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 .
Response to Arguments
Drawing objections
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the graphs of figs. 3 to 6 are representations of color and qualify under 37 CFR 1.84(m) “Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.” The examiner respectfully argues that there is no indication in the specification nor drawings that figs. 3 to 6 are meant to represent a color profile. Further, even if it were known that figs. 3 to 6 represent color 37CFR1.84(a)(2) require the color drawings must be of sufficient quality such that all details in the drawings are reproducible in black and white in the printed patent. In this instance much of the detail is lost in the grey scale format and as such the Figures do not comply with the aforementioned drawing standards. Therefore, the drawing objections stand.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b)
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments that there is support for the limitation “configured to perform a steering operation”. The examiner respectfully points out that in the paragraphs the applicant cited as evidence which include par. 27, 35, 37, 50, and 53, these paragraphs disclose a functional capability that a beam or beamlet is steered or can be steered, not the mechanism of steering. Further, applicant’s arguments towards par. 24 which recites delaying some beamlets to tilt a beam, the examiner respectfully argues that the cited par. 24 discusses a piece of prior art “McManamon et al. describe the physics behind phased array steering in a paper titled, “A Review of Phased Array Steering for Narrow-Band Electrooptical Systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 1078-96 (2009)” and that this is what the prior art of McManamon discloses but fails to introduce this into the invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the applicant is using the beam steering mechanisms of McManamon to steer the laser beam of the instant application. As such, the current specification and claims are interpreted to be an apparatus with a seed laser, splitter, plurality of phase modulators, amplifier, phase modulation electronics, and a seed laser output power modulator that is capable of moving or steering beamlet. This is because the examiner interprets the specification to be light on linking the apparatus of the claims to steering beams by delaying a phase of beamlets to produce steered beamlets. The examiner notes par. 24 and 27 of the instant application discuss delaying a phase of beamlets to produce steered beamlets but only in the context of explaining the prior art of “McManamon et al. describe the physics behind phased array steering in a paper titled, “A Review of Phased Array Steering for Narrow-Band Electrooptical Systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 1078-96 (2009)” and “High speed, high power one-dimensional beam steering from a 6-element optical phased array,” Optics Express, vol. 20, no. 16, pp. 17311-18 (2012), Huang et al, respectively.
The examiner respectfully believes the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections stand.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards Komine. The functional language and statement of intended use and have been carefully considered but are not considered to impart any further structural limitations over the prior art. Since Komine utilizes a seed laser, splitter, plurality of phase modulators, amplifier, and phase modulation electronics as claimed by the applicant, Komine is therefore capable of being used to perform a steering operation. In addition, nothing prevents Komine from being used in/as to perform a steering operation. Therefore, they are capable of performing a steering operation. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards Minden. Applicant argues that combination of Komine in view of Minden would not result in a functional beam steering because Komine teaches maintaining a coherence level of phases. Even if this assertion were true, it would not advance applicant's position that it is improper to combine Komine in view of Minden for purposes of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of the secondary reference of Minden may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference of Komine, the test is what the combined teachings of Komine in view of Minden would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. It is not necessary that the inventions of Komine and Minden be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review. Combining the teachings of Komine and Minden does not require the ability to combine their specific structures. Furthermore, applicant’s assertion that combination of the Komine and Minden references would not result in a functional beam steering as taught by Minden and applied to the invention of Komine is not true. The fact that Komine maintains a coherence level of phases would not preclude one of ordinary skill in the art from modifying the phase modulation electronics 60 of Komine to accommodate the beam steering of Minden as taught in column 1 lines 27 through 60 of Minden since all that would be required would be changing how the phase modulation electronics 60 of Komine control phases of the lasers.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
figs. 3-6 are shaded black,
“(m) Shading. The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.” . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “configured to perform a steering operation” in the application as filed.
Claims 10-12, 15, 17-21, and 24 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding the recitation of “configured to perform a steering operation”, the examiner is unclear whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim and what structure is required to perform the steering operation; whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained because specification and claims are unclear what structure of the phase modulators performs the beam steering; and whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim because it is unclear how the phase modulators steer a laser beam based on the structural and functional recitations of claim 9. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Absent this clarification, as one of ordinary skill in the art, the examiner is unclear what structure is required to allow the phase modulation electronics and phase modulators to perform a steering operation as well as what structure is performing the instructing of the phase modulators. Essentially, it is unclear if the delaying of the beamlets performs the steering or if there is another mechanism. Further, the examiner is unclear what is being delayed, the interpretation is that the phase is being delayed.
Claims 10-12, 15, 17-21, and 24 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 9, 11-12, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komine et al. (U.S. Patent 6678294) in view of Munroe (U.S. Publication US20120002688A1) in view of US6400871B1 Minden.
Regarding claim 9, Komine et al. (U.S. Patent 6678294) teaches, except where struck through, an apparatus (Figure 1; apparatus 10) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
580
799
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Komine
a seed laser configured to generate an input laser beam (Abstract; seed laser) [Laser 14 is a seed laser in that its output is “seeded” into phase modulators 38 and amplifier 40];
a splitter (taken generally at 32, where the beam is divided and sent to individual optical fibers 34) configured to split an input laser beam (from beam 14) into a plurality of beamlets;
a plurality of phase modulators (38), wherein each phase modulator of the plurality of phase modulators is optically coupled to the splitter and operative to phase-modulate a beamlet of the plurality of beamlets such that the plurality of phase modulators is operative to produce phase differences between the beamlets (3:35-40; “ The phase modulator 38 receives the split and divided optical signal and a feedback signal that adjusts polarization and phase.”);
an amplifier (40) optically coupled to the plurality of phase modulators (38), wherein the amplifier is operative to amplify the phase-modulated plurality of beamlets (3:36-41; “In each optical path 36 is a phase modulator 38 and a fiber amplifier 40. The phase modulator 38 receives the split and divided optical signal and a feedback signal that adjusts polarization and phase. The fiber amplifier 40 has an input 42 and an output 44. The fiber amplifiers 40 amplify the divided seed optical signals without changing their frequency or phase.”), thereby producing an amplified laser beam to different locations (the examiner respectfully argues that it is inherent that a laser or plurality of beamlets are at different locations by virtue of them being beamlets); and
phase modulation electronics (60) operably coupled to the plurality of phase modulators and configured to perform a steering operation in which 3:46-56; “The feedback network 60 comprises a plurality of phase front corrector sensors 62 and polarization and phase adjuster drivers 64. The adjuster drivers 64 may be phase modulators, optical fiber stretchers or electro optic modulators and provide a time delay to the optical wave passing through the fiber so that all peaks and troughs of the optical signals 20 line up. Hence, the network 60 takes the plurality of sampled beams and develops a feedback signal for application to the phase modulators 38 to maintain the coherence of the phases of the plurality of optical signals 20.”) [Note: under broadest reasonable interpretation “steer” is defined, see www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steer (viewed on 9/24/2024), as “to control the course of” or “to set and hold to (a course).” Accordingly, the limitation of “to perform a steering operation…to steer the amplified laser beam” is interpreted to mean that the electronics control the phase modulators to control the course of or set and hold the course of the amplified laser beam. As noted by Applicant in the filed Remarks, Komine stating lining up the peaks and troughs of the beam means that the position of laser beam is maintained. Such disclosure of maintaining the positioning of the laser beam reads, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim language of steering the laser beam in that the electronics of Komine, by operating the phase modulators, at least partially controls the course of the laser beam. It is important to note that the claim language, and particularly the steering of the laser beam, is not limited to changing or directing the laser beam in any particular direction or moving the laser beam from one position to another. In other words, maintaining the direction/position of the laser beam amounts to steering the laser beam, at least partially. This would be analogous to steering a vehicle in which the position, or direction of travel, of the vehicle remains unchanged.];
a seed laser output modulator (chirp drive electronics 12) configured to modulate an output power of the seed laser (14) (2:35-40; “an electronic driver 12 for providing a chirp electrical current signal to modulate and drive a distributed feedback (DFB) laser 14.”).
Komine teaches substantially the claimed invention the laser being a seed laser and a seed laser output modulator that is configured to modulate the output power of the seed laser. Komine does not explicitly disclose that the output power of the seed laser is modulated.
