Ex Parte Byren et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 2013

11657215 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/657,215 01/24/2007 Robert W. Byren RAYTP0586US (06W077) 3692 86009 7590 08/30/2013 Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP (Raytheon) 1621 Euclid Avenue - 19th Floor Cleveland, OH 44115 EXAMINER STAFFORD, PATRICK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2828 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte ROBERT W. BYREN, WILLIAM B. KING, and DAVID M. FILGAS ________________ Appeal 2011-003662 Application 11/657,215 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-003662 Application 11/657,215 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-13, 17-25 and 37-41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a laser and a laser system. Claims 1 and 17 are illustrative: 1. A system comprising: a source of a first low power beam of electromagnetic energy; means for sensing wavefront aberration in said low power beam and providing an error signal in response thereto; means for processing said error signal and providing a correction signal in response thereto; a spatial light modulator responsive to said correction signal for adjusting said low power beam to facilitate a correction of said aberration thereof and means for amplifying said low power beam to provide an output beam. 17. A high-energy laser comprising: a master oscillator for providing a first laser beam; a first beamsplitter for splitting said first beam into second and third beams; an amplifier disposed in optical alignment with said oscillator to receive said second beams; a laser wavefront sensor for sensing aberration in said second beam and providing a first error signal in response thereto; Appeal 2011-003662 Application 11/657,215 3 a first adaptive optics processor for processing said error signal and providing a first correction signal in response thereto; a first spatial light modulator responsive to said first correction signal for adjusting said third beam to facilitate a correction of said aberration thereof; and an outcoupler disposed in optical alignment with said modulator and adapted to output said third beam after amplification by said amplifier. The References Komine US 6,219,360 B1 Apr. 17, 2001 Vetrovec US 2003/0198265 A1 Oct. 23, 2003 Gerwe US 2005/0135815 A1 Jun. 23, 2005 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1, 2, 7-13 and 37-41 over Komine in view of Gerwe and claims 17-25 over Komine in view of Vetrovec. OPINION We reverse the rejections. Rejection over Komine in view of Gerwe We need to address only the independent claims (1 and 41). Claim 1 requires “means for sensing wavefront aberration in said low power beam” and “means for amplifying said low power beam to provide an output beam.” Such means include the corresponding structure disclosed in the Appellants’ Specification and equivalents thereof. See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The equivalents are structures which differ no more than insubstantially from the disclosed structure. See WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“The proper test for determining whether the structure in an accused Appeal 2011-003662 Application 11/657,215 4 device is equivalent to the structure recited in a section 112, ¶ 6, [means plus function] claim is whether the differences between the structure in the accused device and any disclosed in the specification are insubstantial”). The Appellants state that their means for sensing wavefront aberration in the low power beam is laser wavefront sensor 128 (Br. 5). Claim 1 requires that the low power beam both has its wavefront aberration sensed and is amplified to provide an output beam. Thus, the lower power beam is amplified beam 122 resulting from a power amplifier beamline (112) acting on master oscillator (116)’s single mode beam (114) (Spec. 12:28-13:2; Fig. 4). The amplified beam (122) reflects off a mirror (124) and is further amplified by the power amplifier beamline (112) to provide an output beam, except for a portion thereof which does not reflect off the mirror (124) but, rather, leaks through the mirror (124) as a low power beam sample (126) which has its wavefront aberration sensed by the laser wavefront sensor (128) (Spec. 13:1-10; Fig. 4). Komine discloses “a modular high average power laser system which includes a phased array of parallel power amplifiers, connected to a common master oscillator for synthesizing composite beams of varying power levels, and adaptive optics which include spatial light modulators for encoding the wave front of the laser beam with a conjugate phase to compensate for atmospheric aberrations” (col. 1, ll. 8-15). The system comprises a master oscillator (72) which provides a pulsed light beam that is distributed by a plurality of beam splitters (82, 84, 86) to, sequentially, adaptive optic devices (88, 90, 92), preamplifiers (94, 96, 98), image relays (100, 102, 104) and power amplifiers (106, 108, 110) (col. 5, ll. 24-47; Fig. 4). The power amplifiers (106, 108, 110) provide coherent amplified output beams (112, Appeal 2011-003662 Application 11/657,215 5 114, 116) which may be combined by a beam combiner (118) to provide a high average power output beam (120) (col. 5, ll. 47-50; Fig. 4). The output beam (120)’s wavefront is detected by a wavefront sensor (121) that provides feedback to the adaptive optic devices (88, 90, 92) which each can include, in sequence, a slow spatial light modulator (122) which provides pre-compensation of relatively slow wave distortions of the light beams due to the power amplifiers (106, 108, 110), and a fast spatial light modulator (124) which provides for conjugate wave encoding of the wavefront to compensate for distortions due to atmospheric aberrations (col. 5, l. 54 – col. 6, l. 1). Gerwe discloses a fiber optic phased array (10) comprising a master oscillator (12) which provides an input signal that a beam splitter (14) splits into a plurality of optical signals that are amplified by fiber optic amplifiers (16), each having associated therewith a phase modulator (18) which controls the phase of the amplified optical signals (¶ 0029). The Examiner argues that Komine “does not explicitly teach the beam being a low power beam” (Ans. 4) and that Gerwe “teaches a low power beam within a wavefront adjustment laser system (paragraph 26) in order to be used within a fiber system (paragraph 20).” Id. Those portions of Gerwe merely disclose an exemplified master oscillator input signal’s power level (approximately 20 mW) (¶ 0026). The Examiner has not established that the combined disclosures of Komine and Gerwe would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a structure which differs no more than insubstantially from the Appellants’ “means for sensing wavefront aberration in said low power beam”, i.e., laser wavefront sensor 128 (Spec. 13:10). The Examiner, therefore, has not Appeal 2011-003662 Application 11/657,215 6 established a prima facie case of obviousness of the system claimed in the Appellants’ claim 1. The Appellants’ claim 41 requires “an auxiliary laser [310] adapted to provide a low power beam of electromagnetic energy”, “a wavefront error sensor [128] for sensing wavefront aberration in said low power beam and providing an error signal in response thereto”, “an adaptive optics processor [130] for processing said error signal and providing a correction signal in response thereto”, “a spatial light modulator [120] responsive to said correction signal for adjusting a beam output by said master oscillator to facilitate a correction of aberration therein” and “means for amplifying said beam output by said master oscillator to provide a corrected output beam” (see Spec. 15:3-14; Fig. 6). The Examiner argues that Komine discloses “an auxiliary laser adapted to provide a low power beam of electromagnetic energy (Fig. 1, part 16)” (Ans. 14). Komine’s Figure 1 does not include a part 16. The Examiner apparently is referring to Gerwe’s Figure 1, but in that figure item 16 is fiber optic amplifiers (¶ 0029), not an auxiliary laser. Thus, it is not clear what the Examiner means by “said beam” in the argument that Komine discloses “a spatial light modulator responsive to said correction signal for adjusting said beam to facilitate a correction of said aberration thereof (col. 5, lines 60-62 and Fig. 4, parts 88, 90 and 92 containing parts 122 and 124)” (Ans. 14). The beam adjusted using Komine’s adaptive optic devices (88, 90, 92) is a combined output beam from the power amplifiers (106, 108, 110) (col. 5, ll. 47-50). The Examiner has not established that the applied references would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the Appeal 2011-003662 Application 11/657,215 7 use of an error signal from one beam (the Appellants’ low power beam from the auxiliary laser) to correct aberration in another beam (the Appellants’ beam output by the master oscillator). Hence, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the system claimed in the Appellants’ claim 41. Rejection over Komine in view of Vetrovec The Appellants’ claim 17 requires “a laser wavefront sensor [128] for sensing aberration in said second beam [212] and providing a first error signal in response thereto”, “a first adaptive optics processor [130] for processing said error signal and providing a first correction signal in response thereto” and “a first spatial light modulator [120] responsive to said first correction signal for adjusting said third beam [214] to facilitate a correction of said aberration thereof” (see Spec. 14:1-15:2; Fig. 5). The Examiner relies upon Komine’s adaptive optic devices (88, 90, 92) which may include a slow spatial light modulator (122) and a fast spatial light modulator (124) (col. 5, ll. 26-27, 60-62) as corresponding to both the Appellants’ first adaptive optics processor and first spatial light modulator (Ans. 6, 22). The Appellants’ first adaptive optics processor (130) provides a first correction signal obtained by processing a first error signal resulting from sensed aberration in the second beam (212), and the first spatial light modulator (120), responsive to that first correction signal, adjusts the third beam (214) (Spec. 14:3-21; Fig. 5). The Examiner has not established that the combined disclosures of Komine and Vetrovec would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, adjusting a beam in response to Appeal 2011-003662 Application 11/657,215 8 a correction signal resulting from sensed aberration in a different beam. Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the laser claimed in the Appellants’ claim 17. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 2, 7-13 and 37-41 over Komine in view of Gerwe and claims 17-25 over Komine in view of Vetrovec are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED cam