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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: path diversion assemblies in claims 1-2, 5-12, 14-18; the corresponding structure(s) are 146, 156, 202, and 302 of the instant figures.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the third first position" in line 13 and “the fourth first position” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Note that lines 5-7 recite how the second and third mirrors are rotated between a third position and a fourth position and lines 2-4 recite how a first mirror is moved between first position to second position but it is unclear and thus indefinite as to what is meant by “"the third first position" in line 13 and “the fourth first position” in line 16.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10, 12, 14, 17 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10454237. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim(s) is/are broader than the corresponding claim(s) in the reference application and thus the corresponding claim(s) is/are a species of the more generic instant claim(s). It has been held that the generic invention is "anticipated" by the "species". See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim(s) overlap in scope with and are anticipated and/or obvious over the reference claim(s).
Regarding claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 teaches a surgical laser system (claim 1) comprising:
a pump module configured to generate pump energy (claim 1 “pump module”);
a gain medium optically coupled to the pump module, wherein the gain medium is configured to generate first laser energy having a first wavelength range responsive to excitation by the pump energy (claim 1 “gain medium”);
a resonator optically coupled to the gain medium, wherein the resonator is configured to convert the first laser energy to a second laser energy having a second wavelength range different from the first wavelength range (claim 1 “non-linear crystal… wherein the system includes a resonator path extending through the gain medium and the NLC” reads on resonator);
an output coupler (claim 2 “waveguide optically coupled to the output”); and
a path diversion assembly having a first mode and a second mode (claim 1 “plurality of path diversion assemblies”),
wherein, when in the first mode, the path diversion assembly is configured to optically couple the resonator to the output coupler to direct the second laser energy to the output coupler (claim 1 “a second operating mode, in which the second laser energy is directed along the output path to the output, and the first laser energy is diverted from the output path”; while the order of operating mode is different (“first” vs “second”), structurally the claim limitations are the same; alternatively, it would an obvious modification to reverse the parts to achieve the same function; MPEP 2144.04) and
wherein, when in the second mode, the path diversion assembly is configured to optically couple the gain medium to the output coupler to direct the first laser energy to the output coupler (claim 1 “a first operating mode, in which the first laser energy is directed along an output path to the output and the second laser energy is diverted from the output path and the output”; while the order of operating mode is different (“first” vs “second”), structurally the claim limitations are the same; alternatively, it would an obvious modification to reverse the parts to achieve the same function; MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 teaches wherein the path diversion assembly is a first path diversion assembly, the system comprising a second path diversion assembly having a first mode and a second mode, wherein the second path diversion assembly is optically coupled to the gain medium (claim 1 “plurality of path diversion assemblies”; having multiple path diversion assemblies with first and second modes is an obvious duplication of parts; MPEP 2144.04),
wherein, when in the first mode, the second path diversion assembly is configured to reflect the first laser energy back to the gain medium (claim 7), and
wherein, when in the second mode, the second path diversion assembly is configured to optically coupled the gain medium to the first path diversion assembly (claim 2; claim 6).
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 teaches the first path diversion assembly comprising a first mirror and a first motion stage, the first motion stage configured to move the first mirror from a first position to a second position (claim 5; claim 9),
wherein when in the first position, the first mirror is out of the optical path of the first and the second laser energies (claim 6; claim 10), and
wherein when in the second position, the first mirror is in the optical path of the first and the second laser energies (claims 7-8; claims 10-11).
Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 teaches the second path diversion assembly comprising a second mirror and a second motion stage, the second motion stage configured to move the second mirror from a first position to a second position (claim 5; having multiple path diversion assemblies with plurality of mirrors and motion stages is an obvious duplication of parts; MPEP 2144.04),
wherein when in the first position, the second mirror is in the optical path of the first laser energy (claims 7-8), and
wherein when in the second position, the second mirror is out of the optical path of the first laser energy (claim 6).
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 teaches wherein the first mode of the first path diversion assembly and the first mode of the second path diversion assembly are the same mode and wherein the second mode of the first path diversion assembly and the second mode of the second path diversion assembly are the same mode (claim 1; claims 5-11; the output mirror of claims 5-8 reads on second path diversion assembly and the first and second mirrors of claims 5-11 read on “first path diversion assembly”; with claim 1, they work together in order to output the different modes as recited).
Regarding claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 teaches wherein the output coupler is configured to optically couple to a proximal end of a laser delivery device (claim 2).
Regarding claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 teaches wherein the laser delivery device comprises an optical fiber configured to discharge the first laser energy or the second laser energy from a distal end of the delivery device (claim 2 “waveguide” reads on optical fiber).
