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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Claims 20 and new claim 31, that is dependent on claim 20, are only given the priority date of 12/13/2020, as noted in the office action mailed on 01/02/24.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted/amended claims 2, 4 and 30 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 2 discloses a limitation “pump laser is a single mode (SM) laser”, however the elected embodiment of Fig 8 and paragraph 0033 clearly disclose the pump laser 26 to be multimode (MM).
Claim 4 discloses a limitation “the DC laser is end pumped”, however the elected embodiment of Fig 8 and paragraph 0033 clearly disclose the laser 22 to be side-pumped.
Claim 30 discloses a limitation “pump laser is a Neodymium (Nd) fiber laser”, however the elected embodiment of Fig 8 and paragraph 0033 clearly disclose the pump laser 26 to be Ytterbium (Yb) fiber laser.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 2, 4 and 30 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following:
In paragraphs 0004, 0005, 0020, 0022 and 0036 reference is made to “phosphate and silica glass fiber”, this is inconsistent with the rest of the specification and should be replaced with "Phosphosilicate glass fiber" for consistency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 5, 20-22, 24-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
1) Claim 1 discloses a limitation “… to generate output laser light at a wavelength in a range from 1.5 μm to 1.6 μm, …” This limitation is inconsistent with the specification, which only discloses output wavelength of 1570 nm in paragraph 0033. There is no support for 1.6 μm.
2) Claim 22 discloses a limitation “multimode fiber Bragg gratings (MM FBGs)”. This limitation is inconsistent with the specification, which only discloses MM wavelength reflectors 24 in paragraph 0032.
3) Claim 24 recites limitations "silicophosphate glass". This limitation is inconsistent with the specification, which discloses a phosphor-silicate [sic] glass in paragraph 0005.
In order to overcome this rejection, the limitations should be amended to recite:
"Phosphosilicate glass"
The specification should be amended accordingly to remove ambiguity.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 5, 20-22, 24-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
1) Claim 1 recites limitations "Er+3 " and "Yb+3 " in multiple lines of the claim. It is not clear from the claim that Er and Yb are abbreviations of Erbium and Ytterbium, making the claim indefinite.
In order to overcome this rejection, the limitations should be amended to recite:
"a core co-doped with Erbium (Er+3) ions and Ytterbium (Yb+3) ions"
2) The term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for their dependence on claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the limitations as presented have been searched and considered.
Admitted Prior Art
The rejection of claims 5 and 22 (multimode fiber and mirrors) based on the well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (hereinafter APA) because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate, see MPEP 2144.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 6/29/26 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the references cited on form PTO-892 in the previous office action which lists other references with similar features as the invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Contact Info
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. A. GOLUB-MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M. A. Golub-Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights