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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to Double Patenting Rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 double patenting rejection of claims 1-7 has been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-7 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. A new ground(s) of rejection is necessitated by the amendment. The deficiencies of Lee and Shudo are now met by Ooike and McDonald. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooike JP 2004087543 A in view of McDonald et al. US 2002/0172239 A1 (hereinafter referred to as McDonald).
Regarding claim 1, Ooike discloses a laser assembly (fig. 4, laser main body 10, , par. [0013]) comprising: a semiconductor laser (fig. 1, semiconductor laser element 31, par. [0015], [0018]); a current pulse driver (fig. 5, LD driving unit 56, par. [0019]) configured to pump the semiconductor laser (fig. 1, semiconductor laser element 31, par. [0019]); wherein the current pulse driver (fig. 5, LD driving unit 56, par. [0019]) and the semiconductor laser fig. 1, semiconductor laser element 31, par. [0015], [0018]) are co-located in a package. (see fig. 1, laser system 11).
Ooike does not disclose a wavelength-selective element configured to transmit a selected wavelength from the semiconductor laser; and the wavelength-selective element, wherein the wavelength-selective element is heated by the heat source to select a specific range of wavelengths of light beams that are input to the wavelength-selective element; and the laser output is tuned by temperature control of the heat source.
McDonald discloses a wavelength-selective element (fig. 1, thermo-optically tunable etalons 24, 26, par. [0012], [0042]) configured to transmit a selected wavelength from the semiconductor laser (fig. 1, Fabry-Perot diode emitter chip 12, par. [0041]); and the wavelength-selective element, wherein the wavelength-selective element is heated by the heat source (fig. 1, thermal control element 36, 38, par. [0045]) to select a specific range of wavelengths of light beams (see fig. 2A, 2B, abs., par. [0050]-[0054]) that are input to the wavelength-selective element; and the laser output is tuned by temperature control (fig. 1, controller 40, par. 0045]) of the heat source (fig. 1, thermal control element 36, 38, par. [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a laser apparatus and method that utilizes dual, tunable elements by means of tuning by temperature-induced change in etalon material refractive index, temperature induced change in the physical thickness of an etalon, or both to provide for wavelength tuning of a light beam, as taught in Lou in modifying the apparatus of Ooike. The motivation would be efficient suppression of transmission peaks at unwanted wavelengths (see McDonald: abs., par. [0012]).
Regarding claim 8, Ooike and McDonald discloses the laser assembly of claim 1, Ooike discloses wherein the heat source (fig. 4, thermo-electric (TE), col. 6, ln. 45) (fig. 1, thermomodule 16, par. [0015], [0018]) is configured to heat the semiconductor laser (fig. 1, semiconductor laser element 31, par. [0015], [0018]) the wavelength-selective element (fig. 1, optical filter 43, abs. par.[0014], [0018]), and the one or more optical elements (fig. 1, elm. 35, 41, abs. par.[0013], [0014]).
Regarding claim 9, Ooike and McDonald discloses the laser assembly of claim 1, Ooike discloses wherein heat that is provided by the heat source (fig. 1, thermomodule 16, par. [0015], [0018]) to the semiconductor laser (fig. 1, semiconductor laser element 31, par. [0018]) and to the wavelength-selective element (fig. 1, optical filter 43, abs. par.[0014], [0018]), is from excitation by AC or DC currents (par. [0018]).
Regarding claim 10, Ooike and McDonald discloses the laser assembly of claim 9, Ooike and McDonald do not explicitly disclose wherein the excitation is only turned on during a period when measurement is not being performed, which would eliminate currents that generate stray magnetic field. However, 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 operation of Ooike and McDonald to be able turn off the excitation during the period when measurement are being performed, to eliminate currents that generate stray magnetic field, as a matter of simple design-choice, since it was well- known in the art that currents generate magnetic field, therefore disabling the current source would improve the measured signals integrity and would have been a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Ooike and McDonald discloses the laser assembly of claim 1, McDonald discloses wherein the wavelength-selective element (fig. 1, thermo-optically tunable etalons 24, 26, par. [0012], [0042]) includes at least one of: a surface or volume grating, a reflective mirror, and an electro-optically active material (par. [0011]).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Ooike and McDonald discloses the laser assembly of claim 1, Ooike discloses wherein the light beams that are input to the wavelength-selective element (fig. 1, thermo-optically tunable etalons 24, 26, par. [0012], [0042]) have a first range of wavelengths, and the selected specific range (see fig. 2A, 2B, abs., par. [0050]-[0054])of the wavelengths is narrower than and overlaps with the first range of wavelengths (fig. 5, par. [0083]).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooike in view of McDonald as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zheng CN 209133839 U.
