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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 to 4, 9, 10 to 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (Applied Physics Express, 2018)
The Tanaka et al reference teaches a method of growing SrB4O₇ (SBO), note entire reference. The process comprises having a seed crystal brought into contact with a melt made from SrB4O7 powder: and drawing out a crystal from the melt at room temperature (page 1; and figure 1). The melt is created by heating starting materials of the strontium borate, strontium boron and oxygen, page 1. There can be a flux added to the melt, page 1. The sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the specific devices. However, It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable devices to employ the crystal in the Tanaka et al reference in order to as the art teaches that the SBO crystal has a higher resistance to optical damage, which makes it a material for optical components in high-power DUV laser systems.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed August 26, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 2, 5 to 13 and 16 to 20 are allowed over the prior art in view of applicants’ arguments and amendments.
Claims 21 and 22 remain rejected over the art. The claims are not drawn to the method claims that are allowed but product claims. The claims merely recite using a crystal in set devices. The prior art clearly teaches the same single crystal as is now claimed. There is no showing of record that the instant crystal is different from that taught in the prior art.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights