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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner firstly acknowledges a request for an interview was found in the Remarks of 11/17/2025.
First, the Examiner notes the bottom of each Office action stating the preferred contact method to reach the Examiner is via telephone (571-272-8447) and that an alternate contact method to arrange an interview is via the Automated Interview Request (AIR) form. A call or email (which is generated via submission of the AIR form) provides a timely request upon which the Examiner can act and consider arranging a requested interview. Inclusion of a request for interview within a filed response (i.e. Remarks) generally does not provide the Examiner sufficient time to grant such a request as the Examiner has production clocks which run on cases added to their dockets, and is currently running on this application, and is usually unable to pause work on a case with a running clock to permit arranging and conducting an interview. Therefore, an interview request is ideally received prior to the filing of a response to permit for scheduling, preparation, and conducting of the interview in a reasonable amount of time.
Additionally, MPEP 713.01 IV states, in part, “An interview should be had only when the nature of the case is such that the interview could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant, and thereby advance the prosecution of the application.”.
In the instant case, the Applicant has repeatedly submitted the same, or materially same, argument directed to hindsight reasoning supposedly being used by the Examiner and has not provided any evidence of such hindsight reasoning being applied other than stating the teachings are not found in the art. Further, the Examiner has disputed the application of hindsight and has taken efforts to point out to the Applicant the particular places where the prior has in fact demonstrated such motivation/teachings to be known. As the Applicant has presented no new arguments in this filing, nor has noted readiness in the current Remarks to present alternative arguments during the proposed interview, the Examiner is not convinced the requested interview would serve to develop and clarify specific issues…and thereby advance the prosecution of the application and therefore the interview is not granted at this time.
In an effort to advance prosecution, and in the interest of stakeholder interaction, the Examiner is willing to make the current action non-Final and grant an interview before the filing of a subsequent response by the Applicant if it is desired.
The Examiner spoke with Mr. James Pinto on 12/16/2025, explained the above, and invited Mr. Pinto to please reach out to request an interview before filing a next response.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The presented arguments are largely a copy/paste of the Remarks submitted 05/07/2025, which were themselves largely a copy/paste of the Remarks of 08/23/2024.
The Examiner therefore responds similarly as before and has copy/pasted the Response to those arguments previously given (Final, 05/15/2025):
The Applicant has argued (Remarks, pg.5) that the 103 rejection includes “picking and choosing certain aspects of Lin, Nicholson, Fermann and Johnson, to form, via impermissible hindsight, the elements recited in claim 1.”.
The Examiner notes the presented rejection of claim 1 is that of a 103. A 103 necessarily relies on individual references that do not contain all the claim elements by themselves. Generally, a first reference teaches the majority of the claim limitations while secondary references are brought forth to teach the portions missing from the primary reference. Bodily incorporation of references is not occurring (MPEP 2145 III), therefore only “certain aspects” are taught to be combined with the primary reference. These reference teachings therefore necessarily involve “picking and choosing” in comparison to a 102 rejection. The Examiner is not persuaded by this argument.
The Applicant has further argued (Remarks, pg.5) that the references “are not believed to contain or disclose motivations to combine certain aspects of Lin, Nicholson, Fermann and Johnson”, “the lack of the cited references providing motivation to combine the elements of Lin, Nicholson, Fermann and Johnson means that the alleged combination is instead based on the Applicant’s disclosure- which is impermissible hindsight reconstruction”.
The Examiner does not agree.
First, there is no requirement that each reference provide motivation for its combination with another reference if the stated motivation is of knowledge to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 I G.; “a finding that there was some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings”). It is noted that the Applicant has not disputed the stated motivation was not known in the art, simply that it was not directly stated in the references.
Second, in the Final action of 11/07/2024 motivation was directly cited from Lin (teaching a change in fiber length results in a change in dispersion), Nicholson (teaching conventional fiber dispersion values), Fermann (a change in the pulse width leading to better quality/power), and Johnson (reducing splices improves quality/reliability). Further, the Examiner provided evidence of what was of knowledge to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing the instant application (Final action, Conclusion section- pertinent art cited).
The argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/23/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has argued (Remarks, pg.5) that the “alleged 103 combinations of the four prior art references constitutes impermissible hindsight reconstruction”.
First, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner has provided (see art rejections below) explicit teachings from references starting with Lin teaching the basic cavity design including operation in the soliton regime. Nicholson, in the same field, is then brought forth to teach adapting the fiber (gain/SM segments) to be of lengths chosen to craft a desired cavity dispersion. Fermann is next cited to teach the usefulness of particular pulse lengths while finally Johnson is cited for clear teachings in making use of minimized splice connections in such fiber lasers. The rejection (“legal conclusion”), as presented by the Examiner, is therefore found to clearly “be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art” (see MPEP 2142).
The arguments are therefore not found persuasive.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 6097741) in view of Nicholson (US 2010/0296527) and Fermann et al. (US 9570880) and Johnson (US 9905989).
With respect to claim 1, Lin teaches an all polarization-maintaining, passively mode-locked linear fiber laser oscillator (fig.1), the linear fiber laser oscillator for use within an optical frequency comb (note the system of Lin is that of a mode-locked laser which is the base system for the generation of frequency combs, therefore the system is capable of such use), comprising: a linear cavity (fig.1); a semiconductor saturable absorber mirror (SESAM) disposed at one end of the linear cavity (fig.1 #125/126, col.7 lines 25-28); a polarization-maintaining gain fiber (fig.1 #130, col.4 lines 49-57) operatively associated with the SESAM in the linear cavity, the gain fiber having a dispersion value (inherently either +/0/-) and a gain fiber length (inherent); a polarization-maintaining undoped fiber (fig.1 all fibers other than #130, such as #111,140a,140b,160a,160b,121a col.4 lines 49-57) operatively associated with the SESAM in the linear cavity, the undoped fiber having a dispersion value (inherently either +/0/-) and an undoped fiber length (inherent); an output coupler (fig.1 #160, 1 example) configured to generate laser light output from the linear cavity, wherein the undoped fiber has 2 splices including a first splice (fig.1 splice from #111 to #130) and a second splice (fig.1 splice from #130 to #140a), and the gain fiber is connected with the undoped fiber between the first splice and the second splice (as outlined above). Lin teaches using Er doping which produces light at ~1550nm (col.4 lines 26-35) as well as operation in the soliton regime (col.11 lines 35-50) and adapting the cavity to choose the mode of operation to be soliton or non-soliton (col.11 lines 58-62, col.12 lines 20-24), but does not teach the gain fiber having normal dispersion and the undoped fiber having anomalous dispersion with lengths chosen to enable the soliton operation and/or particular pulse width. Nicholson teaches a similar mode-locked fiber laser (fig.1) using polarization maintaining fiber ([0039]) and further teaches that conventional Er doped fiber and single mode undoped fiber have normal dispersion and anomalous dispersion, respectively, at the produced ~1550nm wavelength ([0031]) as well as that adapting the fiber lengths used (which includes the fibers in the tap coupler) is known and allows for tailoring the cavity dispersion ([0031]) which necessarily effects the output pulse width and pulse regime produced. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to utilize the conventional fiber materials of Nicholson for the gain and undoped fibers of Lin, thereby having normal and anomalous dispersion values, respectively, as Nicholson has clearly stated the conventional nature of these fibers which would enable simple manufacturing and clear understanding of how such fibers would perform in the laser system. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to alter the fiber lengths to select the cavity dispersion value to achieve the soliton regime as Lin and Nicholson have clearly taught adapting the system fiber components affects the dispersion values, which are therefore result effective variables, and would allow for a tailoring of the pulse characteristics, such as width, produced (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
Lin further teaches pulse operation of about 500fs (col.11 lines 64-66) and use of such lasers for material processing (col.1 line 16), but does not specify between 200 to 500fs. Additionally note that the teachings of Nicholson have motivated selection of the dispersion values within the laser cavity which are known in the art to be factors allowing for modification of pulse length (see Conclusion section below). Fermann teaches a related mode-locked, linear cavity, fiber laser (fig.1) with the additional teaching that short pulse lengths such as 360fs are generated (col.8 lines 35-37) which produces high peak power (abstract) and high quality pulses (col. 8 lines 40-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the short pulse system of Lin taught to be related to material processing to achieve a pulse width of 360fs as taught by Fermann by adjusting the dispersion values as taught by Nicholson in order to enable very high levels of power to achieve efficient processing of materials via high energy levels with the high quality pulses.
