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
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) 11-13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miklaev (US 20190155020 A1) in view of King (US 20120298839 A1)
Re Claim 11, Miklaev discloses, on Fig. 1, at least one laser effector capable of emitting a laser beam (laser emitting device of Fig. 1) [Par 26-32], the at least one laser effector successively comprising, in a direction of propagation of the laser beam, a laser source (incoming laser radiation 1 would inherently have a source) [Par 26], a first optical deflection means (mirror 5) configured to deflect the laser beam, and a lens configured to focus the laser beam (lens 7), the lens carried by the device (Fig. 1), and control means (controller) [Par 16] configured to control the first optical deflection means (controller moves first mirror) [Par 16], wherein the at least one laser effector comprises a second optical deflection means (mirror 11) configured to deflect the laser beam, and positioned after the lens (mirror 11 is after lens 7), in the direction of propagation of the laser beam, and the second optical deflection means being controlled by the control means (controller moves second mirror) [Par 16].
But Miklaev does not explicitly disclose, a laser weapon comprising: a pod, means for orienting the pod, the lens carried by the pod, control means configured to control the means for orienting the pod, the second optical deflection means being borne by the pod.
However, within the same field of endeavor, King teaches, on Fig. 7a-7b, that it is desirable in laser systems to include, a laser weapon comprising: a pod (turret comprising platform 702 and payload 706) [Par 69], means for orienting the pod (rotatable arms 703a and 703b) [Par 70], control means configured to control the means for orienting the pod (auto alignment system 735) [Par 75-76], the second optical deflection means being borne by the pod (steering mirrors 765) [Par 76].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Miklaev with King in order to provide an off axis, unobscured telescope delivery system, as taught by King [Par 2].
Re Claim 12, Miklaev in view of King discloses, the laser weapon according to claim 11, and King further discloses on 7a-7b, wherein the second optical deflection means are further configured to allow controlled deflection of the laser beam (fast steering mirror 765 can correct beam angle) [Par 80].
But Miklaev in view of King does not explicitly disclose, wherein the second optical deflection means are further configured to allow controlled deflection of the laser beam over an angle greater than 3°.
Optimizing deflection angle is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, King teaches deflection angle (Correcting beam angle) as a variable which achieves a recognized result [Par 80]; modifying the aiming of the laser beam [Par 75].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting deflection angle and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize Miklaev in view of King such that, the second optical deflection means are further configured to allow controlled deflection of the laser beam over an angle greater than 3°, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 13, Miklaev in view of King discloses, the laser weapon according to claim 11, and King further discloses, wherein the first optical deflection means are further configured to allow controlled deflection of the laser beam (fast steering mirror 710 can correct beam angle) [Par 80].
But Miklaev in view of King does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first optical deflection means are further configured to allow controlled deflection of the laser beam over an angular range of less than 5 milliradians.
Optimizing deflection angle is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, King teaches deflection angle (Correcting beam angle) as a variable which achieves a recognized result [Par 80]; modifying the aiming of the laser beam [Par 75].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting deflection angle and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize Miklaev in view of King such that, the first optical deflection means are further configured to allow controlled deflection of the laser beam over an angular range of less than 5 milliradians, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 15, Miklaev in view of King discloses, the laser weapon according to claim 11, and King further discloses, wherein the second optical deflecting means (steering mirror 765) comprise one or more movable reflectors (fast steering mirror 765 is a movable reflector) [Par 75].
Re Claim 17, Miklaev in view of King discloses, the laser weapon according to claim 11, and King further discloses on Fig. 7a, wherein the first optical deflection means (FSM 10) of the at least one laser effector are borne by the pod (born by turret or pod of payload 706), and wherein the laser source of the at least one laser effector is located outside the pod (see Fig. 7B where laser beam 705 enters the base 702 of the pod or turret from outside the turret) [Par 83].
Re Claim 18, Miklaev in view of King discloses, the laser weapon according to claim 11, and King further discloses, wherein the means for orienting the pod comprise a turret carrying the pod (turret comprising payload 706 and base 702), the turret configured to pivot the pod about two axes perpendicular to each other (rotary turret platform is rotatable in in multiple axes) [Par 7, 21, and 58].
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miklaev in view of King as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Csonka (US 20200244359 A1).
Re Claim 14, Miklaev in view of King discloses, the laser weapon according to claim 11.
But Miklaev in view of King does not explicitly disclose, wherein the second optical deflection means comprise a plurality of prismatic blades configured to rotate about an optical axis of said the lens
However, within the same field of endeavor, Csonka teaches, on Fig. 3a-3b, that it is desirable in two mirror systems to include, wherein the second optical deflection means (mirror 204 rotated by an actuator) [Par 32] comprise a plurality of prismatic blades configured to rotate about an optical axis of said the lens (a Risley prism, which the Instant Application presents as an optional apparatus to supply the prismatic blades, can be used to change the pointing direction of the mirror) [Par 32]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Miklaev in view of King with Csonka in order to adjust a pointing direction of the optical element, as taught by Csonka [Par 32].
Claim(s) 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miklaev in view of King as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Segev (US 20170234658 A1).
Re Claim 16, Miklaev in view of King discloses, the laser weapon according to claim 11.
But Miklaev in view of King does not explicitly disclose, wherein the at least one laser effector comprises an optical fiber configured to conduct the laser beam between the laser source and the first optical deflection means.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Segev teaches, on Fig. 9, that it is desirable in Segev to include, wherein the at least one laser effector comprises an optical fiber (optical fiber 64) configured to conduct the laser beam between the laser source (laser source 62) and the first optical deflection means (mirror 68) [Par 71].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Miklaev in view of King with Segev in order to provide, compactness, as taught by Segev [Par 3].
Re Claim 19, Miklaev in view of King discloses, the laser weapon according to claim 11.
But Miklaev in view of King does not explicitly disclose, further comprising: a second laser effector, the second laser effector comprising at least one lens carried by the pod.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Segev teaches, on Fig. 1, 3a, and 7, that it is desirable in laser weapons to include, a second laser effector (Fig. 3a: multiple laser sources 12), the second laser effector comprising at least one lens (Fig. 3a and 7: lens 28, where each pentaprism 32 has a corresponding lens) [Par 42] carried by the pod (Fig. 1: housing 14 comprises multiple lasers) [Par 40] .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Miklaev in view of King with Segev in order to provide, combine multiple lasers to produce a desired total power output, as taught by Segev [Par 3].
Re Claim 20, Miklaev in view of King and Segev discloses, the laser weapon according to claim 19.
But Miklaev in view of King and Segev does not explicitly disclose, wherein the lenses of the laser effectors are oriented, on the pod, along optical axes that are not parallel to one another.
However, Segev does discloses on Fig. 11A-11B, an alternative embodiment that utilizes a laser (laser fiber 64), that returns to a sensor (Sensor 72) for beam alignment (effectively a second optical system similar to a second effector), wherein the lenses (lenses 82 and 76 respectively) [Par 65] of the laser effector (see Fig. 11B where the returning laser is focused on sensor 72), on the pod (lenses are contained in weapon 60 , which would also be in a similar housing 14 as Fig. 1)[Par 65], along optical axes that are not parallel to one another (optical axes of lenses 82 and 76 are perpendicular to each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to further modify the system of Miklaev in view of King and Segev, in order to provide, beam alignment verification, as taught by Segev [Par 65].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Grasser (US 20180284461 A1) teaches a similar laser direction system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights