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
Claim 20 is only given the priority date of 12/13/2020, as noted in the office action mailed on 01/02/24.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following:
1) In paragraphs 0011 and 0040 reference is made to “inversion population”, this is incorrect and should be replaced with “population inversion”.
2) The amendment to the specification filed on 9/11/25 incorrectly labels paragraph 0022 as “[0001][0022]”, and paragraph 0026 as “0026]]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following: the claim should end with a period, not a comma. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-5, 20-22, 24 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 “a pump laser generating radiation in a 1.02-1.05 μm wavelength range”. However, the specification clearly discloses that Er:Yb doped fiber laser is pumped in a 1.02-1.06 μm wavelength range, in order to achieve the desired effects (see paragraphs 0001, 0010, 0011, 0012, 0015, 0032, 0034, 0036, original claims 1 and 6, abstract and the title of the invention). The only reference to a 1.05 μm pump wavelength is to a Nd doped fiber laser in paragraph 0032. The specification makes it clear that the desired effect in Er:Yb laser is achieved in the 1.02-1.06 μm wavelength range. Applicant cited In Re Wertheim for support in narrowing the wavelength range, however the particular details of that case do not apply here since there is no data point for 1.05 μm associated with Er:Yb laser and claim 1 is limited to Er:Yb doped fiber laser only.
2) Claim 1 discloses a limitation “a pump laser … which is coupled into the DC fiber laser, to minimize contribution of the isolated Yb in the DC fiber laser”. This limitation is inconsistent with the specification, which clearly discloses that the output of the pump laser is coupled into the DC fiber laser to output signal light around 15xx nm wavelength, see paragraph 0032. The contribution of the isolated Yb ions to lasing at a 1 μm wavelength (which is not the desired output of the DC fiber laser) is smaller when using 1.02-1.06 μm pump wavelength range compared to using the 920-980 μm pump wavelength range. However, the pump laser is not coupled into the DC laser for the sole purpose of minimizing contribution of the isolated Yb ions, as the claim suggest.
In order to overcome this rejection, the claim should be amended to recite:
“a pump laser … which is coupled into the DC fiber laser, to output laser light in a 1.5 μm wavelength range, …”
3) Claim 1 discloses a limitation “contribution of the isolated Yb in the DC fiber laser to a total population inversion”. This limitation is inconsistent with the specification, which clearly discloses in paragraph 0007 that “isolated Yb ions contribute to the total unwanted population inversion”. Total unwanted population inversion is not the same as total population inversion.
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 1-2, 4-5, 20-22, 24 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 limitation "Yb+3 " in multiple lines of the claim. It is not clear from the claim that Yb is in the form of ions and limitations “some Yb are”, “other Yb are” make the claim indefinite.
In order to overcome this rejection, the limitations should be amended to recite:
"Yb+3 ions"
2) A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “increased in 3 times”, and the claim also recites “increased in 2 times” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
3) The term “minimize contribution of the isolated Yb” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimize” 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.
4) Claim 1 recites the limitation "the DC fiber laser energized at the pump wavelength in the 920-980 nm wavelength range " in lines 1-2 from the bottom of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since the claim discloses a device where the DC fiber laser is energized at the pump wavelength in the 1.02-1.05 µm wavelength range. The different fiber laser that is energized at a different wavelength is not part of the claimed invention.
5) Claim 1 discloses a limitation “a threshold of the parasitic generation in the 1 μm wavelength range is increased 2-3 times compared to that of the fiber laser energized at the pump wavelength in the 920-980 nm wavelength range.”
This limitation makes the claim indefinite, since it is impossible to ascertain the actual meets and bounds of the threshold values for the parasitic gain in the unwanted wavelength range for a prior art device which is not claimed.
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 9/11/25 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “Ref 1 does not teach that isolated ions of Yb minimize contribution to a total population inversion in the 1 µm range.” The examiner points out that this limitation does not appear in the claims, nor is it disclosed in the specification. Paragraph 0036 clearly discloses that it is the selected pump wavelength that reduces the gain (minimizes contribution) of isolated Yb in the unwanted wavelength range of 1 µm and raises the threshold of parasitic generation 2-3 times. In other words, the isolated Yb ions do not play a positive role in the fiber laser, but instead are a problem that has to be managed.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “is it possible that the structure as claimed may be in contradiction with the elevated temperature”, the examiner points out that the operational temperature of the claimed device is not claimed. Moreover, applicant’s specification clearly discloses in paragraph 0044 that the inventive device benefits from operating at above room temperature conditions.
Conclusion
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.
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