However, Komine appears to implicitly teach such limitation as the phase modulation electronics (60) and the seed laser output power modulator (12) function to create power beam 50. Specifically, Komine states the following (4:40-59):
In operation, the DFB laser 14 generates a dithered optical signal 20 having an asymmetric triangular (sawtooth in preferred embodiment) waveform. The waveform corresponds to the current drive produced by the chirp drive electronics 12. The dithered optical signal 20 is divided by the power divider and conducted through a plurality of optical fibers 30, each forming an optical path 36. The optical signals are amplified by the fiber amplifiers 40 and collimated by the microlens array 48 into a power beam 50. Because of the sawtooth waveform of frequencies supplied to the amplifiers 40, which have a periodicity that is longer than the round-trip transit time or is shorter than the response time of the SBS associated with the fiber amplifiers, SBS is not created. Thus phase fidelity is preserved and a maximum power transfer is achieved through the amplifiers. The beam 50 is sampled and sent through an optical feedback network 60, containing phase front corrector sensors 62, and polarization and phase adjuster drivers 64 to phase modulators 38 at the input of the fiber amplifiers 40. The feedback network 60 serves to maintain the coherence of the optical signals.
In this case, Komine teaches electronics 60 performing an operation and the modulator 12 modulating the output power of laser 14. As the electronics 60 and the modulator 12 function together to produce power beam 50, the modulator 12 functions, at least in part, based on the operation of electronics 60.
However, the Examiner cites to Munroe for additional evidence that it is known in the art for modulation electronics to be coupled to a seed laser controller such that the seed laser controller functions based on an operation of the modulation electronics.
Munroe relates to a laser system (para. 0004) and teaches an apparatus (Figure 1; para. 0004) comprising a seed laser (110), a phase modulator (120) optically coupled to the seed laser (110), and an amplifier (130, 140) optically coupled to the phase modulator (120).
Munroe additionally teaches phase modulation driver (122) operably coupled to the phase modulator (120) and configured to command the phase modulator to produce phase differences in the beam (para. 0004 and 0019) (see also Figure 9; step 916) and a seed laser output power driver (driver 112) configured to modulate an output power of the seed laser (110) (see also Figures 2-8). Munroe teaches that drivers (122) and (112) can be coupled together using “a common trigger with adjustable delay between the two” or “can be controlled by two independent driver units” (para. 0026).
Accordingly, Munroe teaches that the seed laser driver can function based on an operation of the phase modulator driver or that the phase modulator and the seed laser can be controlled by two independent drivers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Komine with Munroe, by modifying the operative coupling between the seed laser output power modulator and phase modulation electronics of Komine, with the seed laser driver being operatively coupled with the phase modulator driver of Munroe, for in doing so would provide an alternative means in controlling the seed laser and the phase modulators, such that the two can operate using a common trigger.
Minden teaches, a steering operation in which some of the phase modulators of the plurality of phase modulators are instructed to delay corresponding ones of the beamlets to produce phased array steered beamlets to steer the amplified laser beam to a first location and at least one other location (column 1 lines 27 through 60 teach that it is known in the art to perform steering by time delaying selected beamlets of a plurality of beamlets as “Several approaches have been proposed for overcoming the limits of the mechanically based beam steering systems, including phase conjugation, phase control via piezoelectric drivers, and phase control via electro-optics devices. One such approach for a fiber optic array uses optically phased arrays employing a large number of light emitters and optical phase delays between adjacent emitters to steer and focus an optical beam generated from the contributions of all the light emitters. Optical waveguides can be used to produce the phase delays, and the needed phase delays can thus be effected by piezoelectric or electro-optic effects in the waveguides. However, as noted above, this approach requires the inclusion of the necessary piezoelectric or electro-optic components, which drives up costs and complexity of fabrication of the array. Additional complexity and significant insertion loss also result because the light must be directed out of the fiber and into the waveguides, and then back into either the fibers or collimated for free space propagation.
Other approaches to beam steering involve the use of phase-active liquid crystals. Such systems confine the liquid crystals between optical elements and utilize the effects of electrical fields on the crystals to create a variety of optical components. By varying the electric field, the optical properties of the component can be modified. However, modification of these devices' optical properties, particularly in more than one dimension, requires complex adjustments the electrical field. Presently, liquid crystals are also limited in speed of response or phase excursion. Furthermore, as in the previous approaches, the complexity and cost of incorporating liquid crystal elements into a fiber array system are significantly higher than the present invention, which does not require any additional optical components”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device Komine in view of Munroe, such that phase modulators are instructed to delay corresponding ones of the beamlets to produce phased array steered beamlets to steer the amplified laser beam, as suggested and taught by Minden, for the purpose of providing the advantage that the resulting output can then be provided back to the individual pumping sources in a feedback loop to permit control of the phasing and thus allow steering of the output from the entire array (column 2 lines 11 through 14).