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 teaches comprising the delivery device, wherein the delivery device comprises an end firing surgical laser fiber or a side firing surgical laser fiber (claim 2 “waveguide”; it is inherent that the delivery of laser out of waveguide entails laser coming out of end or side of waveguide).
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 teaches wherein the second laser energy is a harmonic of the first laser energy (claim 1 “harmonic”).
Regarding claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 teaches a surgical laser system (claim 1) comprising:
a laser source configured to generate a first laser energy (claim 1 “pump module configured to produce pump energy within an operating wavelength; a gain medium configured to convert the pump energy into first laser energy” reads on laser source);
a resonator configured to convert the first laser energy to a second laser energy (claim 1 “non-linear crystal… wherein the system includes a resonator path extending through the gain medium and the NLC” reads on resonator);
an output coupler (claim 2 “waveguide optically coupled to the output”);
at least one path diversion assembly having a first mode and a second mode (claim 1 “plurality of path diversion assemblies”); and
a controller coupled to the at least one path diversion assembly is configured to send a control signal to the at least one path diversion assembly to set the at least one path diversion assembly into the first mode or the second mode (claim 1 recites first and second operating modes for path diversion assembly; it is an obvious modification to add a controller since this is automating a manual activity; MPEP 2144.04),
wherein, when in the first mode, the at least one path diversion assembly is configured to optically couple the laser source to the resonator to direct the first laser energy to the resonator and to optical couple the resonator to the output coupler to direct the second laser energy to the output coupler (claim 1 “a second operating mode, in which the second laser energy is directed along the output path to the output, and the first laser energy is diverted from the output path”; while the order of operating mode is different (“first” vs “second”), structurally the claim limitations are the same; alternatively, it would an obvious modification to reverse the parts to achieve the same function; MPEP 2144.04), and
wherein, when in the second mode, the at least one path diversion assembly is configured to optically couple the laser source to the output coupler to direct the first laser energy to the output coupler (claim 1 “a first operating mode, in which the first laser energy is directed along an output path to the output and the second laser energy is diverted from the output path and the output”; while the order of operating mode is different (“first” vs “second”), structurally the claim limitations are the same; alternatively, it would an obvious modification to reverse the parts to achieve the same function; MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 teaches wherein the second laser energy is a harmonic of the first laser energy (claim 1 “harmonic”).
Regarding claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 teaches wherein the output coupler is configured to optically couple to a proximal end of a laser delivery device and wherein the laser delivery device comprises an optical fiber configured to discharge the first laser energy or the second laser energy from a distal end of the delivery device (claim 2 “waveguide” reads on optical fiber).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 10454237 in view of U.S. Patent No. 11316318.
Regarding claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 does not teach an energy dump, wherein, when in the second mode, the path diversion assembly is configured to direct the first laser energy to the output coupler and direct the second laser energy to the energy dump. However, U.S. Patent No. 11316318, which is the CON of U.S. Patent No. 10454237, teaches an energy dump, wherein, when in the second mode, the path diversion assembly is configured to direct the first laser energy to the output coupler and direct the second laser energy to the energy dump (claim 5; while the order of operating mode is different (“first” vs “second”), structurally the claim limitations are the same; alternatively, it would an obvious modification to reverse the parts to achieve the same function; MPEP 2144.04). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of U.S. Patent No. 10454237 to include these features as taught by U.S. Patent No. 11316318 because this enables only outputting the desired laser.
Claim(s) 11, 15-16 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 10454237 in view of Kuizenga (US 5249192 A; 9/28/1993).
Regarding claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 does not teach wherein the resonator comprises a non-linear crystal and a Q-switch. However, Kuizenga teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 10) the resonator comprises a non-linear crystal and a Q-switch (Col. 7 lines 10-20). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of U.S. Patent No. 10454237 to include these features as taught by Kuizenga because this enables obtaining desired laser outputs (Abstract; Fig. 3; Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 does not teach wherein the laser source comprises an yttrium-aluminum-garnet (YAG) based solid state laser. However, Kuizenga teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 10) wherein the laser source comprises an yttrium-aluminum-garnet (YAG) based solid state laser (Col. 6 lines 3-5). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of U.S. Patent No. 10454237 to include these features as taught by Kuizenga because this enables obtaining desired laser outputs (Abstract; Fig. 3; Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 10454237 does not teach wherein the resonator comprises a non-linear crystal and a Q-switch. However, Kuizenga teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 10) the resonator comprises a non-linear crystal and a Q-switch (Col. 7 lines 10-20). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of U.S. Patent No. 10454237 to include these features as taught by Kuizenga because this enables obtaining desired laser outputs (Abstract; Fig. 3; Fig. 10).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 9-10, 12, 13, 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11996672. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim(s) is/are broader than the corresponding claim(s) in the reference application and thus the corresponding claim(s) is/are a species of the more generic instant claim(s). It has been held that the generic invention is "anticipated" by the "species". See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim(s) overlap in scope with and are anticipated and/or obvious over the reference claim(s).