Lin further does not teach the first and second splices to be the only splices in the undoped fiber. Johnson teaches a related fiber laser (fig.2) wherein the reduction in the number of splices between components is taught (fig.1 as compared to fig.2) such that the system is left with only 2 splices between the undoped fiber and the gain fiber, the gain fiber being between the splices (as seen in fig.2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the fibers of Lin to utilize only 2 splices in the undoped fiber to the gain fiber, the gain fiber being between the splices, as demonstrated by Johnson in order to increase product quality and reliability (Johnson, col.3 lines 27-54) by manufacturing the fibers as assemblies of common components on single fiber and then splicing to the gain fiber (Johnson, col.4 lines 22-36, fig.2, fig.3).
With respect to claim 2, Lin teaches the gain fiber is doped with erbium (col.4 lines 32-35).
With respect to claim 3, Lin teaches the output coupler is a thin-film mirror disposed at one end of the linear cavity (col.4 lines 15-25, col.9 lines 54-65).
With respect to claim 6, Lin, as modified, teaches the undoped fiber length is sufficiently long in comparison to the gain fiber length such that an overall cavity dispersion is less than 0 fs2 for anomalous dispersion (lengths necessarily adjusted as claimed in order to achieve the net cavity dispersion enabling the soliton regime of claim 1).
With respect to claim 15, Lin teaches the SESAM is attached to a piezo-electric transducer to effectively change a length of the linear cavity (col.8 lines 58-66, noting the reflector is attached to the saturable absorber).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, Fermann and Nicholson and Johnson in view of Hemmer et al. (US 5077747).
With respect to claim 16, Lin, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including a collimator (fig.1 #121) and a lens (fig.1 #123) before the saturable absorber mirror element (fig.1 #125/126), but does not specify a free-space cat’s eye lens configured to couple light to the SESAM. Hemmer teaches use of such a cat’s eye lens element (fig.1 #9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of a cat’s eye lens element in place of the lens of Lin in order to take advantage of the self-aligning feature of the cat’s eye lens (Hemmer, col.2 lines 27-31).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5627848 teaches using gain fiber which has normal dispersion with undoped fiber of anomalous dispersion to enable dispersion compensation.
US 2016/0099537 teaches the dispersion value of the cavity can be adjusted to be net normal or net anomalous ([0034, 35]) based on the desired pulse type output.
US 2007/0098023 teaches a similar mode-locked laser wherein normal dispersion gain fiber is used with undoped anomalous dispersion fiber to adjust the overall dispersion ([0029]).
US 9899791 and 9787051 teach the use of self-similar/similariton pulse operation is known in the art for enabling pulse compression.
US 9252554 and 10256597 additionally teach the importance of sub-500fs pulses for material processing.
Note “Pulse duration- Effects which can affect the pulse duration” (RP Photonics Encyclopedia; 10/17/2007) clearly outlines the value of dispersion can be used to adjust the pulse duration: “Chromatic dispersion can lead to substantial pulse broadening, which can however be reversed by applying the opposite kind of dispersion afterwards (→ dispersion compensation).” Thereby demonstrating such adjustments of pulse width via dispersion selection are known in the art.
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 TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828