Regarding claim 11, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 9, and further teaches wherein the phase modulation electronics is configured to command some modulators of the plurality of phase modulator to steer different portions of the amplified laser beam to different locations [see beam steering in claim 9. As such, it obvious that Komine, teaching a substantially similar structural arrangement, would also be capable of causing different portions of the amplified laser beam to be focused, via lens 48, differently from each other. For example, applying different frequencies/voltages to some of the phase modulators and not others would provide a focused beam at a varying locations. See MPEP 2112 and 2114].
Regarding claim 12, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 9, and further teaches wherein the phase modulation electronics is configured to command some modulators of the plurality of phase modulators to focus different portions of the same amplified laser beam (Komine, via lens 48) differently from each other [see beam steering in claim 9. As such, it obvious that Komine, teaching a substantially similar structural arrangement, would also be capable of causing different portions of the amplified laser beam to be focused, via lens 48, differently from each other. For example, applying different frequencies/voltages to some of the phase modulators and not others would provide a focused beam at a varying locations. See MPEP 2112 and 2114].
Regarding claim 17, the primary combination, as applied to claim 9, teaches each claimed limitation including the laser beam comprising at least one laser pulse [Komine; 2:38-47; “ DFB laser 14 is well known in the industry, comprises a semiconductor laser and includes a Bragg grating. It transmits an optical signal having a single output frequency that has a direct correspondence to its input drive current. The Bragg grating is characterized by an optical spacing which is, in turn, a function of the refractive index of the semiconductor gain media. As is well known, injection of the drive current from the driver 12 changes the carrier density of the laser 14 and thus the effective index of refraction of the semiconductor gain media.”].
Regarding claim 18, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 9, and further teaches wherein the phase modulation electronics is configured to command some modulators of the plurality of phase modulators to produce, sequentially, at least two phase differences between the beamlets (see the rejection of claim 9, above, Komine) split from the same laser pulse of the at least one laser pulse in the input laser beam. Komine teaches each claimed limitation including using a seed laser having at least one pulse in which a laser is split by a splitter and passed into a phase modulator array for phase modulating the beamlets of the laser beam. As such, it would be obvious that the structure of Komine would also be capable of producing at least two phase differences between beamlets split from the same laser pulse. See MPEP 2112 and 2114.
Regarding claim 19, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 9, and further teaches wherein the phase modulation electronics is configured to command some modulators of the plurality of phase modulators to produce phase differences between the beamlets (as detailed above; Komine) in a manner that causes a wave front of different portions of the same laser pulse to be different from each other. Komine teaches each claimed limitation including using a seed laser having at least one pulse in which a laser pulse is split by a splitter and passed into a phase modulator array for phase modulating the beamlets of the pulsed laser beam. As such, it would be obvious that the structure of Komine would also be capable of producing phase differences in a manner that causes a wave front of different portions of the same laser pulse to be different from each other. See MPEP 2112 and 2114.
Regarding claim 20, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 18, and further teaches wherein the phase modulation electronics is configured to command some modulators of the plurality of phase modulators to focus different portions of the same laser pulse (via lens 48 of Komine) differently from each other. [See claim 9, above. The primary combination, teaches each claimed limitation including using a pulsed seed laser in which a laser pulse is split by a splitter and passed into a phase modulator array for phase modulating the beamlets of the pulsed laser beam. As such, it would be obvious that the structure of Komine would also be capable of producing phase differences to focus different portions of the same laser pulse, via lens 48, differently from each other. For example, applying different frequencies/voltages to some of the phase modulators and not others would provide a focused beam at a varying locations. See MPEP 2112 and 2114].
Regarding claim 21, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 18, and further teaches wherein the phase modulation electronics is configured to command some modulators of the plurality of phase modulators to steer different portions of the same laser pulse to different locations. [See claim 9 above. Further, Komine teaches each claimed limitation including using a seed laser having at least one laser pulse in which a laser pulse is split by a splitter and passed into a phase modulator array for phase modulating the beamlets of the laser beam. As such, it would be obvious that the structure of Komine, as modified by Munroe, would also be capable of producing phase differences to steer different portions of the same laser pulse to different locations. See MPEP 2112 and 2114].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komine et al. (U.S. Patent 6678294) in view of Munroe (U.S. Publication US20120002688A1) in view of US6400871B1 Minden, and in further view of Fermann et al. (U.S. Publication 20090201575).
Regarding claim 10, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 9, except for wherein the amplifier is a multicore photonic crystal fiber amplifier.
Komine teaches an amplifier array, but does not teach a multicore photonic crystal fiber amplifier.
PNG
media_image2.png
285
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Fermann
Fermann teaches a similar apparatus (Figure 2, above) comprising a splitter (202) configured to split a laser beam (from seed laser 201) into a plurality of beamlets (split into a number of individual beams-para. 0063), a phase modulator array (203) optically coupled to the splitter (202) and operative to phase-modulate the beamlets to produce phase differences between the beamlets (para. 0063; “allow for independent phase control of each individual beam”), and an amplifier (multi-core amplifier 204) optically coupled to the phase modulator array (203) and operative to amplify the phase-modulated plurality of beamlets, thereby producing an amplified beam (output from amplifier 204).
Fermann also teaches that the amplifier is a multi-core amplifier (para. 0063) and that such amplifier can comprise photonic crystal fiber (claim 19; “a multicore fiber amplifier comprising individual fibers constructed from step-index fiber, photonic crystal fiber or Bragg fibers.”) (See also Figure 3 and para. 0064; multicore photonic crystal fiber being “well known in the state of the art.”) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Komine, as modified by Munroe, with Fermann, by substituting the amplifier of Komine, with the multicore photonic crystal fiber amplifier of Fermann, for in doing so would provide a well-known fiber amplifier in the beam steering system of Komine. Furthermore, using the multicore photonic crystal fiber amplifier would amount to a simple substitution of art recognized amplifiers performing the same function of amplifying phase modulating beamlets and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (See MPEP 2144.06-II).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komine et al. (U.S. Patent 6678294) in view of Munroe (U.S. Publication US20120002688A1) in view of US6400871B1 Minden, and in further view of Varnham (U.S. Publication 2006/0219673).
Regarding claim 15, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 9, except for a three-dimensional waveguide optically coupled between an output of the plurality of phase modulators and an input of the amplifier, the waveguide operative to receive the beamlets and deliver the received beamlets to the amplifier.
Varnham teaches that it is known in the art of laser processing (para. 0002) (Figure 7, laser source 2-para. 0051, which outputs a beam 17 to waveguide 7) to use a three-dimensional waveguide for receiving the laser beam (Varnham teaches the waveguide can de an optical fibre or a planar waveguide, and comprises a core 7 and cladding & or a plurality of cares 7 and/or a plurality of claddings &-para. 0046, and can be a single mode waveguide-para, 0018. Waveguide 7 being an optical fibre or a planar waveguide as described defines a three- dimensional structure. Therefore, the waveguide of Varnham is a three-dimensional, single mode waveguide).
The advantage of combining the teachings of Varnham is that in doing so would provide a waveguide that enables efficient delivery of optical radiation such that a guidance profile is uniform across the core of the waveguide (para. 0011, 0050, and 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Komine, as modified by Munroe, with Varnham, by adding between an output of the phase modulator array and an input of the amplifier of Komine, with the waveguide of Varnham, in order to enable efficient delivery of optical radiation from the phased modulator array to the amplifier such that a guidance profile is uniform across the core of the waveguide (para. 0011, 0050, and 0054).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komine et al. (U.S. Patent 6678294) in view of Munroe (U.S. Publication US20120002688A1) in view of US6400871B1 Minden in view of US 6366356 B1 Brosnan .
Regarding claim 24, Komine does not teach wherein the seed laser output power modulator is configured to modulate an output power of the seed laser according to locations to which the amplified laser beam is steered.
Brosnan teaches, wherein the seed laser output power modulator is configured to modulate an output power of the seed laser according to locations to which the amplified laser beam is steered (claim 11 teaches “11. A high average power fiber laser system as set forth in claim 5, and further comprising a control computer for delivering a plurality of distinct set-point voltages and a plurality of summing amplifiers, each responsive to a feedback signal and one of said distinct set-point voltages and operative to provide the appropriate set-point voltage to each phase modulator so as to control the output beam”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Komine reference, such that the seed laser output power modulator is configured to modulate an output power of the seed laser according to locations to which the amplified laser beam is steered, as suggested and taught by Brosnan, for the purpose of providing the advantage that it supplies a distinct set-point voltage for each path, thereby allowing complete control of the output beam phasefront. This introduces the capability for output beam steering or focusing. (column 8 lines 55 through 60).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761