical pulse and a second electrical pulse of the plurality of electrical pulses is less than the temporal delay between the second electrical pulse and a third electrical pulse of the plurality of electrical pulses, and wherein a magnitude of the first electrical pulse is less than a magnitude of the second subsequent electrical pulse of the plurality of electrical pulses. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically configure the temporal delay between a first electrical pulse and a second electrical pulse of the plurality of electrical pulses to be less than the temporal delay between the second electrical pulse and a third electrical pulse of the plurality of electrical pulses, and a magnitude of the first electrical pulse to be less than a magnitude of the second subsequent electrical pulse of the plurality of electrical pulses, in the laser systems disclosed by Budker et al. and Bulatowicz in combination, such as to decrease energy demands and increase sensitivity of the system, as taught by Budker et al. (Paragraph 0006) and/or to direct polarization uniformity of the medium and to mitigate shifting effects, as taught by Bulatowicz (Paragraph 0003-0004, 0033-0034, 0037), and further since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding Claim 5, Budker et al. discloses wherein the frequency of the modulated control signal is approximately 300 MHz (Paragraph 0025, 0041), wherein a difference photocurrent may be amplified with a low-noise transimpedance amplifier and passed through a resonant LC filter centered at 20 kHz with a bandwidth of 11 kHz to reduce jitter (Paragraph 0041). Bulatowicz also teaches a laser system wherein the frequency of the modulated control signal is adjustable (Paragraph 0003-0005).
However, neither Budker et al. nor Bulatowicz explicitly discloses wherein the frequency is between 4 and 25 kilohertz. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically configure the frequency of the modulated control signal to be specifically between 4 and 25 kilohertz, in the laser systems disclosed by Budker et al. and Bulatowicz in combination, such as to decrease energy demands and increase sensitivity of the system, as taught by Budker et al. (Paragraph 0006) and/or to direct polarization uniformity of the medium and to mitigate shifting effects, as taught by Bulatowicz (Paragraph 0003-0004, 0033-0034, 0037), and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budker et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0025323) in view of Bulatowicz (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0276741), further in view of Jablonski et al. (US Publication No. 2006/0198399).
Regarding Claim 7, Budker et al. discloses a laser system (Paragraph 0025-0027, 0034, see 200, Fig. 3) comprising a lasing medium arranged to output a laser beam in response to the optical pump light (“polarized optical pump light source 100 emits a beam 101 through a chamber 102 comprising an atomic vapor”, Fig. 1; Paragraph 0025; laser output, Paragraph 0025-0027, 0034; Claim 6) and a pump chamber configured to direct the optical pump light to the lasing medium (chamber 102, Figs. 1-2; Paragraph 0025-0028, 0031-0032).
However, neither Budker et al. nor Bulatowicz explicitly discloses wherein the system further comprises a saturable absorber disposed of in an optical path of the laser beam. Jablonski et al. teaches a laser system including an optical pump light source (Paragraph 0018-0019, 0065), further comprising a saturable absorber disposed of in an optical path of the laser beam (Abstract, Paragraph 0015-0020, 0026-0027; Claims 1, 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically include a saturable absorber disposed of in an optical path of the laser beam, as taught by Jablonski et al., in the laser systems disclosed by Budker et al. and Bulatowicz in combination, to enable passive mode-locking and/or Q-switching, including advantages such as “very fast recovery time (on the order of 1 picosecond or less), high optical damage threshold in vacuum or an inert gas environment, mechanical and environmental robustness, chemical stability, ease of fabrication, preferably at lower cost, and the ability to operate both in transmission (uni-direction), reflection and bi-directional modes”, as also taught by Jablonski et al. (Paragraph 0016).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budker et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0025323) in view of Bulatowicz (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0276741), further in view of Marincek et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0149370).
Regarding Claim 8, Budker et al. discloses a laser system (Paragraph 0025-0027, 0034, see 200, Fig. 3) further comprising a lasing medium arranged to output a laser beam in response to the optical pump light (“polarized optical pump light source 100 emits a beam 101 through a chamber 102 comprising an atomic vapor”, Fig. 1; Paragraph 0025; laser output, Paragraph 0025-0027, 0034; Claim 6).
However, neither Budker et al. nor Bulatowicz explicitly discloses wherein the lasing medium includes one of Ho:YAG, Tm:YAG, Tm:Ho:YAG, Er:YAG, Er:YLF, Nd:YAG, Thulium fiber laser, and CTH:YAG. Marincek et al. teaches a laser system including an optical pump light source (Paragraph 0032, 0034) wherein the lasing medium includes one of Ho:YAG (Paragraph 0032), Tm:YAG (Paragraph 0032), Er:YAG (Paragraph 0032, 0064), and Nd:YAG (Paragraph 0032, 0073). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the lasing medium to include one of Ho:YAG, Tm:YAG, Er:YAG, and Nd:YAG, as taught by Marincek et al., in the laser systems disclosed by Budker et al. and Bulatowicz in combination, in order for the laser to operate in a specific wavelength range (Marincek et al., Paragraph 0032), in order to reduce initial high laser intensity spiking and deliver the energy in a temporally beneficially shaped laser pulse (Marincek et al., Paragraph 0014), and further since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA M BAYS whose telephone number is (571)270-7852. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm EST.
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 McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/PAMELA M. BAYS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights