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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on January 8, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has canceled claims 1-22.
Claims 23-42 remain pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 23-25, 29-32, 33-35, and 39-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the article “Femtosecond laser induced plasma diffraction gratings in air as photonic device for high intensity laser applications” by Suntsov et al (Applied Physics Letters 94, 251104 (2009)) in view of US patent application publication by Sharma et al (US 2006/0073393 A1).
Suntsov et al teaches, with regard to claim 23, a system for making a plasma diffraction gratings that is comprised at least one laser configured to provide a first laser beam (Beam1, please see Figure 1(a)) and a second laser beam (Beam2), at least one nonlinear Beta-Barium Borate crystal (BBO) or air serves as the nonlinear medium, one or more lenses (L1 and L2) serves as the one or more optical elements configured to direct the first laser beam and the second laser beam to the nonlinear medium so that the first laser beam and the second laser beam interfere and form an interference pattern on the nonlinear medium wherein the interference pattern is configured to form a distribution of plasma from the nonlinear medium so as to produce a plasma diffraction grating serves as the transmissive diffractive plasma grating. Suntsov et al further teaches that the transmissive diffractive plasma grating is configured to modify a propagation of a probe laser beam transmitted through the diffractive plasma grating, (please see Figures 1(a) and 1(b), pages 251104-1 to 251104-3).
With regard to claim 33, Suntsov et al teaches a method for making a plasma diffraction grating serves as the diffractive plasma grating wherein the method comprises step of directing a first laser beam and a second laser beam, (Beam 1 and Beam2, Figure 1(a)), to a nonlinear Beta-Barium Borate crystal (BBO) or air serves as the nonlinear medium, so that the first laser beam and the second laser beam at least partially overlap each other in the nonlinear medium so that the first and second laser beams interfere to form an interference pattern at the nonlinear medium wherein the interference patter is configured to form a distribution plasm from the nonlinear medium so as to produce a transmissive plasma diffraction grating serves as the transmissive diffractive plasma grating. The method also comprises a step of directing a probe laser beam through the diffractive plasma grating to modify propagation of the probe laser beam, (please see Figures 1(a) and 1(b)).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. This reference teaches that the first and second laser light beams are pulsed laser lights but it does not teach explicitly that the laser light beams are pump laser beams. However, using pump laser beams for making diffraction grating or hologram is well-known in the art. Sharma et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a system and method for making a hologram, implicitly includes diffractive grating, wherein the system is comprised of using a first pump laser light beam and second pump laser light beam, generated from a pump laser source (110, please see Figure 2, paragraph [0035]). The first and second pump laser beams interfere with each other to form interference pattern in the recording medium (100, please see the abstract). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Sharma et al to use are well-known pump laser light beams as the recording beams for creating the diffraction grating for the benefit of using art well-known light source to record the diffractive grating.
Suntsov et al also does not teach explicitly that the formed transmissive plasma diffraction grating is a diffractive plasma lens, however as shown in Figure 1(a) the recording laser light beams are being focused by the lenses L1 and L2 respectively which make the recording light beams are convergent beams. This means the recorded plasma diffraction grating has a recorded optical power, which implicitly means the plasma diffraction grating will function as a lens.
Sharma et al also teaches to include a mount (10, Figure 2) as a supporter for holding the recording medium (100). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Sharma et al to also provide a mount for holding the nonlinear recording medium of Suntsov et al for the benefit of holding and supporting it.
With regard to claims 24 and 34, Suntsov et al teach a first lens (L1) is configured to direct the first laser beam and a second lens (L2) is configured to direct the second laser beam to the nonlinear medium with a first and second focal length, respectively. This reference however does not teach explicitly that he first focal length and second focal length are different from each other. But this feature is either implicitly met by the disclosed arrangement or an obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make the recording first laser light beam and the second laser light beam to have different focal length and therefore different focal power for the benefit of making the recorded plasma diffraction grating has desired property.
With regard to claims 25 and 35, it is implicitly true the optical power recorded in the plasma diffraction grating would modify the focal length of the probe laser beam as it transmits through the plasma diffraction grating, (please see Figure 1(b)).
With regard to claims 29 and 39, as shown in Figure 2 of Sharma et al the first pump laser beam and the second pump laser beam are generated from the same pump laser source (110) which means that they may have the same wavelength.
With regard to claims 30 and 40, Suntsov et al teaches that the non-linear medium may alternatively be air medium (please see page 251104-2) wherein the air medium is a non-ionized nonlinear medium. It is known in the art that volume plasma diffraction grating formed in the air medium is via ionization of gases such as nitrogen and oxygen in air.
With regard to claims 31 and 41, Suntsov et al teaches that the interference pattern of the plasma diffraction grating has refractive index modulation which means is configured to alter the index of refraction of the nonlinear medium, (please see page 251104-2).
With regard to claims 32 and 42, it is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make the plasma diffraction grating taught by Suntsov et al to produce multiple diffraction orders. It is implicitly true that a diffraction grating would be able to provide multiple diffraction orders.
Claim(s) 26-28 and 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suntsov et al and Sharma et al as applied to claims 23 and 33 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Umstadter et al (US 2005/0147147 A1).
The system and method for making a diffractive plasma lens taught by Suntsov et al in combination with the teachings of Sharma et al as described in claims 23 and 33 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 26-28 and 36-38, Suntsov et al teaches that the nonlinear medium may comprise air. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the nonlinear medium is positioned inside a vacuum chamber and does not teach explicitly to include a gas supply inlet and a vacuum pump. Umstadter et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an arrangement for generating plasma wave wherein pump laser light beams are being directed to an intersection region (10, Figure 2). The intersection region comprises a gas inlet (10) located within a vacuum chamber (13). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Umstadter et al to position the nonlinear medium in a vacuum chamber with a gas supply or inlet for benefit of providing an arrangement for positioning the nonlinear medium including air. With regard to claims 28 and 38, Suntsov et al teaches that the probe laser beam is to illuminate the plasma diffraction grating to generate beam modified by the grating. As shown in Figure 2 of Sharna et al the modified probe beam may be detected by a photodetector (175). Although these references do not teach explicitly to include a target of the probe beam, such modification is considered obvious to one skilled in the art since using light beam to detect or measure target object is common practice in the art. In light of Umstadter et al, one skilled in the art would be able to place the target inside the vacuum chamber as desired.
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 23-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,135,443. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims are drawn to system and method for making a diffractive plasma element that comprise providing a first and second laser beams, a nonlinear medium with supply and a support for holding the medium, and one or more optical elements configured to direct first and second laser beams to the nonlinear medium with the first laser beam having a first focal length and the second laser beam having a second focal length that is different from the first focal length. The first laser beam and the second laser beam interfere and form an interference pattern on the nonlinear medium and the interferent pattern is configured to from a distribution of plasma from the nonlinear medium so as to produce the plasma diffractive element that is configured to modify propagation of a third laser beam or probe laser beam transmitted therethrough.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The article "Plasma volume holograms for focusing and mode conversion of ultraintense laser pulse" by Lehmann et al (Physical Review E, 100, 033205 (2019)) teaches a method and system for making plasma volume holograms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights