Ex Parte Alkulov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2015

12182951 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/182,951
31740 7590
LOOP IP
2014 Boyer Ave E
Seattle, WA 98112
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
07/30/2008 V alidimir Alexandrovich Alkulov
12/15/2015
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2841-001-03 4741
EXAMINER
NIU, XINNING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2828
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2015 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
thomas@seattlepatentlaw.com
olga@seattlepatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte V ALIDIMIR ALEXANDROVICH ALKULOV, SERGEI
ALEXEEVICH BABIN, SERGEI IV ANOVICH KABLUKOV, and
DMITRY VLADIMIROVICH CHURKIN
Appeal2013-010378
Application 12/182,951
Technology Center 2800
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-27, which are all of the claims currently
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2013-010378
Application 12/182,951
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to fibre lasers with frequency
doubling and with emissions in the visible spectrum range. Spec. i-f 2.
Claim 14 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
14. A fibre laser with intra-cavity frequency doubling,
compnsmg:
a pump source for generating pump radiation;
a doped optical fibre optically coupled to the pump
source and positioned within a resonator formed by first and
second dichroic mirrors, wherein the first dichroic mirror is
configured to allow passage of the pump radiation and reflect a
generated fundamental radiation, and wherein the second
dichroic mirror is positioned outside the optical fibre and is
configured to reflect the generated fundamental radiation;
a non-linear crystal positioned between the optical fibre
and the second dichroic mirror; and
a first, second, and third focusing element optically
coupled to the fibre laser;
characterized in that the non-linear crystal is of type II
phase matching thereby enabling operation of the fibre laser
without selection of polarisation of the generated fundamental
radiation, and wherein the non-linear crystal is oriented so as to
minimise the walk-off angle of the second harmonic radiation,
and wherein a spectral selector configured to narrow the
radiation spectrum and stabilise the output power is positioned
between the optical fibre and the non-linear crystal, and
wherein a third cavity-folding output dichroic mirror configured
to reflect the generated fundamental radiation and allow
passage of the second harmonic radiation is also positioned
between the optical fibre and the non-linear crystal, and
wherein the second dichroic mirror together with the focusing
element forms a telescopic reflector that provides for focusing
and compensation of the spatial walk-off effect of the non-
linear crystal.
2
Appeal2013-010378
Application 12/182,951
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 14--22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Zhang (US 6,373,868 Bl; issued Apr. 16,
2002) and Waarts (US 5,867,305; issued Feb. 2, 1999). Final Act. 4--10.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Zhang, Waarts, and Yin
(US 6,980,574 Bl; issued Dec. 27, 2005). Final Act. 10-17.
Claims 12, 13, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Zhang, Waarts, Yin, and Minemoto
(US 5,381,429; issued Jan. 10, 1995). Final Act. 17-19.
ISSUES
Appellants' contentions present us with the following issues:
A) Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of Zhang
and Waarts teach or suggest a telescopic reflector as recited in
independent claim 14?
B) Did the Examiner improperly combine the teachings of Zhang and
Waarts?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of
Appellants' contentions. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions that the
Examiner's rejections of the claims are in error.
Appellants contend the combination of Zhang and Waarts does not
teach the telescopic reflector recited in claim 14. Br. 18-20. In support of
this contention, Appellants argue that the lenses 24, 25 taught by Zhang do
not correspond to the claimed telescopic reflector because Zhang' s lenses
3
Appeal2013-010378
Application I2/182,95 I
form a beam expander with magnification according to their focal lengths
f2/fl. Br. I 8-I 9. 1 Appellants further argue the modifications of Zhang to
include all of the numerous selected optical elements from Waarts would
render the Zhang device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and would
not work. Br. I 9-20.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our
own: (I) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We note
the following primarily for emphasis.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Zhang teaches a two-dimensional
beam expander (telescope) having the same structure as disclosed by
Appellants' Specification. Ans. 4 (citing Zhang Fig IC; I0:30-33, I0:63-
65); Compare Spec Fig. I with Zhang Figs I A, IC. We further agree Zhang
teaches the two-dimensionai beam expander (teiescope) includes ienses 24,
25 and mirror 22 (reflector) that forms a telescopic reflector that reflects and
focuses the laser beam back into the nonlinear crystal. Ans. 4 (citing e.g.,
Zhang Figs IA, IC; I0:4I-50, 11:3I-32). In light of these specific
teachings, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Zhang and
Waarts teaches or suggests the telescopic reflector recited in claim I4.
We are further not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the
combination is improper. We note that all of the features of Waarts need not
1 Although Appellants' Brief contains multiple cites to "accompanying Rule
I32 Declarations," the Evidence Appendix states no evidence pursuant to 37
C.F.R. §§ 1.132 has been relied upon by Appellants in the Appeal. Br. I9,
30. Nor is there any record that any accompanying 37 C.F.R. §§ I. I32
Declarations were submitted.
4
Appeal2013-010378
Application 12/182,951
be bodily incorporated into Zhang, but instead consideration is given to what
the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and
the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981 ). The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to each of
Appellants' arguments and further provides evidence to support the findings
that the output from a fiber laser can be frequency doubled without the
cavity being unstable and a fiber laser can emit linearly polarized light. Ans.
4--5. In the absence of sufficient rebuttal evidence or argument, Appellants
fail to establish the combination of Zhang and Waarts is improper.
For the reasons stated above, Appellants do not persuade us of error in
the rejection of claim 14. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of: (1) claim 14; (2) independent claims 1, for which Appellants
rely on the same arguments presented for claim 1 (Br. 21 ); and (3)
dependent claims 2-8, 10-13 and 14---'27, which are not separately argued.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8 and 10-27.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
lv
5