Regarding claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 11996672 teaches a surgical laser system (claim 12) comprising:
a first laser source configured to generate a first laser energy (claim 12 “first laser energy”; claim 18);
a second laser source configured to generate a second laser energy (claim 12 “second laser energy”; claim 18);
an output coupler (claim 13); and
a path diversion assembly having a first mode and a second mode (claim 12 “path diversion assemblies…first mode…second mode”),
wherein, when in the first mode, the path diversion assembly is configured to optically couple the first laser source to the output coupler to direct the first laser energy to the output coupler (claim 12 “wherein only the first laser energy is output from the surgical laser system in the first mode”; claim 13), and
wherein, when in the second mode, the path diversion assembly is configured to optically couple the second laser source to the output coupler to direct the second laser energy to the output coupler (claim 12 “only the second laser energy is output from the surgical laser system in the second mode”; claim 13).
Regarding claim 19, U.S. Patent No. 11996672 teaches the path diversion assembly comprising a mirror and a motion stage, the motion stage configured to move the mirror from a first position to a second position, wherein when in the first position, the mirror is in the optical path of the first laser energy and configured to direct the first laser energy to the output coupler (claims 9-10).
Regarding claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 11996672 teaches wherein the output coupler is configured to optically couple to a proximal end of a laser delivery device and wherein the laser delivery device comprises an optical fiber configured to discharge the first laser energy or the second laser energy from a distal end of the delivery device (claim 13 “waveguide” reads on optical fiber).
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.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuizenga (US 5249192 A; 9/28/1993).
Regarding claim 18, Kuizenga teaches a surgical laser system (Col. 1 lines 27-36) comprising:
a first laser source configured to generate a first laser energy (Col. 12 line 68 “0.532 micron”);
a second laser source configured to generate a second laser energy (Col. 3 line 30 “1.06 micron”);
an output coupler (Fig. 10, 96 “OUTPUT COUPLER”);
a path diversion assembly having a first mode and a second mode (Fig. 3; Fig. 10),
wherein, when in the first mode, the path diversion assembly is configured to optically couple the first laser source to the output coupler to direct the first laser energy to the output coupler (Fig. 3; Fig. 10), and
wherein, when in the second mode, the path diversion assembly is configured to optically couple the second laser source to the output coupler to direct the second laser energy to the output coupler (Fig. 3; Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 19, Kuizenga teaches the path diversion assembly comprising a mirror and a motion stage, the motion stage configured to move the mirror from a first position to a second position, wherein when in the first position, the mirror is in the optical path of the first laser energy and configured to direct the first laser energy to the output coupler (Fig. 3; Fig. 10).
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:
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuizenga as applied to claim 18 above, in view of Goldman (US 3769963 A; 11/6/1973).
Regarding claim 20, Kuizenga does not teach wherein the output coupler is configured to optically couple to a proximal end of a laser delivery device and wherein the laser delivery device comprises an optical fiber configured to discharge the first laser energy or the second laser energy from a distal end of the delivery device. However, Goldman teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract) the output coupler is configured to optically couple to a proximal end of a laser delivery device and wherein the laser delivery device comprises an optical fiber configured to discharge the first laser energy or the second laser energy from a distal end of the delivery device (Fig. 2; Abstract). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Kuizenga to include these features as taught by Goldman because this enables precise delivery to patient (Fig. 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter with respect to 102/103
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of independent claim 1 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, wherein, when in the first mode, the path diversion assembly is configured to optically couple the resonator to the output coupler to direct the second laser energy to the output coupler, and
wherein, when in the second mode, the path diversion assembly is configured to optically couple the gain medium to the output coupler to direct the first laser energy to the output coupler.
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of independent claim 12 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, wherein, a controller coupled to the at least one path diversion assembly is configured to send a control signal to the at least one path diversion assembly to set the at least one path diversion assembly into the first mode or the second mode,
wherein, when in the first mode, the at least one path diversion assembly is configured to optically couple the laser source to the resonator to direct the first laser energy to the resonator and to optical couple the resonator to the output coupler to direct the second laser energy to the output coupler, and
wherein, when in the second mode, the at least one path diversion assembly is configured to optically couple the laser source to the output coupler to direct the first laser energy to the output coupler.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan T Kuo whose telephone number is (408)918-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. PT.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/JONATHAN T KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792