Regarding claim 2, Ooike and McDonald discloses the laser assembly of claim 1, Ooike and McDonald do not disclose wherein the current pulse driver is made with substantially non-magnetic.
Zheng discloses wherein the current pulse driver (fig. 1, semiconductor laser pump power, 2nd par.) is made with substantially non-magnetic (fig. 2, non-magnetic elements, 4th par.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a semiconductor laser pump power provided by the utility model of the storage capacitor connected in series with an external laser, charging channel in parallel at the two ends of the laser, so it only uses two leads that can be connected with the constant-current charge unit as taught in Zheng in modifying the apparatus of Ooike and McDonald. The motivation would be to reduce the complexity of system and improves reliability and reduces the production cost. (see Zheng: abs.).
Regarding claim 3, Ooike and McDonald discloses the laser assembly of claim 1, Ooike and McDonald do not disclose wherein the current pulse driver is configured to couple with a charge storage device and to pump the semiconductor with a charge stored in the charge storage device.
Zheng discloses wherein the current pulse driver (fig. 1, semiconductor laser pump power, 2nd par.) is configured to couple with a charge storage device (fig. 1, elm. 6, 2nd par.) and to pump the semiconductor with a charge stored in the charge storage device (2nd par.) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a semiconductor laser pump power provided by the utility model of the storage capacitor connected in series with an external laser, charging channel in parallel at the two ends of the laser, so it only uses two leads that can be connected with the constant-current charge unit as taught in Zheng in modifying the apparatus of Ooike and McDonald. The motivation would be to reduce the complexity of system and improves reliability and reduces the production cost. (see Zheng: abs.).
Regarding claim 4, Ooike and McDonald discloses the laser assembly of claim 1, Ooike discloses further comprising one or more optical elements (see fig. 4, above with optical elements) to direct a laser beam (see fig. 4, laser output 65) emitted from the laser (fig. 4, laser 25, col. 6, ln. 43-45) and/or change a polarization of the light beam.
Regarding claim 5, Ooike and McDonald discloses the laser assembly of claim 1, Ooike and McDonald do not disclose wherein the charge storage device is a capacitor and the current pulse driver is a metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET), and wherein the laser is controlled by an applied voltage.
Zheng disclose wherein the charge storage device is a capacitor (fig. 1, elm. 6, 2nd par.) and the current pulse driver is a metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) (fig. 1, Q1, 2nd par.), and wherein the laser is controlled by an applied voltage (power supply voltage, 2nd par.).
The references are combined for the same reason already applied in the rejection of claim 3.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooike in view of McDonald in view of Zheng as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Telefus DE102014103503A1.
Regarding claim 6, Ooike, McDonald and Zheng discloses the laser assembly of claim 1, Ooike, McDonald and Zheng do not disclose wherein the charge storage device is charged only during a first time period so as to eliminate currents flowing that generate stray magnetic field during a second time period different from the first time period.
Telefus discloses wherein the charge storage device (fig. 1, C1, par. [0005]) is charged only during a first time period (transistor T1 is turned on, par. [0005]) so as to eliminate currents flowing that generate stray magnetic field (releasing the magnetic field energy stored in transformer 12) during a second time period (transistor T1 is turned off, par. [0005]) different from the first time period.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a voltage within a predetermined range is required, which is formed of a voltage source having a different voltage level, as taught in Telefus in modifying the apparatus of Ooike, McDonald and Zheng. The motivation would be to control power during power-on of a device under load. (see Telefus: par. [0002]-[0004]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooike in view of McDonald as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwindt.
Regarding claim 7, Ooike and McDonald discloses the laser assembly of claim 1, Ooike and McDonald do not disclose further comprising: another semiconductor laser; and a waveplate; wherein the two laser emit light beams with different polarization states, and the waveplate is configured to change the polarization states of the two light beams differently.
Schwindt discloses: another semiconductor laser (fig. 1, laser 20, col. 8, ln. 17-18) (fig. 1, laser 30, col. 9, ln. 38), and a waveplate (fig. 1, waveplate 26, col. 9, ln. 62); wherein the two laser emit light beams with different polarization states, and the waveplate is configured to change the polarization states of the two light beams differently (col. 9, ln. 62 -col. 10, ln. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control polarizations of the pump and probe light beams by a dichroic waveplate which is dimensioned so as to convert the D1 light, which is initially linearly polarized, into a circularly polarized beam while maintaining the linear polarization of the D2 probe light beam, as taught in Schwindt in modifying the apparatus of Ooike and McDonald. The motivation would be to method obviates any need for orthogonality between the pump and probe light beam axes and allows any or all vector components of the field to be measured. (see Schwindt: col. 13, ln. 19-30).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, EMAN ALKAFAWI can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/COURTNEY G MCDONNOUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
5/7/2026
Prosecution Insights