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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“an” instead of “a” before “right angle” (ln. 12)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The parallel-spaced pump laser beams are described to be arranged “offset… in a direction transversely” with respect to themselves. The applicant may wish to instead dictate the directional arrangement of beams with respect to the single-emitter pump diodes. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted in light of Fig. 3a, where the beams (6) are offset from one another so that they do not overlap during transmission.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall (US 5,999,554 A) in view of Yuchao (CN 108598860A).
Regarding Claim 1, Marshall teaches a laser amplifier for amplifying an input laser beam to form an amplified output laser beam ([Col. 8, ln. 60-65]), the laser amplifier comprising:
a laser-active solid-state rod having two mutually opposite end faces ([Col. 1, ln. 5-10; Col. 8, ln. 60-65] Fig. 18 #3a),
wherein the input laser beam passes through the rod once and is reflected back into the rod by a mirror, thus passing through the solid-state rod at least twice ([Col. 8, ln. 60-70, Col. 9 ln 1-5], Fig. 18 #3a, 14),
a pump device for generating at least one pump laser beam which is incoupled into the solid-state rod via a first end face of the two end faces of the solid-state rod in order to optically pump the solid-state rod ([Col. 8, ln. 60- Col. 9, ln. 5], Fig. 18 #1a),
wherein the input laser beam is incoupled into the solid-state rod via a second end face of the two end faces of the solid-state rod ([Col. 8, ln. 60-70, Col. 9 ln 1-5], Fig. 18),
and wherein the input laser beam amplified in the solid-state rod is outcoupled from the solid-state rod in order to form the output laser beam, ([Col. 9, ln. 5-10] Fig. 18 #16) and
a dichroic mirror arranged in a beam path of the pump laser beam between the solid-state rod and the pump device ([Col.9, ln. 1-5], Fig. 18 #14),
and the dichroic mirror is transmissive for the pump laser beam and reflective for the input laser beam ([Col. 8, ln. 65-70], Fig. 18 #14).
While Marshall does not explicitly teach the dichroic mirror arranged at a right angle to the pump laser beam, Yuchao teaches a laser amplifier where a dichroic mirror is placed at a 90-degree incident angle with respect to a pumping laser beam ([pg. 4, ln. 5-10], Fig. 1 #11, 18).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient the dichroic mirror of the laser amplifier of Marshall at a right angle with respect to a pump laser beam, as taught in Yuchao, in order to allow a reflected beam to return to its original path and ultimately form an output beam (Yuchao, [pg. 4, ln. 5-10]). The right angle mirror setup of Yuchao would not inherently change the dichroic mirror of Marshall with regards to the claimed functions of transmitting the pump laser beam and reflecting the input laser beam, and would additionally allow the beams to be incoupled and outcoupled with the rod as described.
Regarding Claim 2, Marshall, as modified, teaches the laser amplifier as described in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the use of a separate beam splitter. However, Marshall discloses other embodiments which include
a beam splitter device arranged in an oppositely directed beam path of the input laser beam to be incoupled and of the amplified input laser beam to be outcoupled from the solid-state rod ([Col. 9, ln. 40-50], Fig. 20 #24),
wherein the beam splitter device is configured to separate the amplified input laser beam outcoupled from the solid-state rod from the input laser beam to be incoupled in order to form the output laser beam ([Col. 9, ln. 40-50], Fig. 20 #24, #9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the beam splitter of the second embodiment in the laser amplifier of the first embodiment (in addition to the dichroic mirror, which may also act as a beam splitter ([Col. 8, ln. 65-70], Fig. 18 #14)), in order to allow a portion of the beam to be output ([Col. 9, ln. 40-50]).
Regarding Claim 6, Marshall, as modified, teaches the laser amplifier wherein
the pump device comprises at least one single-emitter pump diode for generating the pump laser beam ([Col. 3, ln. 10-15; Col. 8, ln. 60-65]).
Regarding Claim 7, Marshall, as modified, teaches the laser amplifier wherein
the pump device comprises a plurality of single-emitter pump diodes ([Col. 8, ln. 60-65], Fig. 18 #1a) for generating a plurality of parallel-spaced pump laser beams ([Col. 6 ln. 1-5], Fig. 4A).
Regarding Claim 8, Marshall, as modified, teaches the laser amplifier wherein
the plurality of parallel-spaced pump laser beams of the single-emitter pump diodes are arranged offset with respect to one another in a direction transversely with respect to the pump laser beams ([Col. 3, ln. 10-15, Col. 6, ln. 35-45], Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 9, Marshall, as modified, teaches the laser amplifier wherein
the pump laser beam, proceeding from the at least one single-emitter pump diode, is incoupled with free-space propagation into the first end face of the solid-state rod ([Col. 2, ln. 50-55], Fig. 7 #6).
Regarding Claim 10, Marshall, as modified, teaches the laser amplifier further comprising
a laser beam source for generating the input laser beam ([Col. 5, ln. 55-60], Fig. 18 #1).
Claims 3-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall (US 5,999,554 A1) and Yuchao (CN 108598860A), and further in view of Ishizu (US 2005/0276300 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Marshall, as modified, teaches the laser amplifier with a beam splitter, wherein the input laser beam to be incoupled is polarized ([Col. 9, ln. 45-50]).
Marshall but does not explicitly teach including a λ/4 plate in its beam splitter device.
Ishizu, however, teaches a laser amplifier wherein a beam splitter device comprises a polarization beam splitter and a λ/4 plate arranged between a solid-state rod and the polarization beam splitter ([0062], Fig. 7 #22).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a λ/4 plate in the beam splitter device in order to circularly polarize the input beam and separate it from the output beam (Ishizu, [0062]).
Regarding Claim 4, Marshall, as modified, teaches the laser amplifier, but does not explicitly teach a second beam splitter.
Ishizu, however, teaches a second polarization beam splitter, which is
arranged between the first polarization beam splitter and the λ/4 plate, for a third pass and a fourth pass of the input laser beam through the solid state rod ([0064], Fig. 7 #25, the “input” beam passes through splitter #25 and plate #22, makes a first pass through rod #3 before reflecting at coating #7, makes a second pass through #3, #22, is split and reflected by #25 and #24, and travels back through #3 and #22 for a third and fourth pass through each).
wherein the second polarization beam splitter is transmissive for the input laser beam to be incoupled and for the amplified input laser beam that has passed through the λ/4 plate four times ([0064]), and
the second polarization beam splitter is reflective for the input laser beam that has passed through the λ/4 plate twice and directs the input laser beam that has passed through the λ/4 plate twice onto a back-reflecting mirror ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the second polarization beam splitter of Ishizu in the laser amplifier of Marshall in order to allow the light beam to reciprocate twice in the rod and thus “facilitate saturated amplification and convert the energy stored in the laser rod… to light energy at [a specific] wavelength with high efficiency” (Ishizu, [0064]).
Regarding Claim 5, Marshall, as modified, teaches the laser amplifier, but does not explicitly teach a Faraday rotator.
Ishizu, however, teaches a Faraday rotator arranged between the polarization beam splitter and the second polarization beam splitter ([0064], Figure 7 #26).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the Faraday rotator of Ishizu in the laser amplifier of Marshall to rotate the beam in order to pass through and eventually be reflected by the second polarizing element, thus allowing four passes of the beam through the rod (Ishizu, [0064]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIAN EYRE BALDWIN-BOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m..
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, Helal Algahaim, can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/DORIAN EYRE BALDWIN-BOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights