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 § 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 40 09 859 A1 (from IDS filed on 1/13/2025).
Regarding claim 1, DE 40 09 859 A1 discloses a laser apparatus for emitting a train of laser pulses along a single optical path towards a target, the laser apparatus (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising:
(a) a linear array of laser devices LD (5a, 5b, 5c) where i = 1, ..., n under individual fire control for emitting laser pulses, said linear array of laser devices including:
i) a trailing laser device LD (5a) remotest from the target, and
ii) at least one laser device LD (5b) where i = 2, ...., n between said trailing laser device (5a) and the target (4),
each said laser device of said at least one laser device LD (i) where i = 2, ..., n emitting laser pulses along an optical axis OA(i) where i = 2, ..., n (Fig. 2, see 2a’),
said at least one optical axis OA(i) where i = 2, ...., n (Fig. 2, see 2a’) intercepting the single optical path (2b) and not being co-axial with the single optical path (2b is not co-axial with 2a’);
(b) a motorized laser pulse reflection arrangement(Fig. 2, see 6) for continuously rotating laser pulse reflector LPR(i) associated with each said laser device LD(i) where i = 2, ...., n around a rotation axis offset from the single optical path at a uniform angular velocity (by 12) for reflecting laser pulses along the single optical path (2a’) toward the target, and
(c) a controller (17, 18) synchronized with said motorized laser pulse reflection arrangement for individually firing each said laser device of said linear array of laser devices for emitting a train of laser pulses reaching the target without obstruction by said motorized laser pulse reflection arrangement.
Regarding claim 2, the laser apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said trailing laser device (5a) emits laser pulses along an optical axis OA (2a) intercepting the single optical path and being non co-axial with the single optical path (2a is not co-axial with 2a’) and further comprises a laser pulse reflector (14) for reflecting laser pulses from the trailing laser device along the single optical path (2a’) toward the target.
Regarding claim 3, the laser apparatus according to claim 2, wherein said trailing laser device’s (5a) laser pulse reflector (14) is stationary.
Regarding claim 4, the laser apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said trailing laser device (5a)‘s optical axis (2a) is co-axial with the single optical path (after reflected by the mirror 14).
Regarding claim 5, the laser apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said at least one optical axis (2b) where i = 2, ...., n is perpendicular to the single optical path (2b is perpendicular to 2a’).
Regarding claim 11, the laser apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one laser device (5a) is a plurality of laser devices (5a, 5b, 5c), further comprising a plurality of optical axes (2a, 2b, 2c), and wherein the optical axes (2a, 2b, 2c) of the plurality of laser devices (5a, 5b, 5c) are parallel to one another (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 6-10 and 12, a method of operation of laser apparatus for emitting a train of laser pulses along a single optical path towards a target, the method of operation including the following steps: (a) providing a linear array of laser devices; and (b) continuously rotating a motorized laser pulse reflection arrangement are inherently met by the disclosure of the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 40 09 859 A1 (from IDS filed on 4/17/2021).
The prior art discloses the claimed invention as set forth above except for the plurality of optical axes are at angles other than perpendicular to the single optical path. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention before the effective filing date to slanted the plurality of laser devices to have the plurality of optical axes at angles other than perpendicular to the single optical path to miniaturize the laser apparatus, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, as being motivated to make the laser apparatus smaller.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,155,179. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention is already allowed in the parent case.
Application 18/918,862
Parent Patent 12,155,179
claim 1
claim 1
claim 2
claim 2
claim 3
claim 3
claim 4
claim 4
claim 5
claim 5
claim 6
claim 6
claim 7
claim 7
claim 8
claim 8
claim 9
claim 9
claim 10
claim 10
claim 11
claim 11
claim 12
claim 12
claim 13
claim 13
claim 14
claim 14
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNCHA P CHERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-2310. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 7am to 3:30pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
9/16/2026
/EUNCHA P CHERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights