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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claims 12-14 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 filed 09/02/2025 has overcome some of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112. Those rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the response, applicant contends that the amendment overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112. The Office disagrees, because the amendment does not remove "the first optical radiation...guides and aligns the second optical radiation on the workpiece." Applicant contends this language is supported and enabled. Applicant points to [0005] to provide support. [0005] does not support "guides and aligns". [0005] of the pre-grant application simply recites the same language. [0005] does not provide support for "guides and aligns" as is understood in the Office. Applicant further contends that they are unable to respond to the enablement rejection due to a typo. The Office outlined the Wands factors and provided examples of how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand "guides". Accordingly, the typo does not prevent applicant from responding to the rejection and the rejection is maintained. Specifically, applicant does not describe to a person of ordinary skill in the art how light can "guide and align" light. Applicant's specification as originally filed describes optical fibers that guide and align the light.
On page 6, applicant contends that Kashiwagi does not disclose "that the radiation is coaxial nor does it disclose that the first optical radiation guides and aligns second optical radiation on a workpiece as set forth in claim 1". Kashiwagi does in fact disclose the light is coaxial and "guides and aligns" as was interpreted by the Office. The Office notes that applicant largely ignores the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) that adopted the interpretation of "aims" for "guides and aligns". [0072] discusses using the visible light to aim and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the light to be coaxial, because it passes through the same core as the infrared light. See, e.g., [0071] and Fig. 9 showing a single beam of output light. On page 7, applicant further contends that Kashiwagi does not disclose "the filter prevents at least a portion of backward-propagating optical radiation at a second wavelength from coupling into a first light source." The Office disagrees. [0113] recites "The filter 119 is constituted by an optical filter (e.g., a SWPF (Short Wavelength Pass Filter) or BPF (Band Pass Filter) that has a pass band in a visible light range and a cut-off band in an infrared light range) that transmits visible light outputted by the visible light LD 11 and attenuates the return light propagated in a reverse direction in the core from the wavelength selective coupling-splitting element 112 while irradiating invisible laser light." Return light in the infrared light range is understood to be "backward-propagating optical radiation at a second wavelength". As described in [0114] "The wavelength selective coupling-splitting element 112 also separates the return light propagating through the optical fiber 31 in the reverse direction in response to the wavelength, emits the visible light on the filter 119 side, and emits the non-visible light on the optical fiber 30 side." Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art understands Kashiwagi to disclose "the filter prevents at least a portion of backward-propagating optical radiation at a second wavelength from coupling into a first light source." Continuing on page 7, applicant further contends the rejection of the claim is improper, because Fujita does not disclose a protective element applied to an angled output end and Sung does not disclose an angled output end. However, the rejection is made based on the combination of Fujita and Sung. Specifically, Fujita discloses angling the output end and Sung discloses applying a protection element to an output end. Accordingly, the combination of these references discloses a protection element applied to an angled output end. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
On page 7, applicant also contends the film of Sung “is not described as a protective element”. This is incorrect. Sung provides the reflection film (122) to reflect “the reflection laser beam (LB'), so that the reflection laser beam (LB') is prevented from proceeding to the LD chip (121)” and “As a result, according to the present invention, it is possible to protect the LD chip (121) from the retrograde reflected laser beam (LB') (emphasis added).” [0033]-[0034]. Accordingly, Sung does describe the reflection film as “a protective element”. See also [0025].
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 15, and 17-21 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “the first optical radiation…guides and aligns the second optical radiation on the workpiece”. The Office cannot find support for either limitation in the specification as originally filed. The Office can find no disclosure that supports “the first optical radiation…guides and aligns the second optical radiation on the workpiece”. As would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, the second optical radiation is guided and aligned by the optical fiber. Applicant does not describe any physical process by which “the first optical radiation” affects (i.e. guides or aligns) “the second optical radiation”.
Claims 2, 4-9, 15, and 17-21 contain new matter at least based on their dependence from claim 1.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the first optical radiation…guides and aligns the second optical radiation on the workpiece.” The factors that determine enablement include, but are not limited to, (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In this case, all of the factors support a conclusion that the claims are not enabled. Specifically, applicant provides no disclosure or working examples of how first optical radiation guides and aligns a second optical radiation. The state of the art and a person of ordinary kill in the art would not understand how first optical radiation guides and aligns a second optical radiation. The Office notes that optical fibers, waveguides, or mirrors are typically used to “guide” radiation. The Office is not aware of any physical processes that would allow a first optical radiation to “guide and align” a second optical radiation. Accordingly, the quantity of experimentation is extremely high based on the limited extent of the disclosure.
Claims 2, 4-9, 15, and 17-21 are not enabled at least based on their dependence from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 15, and 17-21 are 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.
Claims 1, 9, 14, and 15 recite “output end”. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “output end” in claims 9-11 and 14-16 is used by the claim to mean “input end,” while the accepted meaning is “the end where light is emitted from.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The Office notes that no light is intended to be emitted from the “output end” of the claim. Applicant’s entire disclosure is directed to preventing the emission of light from the end so as to prevent damage to the laser diode. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret “output end” as “input end”.
Claim 1 further recites “the first optical radiation…guides and aligns the second optical radiation on the workpiece.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand optical radiation being able to guide and align each other. The Office notes that applicant’s disclosure uses the first light to aim the infrared radiation. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite, because it is unclear what function applicant intends to claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret the claim to recite “the first optical radiation…aims the second optical radiation on the workpiece”.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 2 recites “the light source”. Claim 1 recites “a first light source” and “a second light source”. Accordingly, claim 2 is indefinite, because it is unclear what “light source” applicant is attempt to refer to. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret claim 2 as “the first light source is a laser diode”.
First, claim 15 is indefinite, because it depends from cancelled claim 14. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret the claim as depending from claim 8. Claim 15 recites “the output end is coated with a dichroic filter.” It is unclear if “a dichroic filter” refers to the same or different dichroic filter of claims 8. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret claim 15 to recite “the output end is coated with a second dichroic filter”.
Any dependent claim not specifically addressed is indefinite at least based on its dependence from an indefinite parent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 depends from cancelled claim 14. Accordingly, claim 15 fails to further limit the claim on which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwagi et al. (US20130299474A1), hereafter Kashiwagi, in view of Hao et al. (CN105375249), hereafter Hao, in further view of Fujita et al. (US20030169979A1), hereafter Fujita, in further view of Sung et al. (KR20170022807), hereafter Sung.
Regarding claim 1, Kashiwagi discloses a laser assembly (Title) comprising: a first fiber (Fig. 9 line connecting element 11 to element 13) optically coupled to a first light source (Fig. 9 element 11) configured to emit a first optical radiation at a first wavelength in the visible spectrum (Fig. 9 element 11; [0112]; [0113]), wherein the first fiber transmits the first optical radiation toward a workpiece (Fig. 9 line connecting element 11 to element 13; [0126]); a second fiber (Fig. 9 element line connecting element 19 to element 13) optically coupled to a second light source (Fig. 9 element 19) configured to emit a second optical radiation as laser light at a second wavelength (Fig. 9 element 19; [0064]), wherein the second fiber transmits the second optical radiation toward the workpiece (Fig. 9 line connecting element 19 to element 13; [0126]); a protective element disposed between the first light source and the first fiber (Fig. 9 element 119), wherein the protective elements prevents at least a portion of backward-propagating optical radiation at the second wavelength from coupling into the first light source ([0113]); a combiner connected to the first fiber and the second fiber (Fig. 9 element 13); and a third fiber (Fig. 9 element 15) connected to the combiner (Fig. 9 element 13), wherein the combiner combines the first optical radiation and the second optical radiation into the third fiber such that the first optical radiation is coupled into a core of the third fiber (Abstract), the second optical radiation is coupled into a cladding of the third fiber ([0121]), and the first optical radiation is coaxial with the second optical radiation and guides and aligns the second optical radiation on the workpiece ([0072]). Kashiwagi does not explicitly disclose the first fiber is a multi-clad fiber or the protective element is applied to an angled output end of the first multi-clad fiber. However, Hao discloses using multi-clad fiber as a fiber pigtail ([0076]). An advantage is to use a known component. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashiwagi with the fiber pigtail is the multi-clad fiber as disclosed by Hao in order to use a known component and since the Court has held simply substituting one known element (a fiber pigtail) with another known element (a multi-clad fiber pigtail) to obtain predictable results (both pigtails carry light to a fiber laser) requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Kashiwagi in view of Hao do not explicitly disclose the protective element is applied to an angled output end of the first multi-clad fiber. However, Fujita discloses the output end of the fiber is angled (Fig. 5(b) element 29). An advantage is to help prevent the returning light from affecting the laser diode ([0108]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kashiwagi in view of Hao with the output end of the fiber is angled as disclosed by Fujita in order to help prevent the returning light from affecting the laser diode. Kashiwagi in view of Hao in further view of Fujita do not explicitly disclose the protection element is applied to an end face of the first fiber. However, Sung discloses the protection element is applied to an end face of the first fiber (Fig. 6 element 122). An advantage is to use a known component ([0049]) to protect a guide laser from damage ([0025]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashiwagi in view of Hao in further view of Fujita with the protective element is applied to an end face of the first fiber as disclosed by Sung in order to use a known component to protect a guide laser from damage and since the Court has held simply substituting one known element (the filter of Kashiwagi) with another known element (the end face filter of Sung) to obtain predictable results (both filters prevent unwanted light from entering and damaging the light source) requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Kashiwagi further discloses the light source is a diode laser (Fig. 9 element 11; [0112]).
Regarding claim 4, Kashiwagi does not explicitly disclose the first multi-clad fiber is double-clad fiber comprising a core, a cladding, and a buffer layer, wherein the core has a higher refractive index than the cladding and the cladding has a higher index than the buffer layer. However, the Office takes Official Notice that the first multi-clad fiber is double-clad fiber comprising a core, a cladding, and a buffer layer, wherein the core has a higher refractive index than the cladding and the cladding has a higher index than the buffer layer are well known in the art. Some advantages include higher power with improved beam quality. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kashiwagi in view of Hao in further view of Fujita in further view of Sung with the first multi-clad fiber is double-clad fiber comprising a core, a cladding, and a buffer layer, wherein the core has a higher refractive index than the cladding and the cladding has a higher index than the buffer layer as is known in the art in order to provide a smaller diameter pump cladding resulting in stronger coupling of the pump light to the fiber core.
Regarding claim 5, Kashiwagi does not explicitly disclose the multi-clad fiber is a triple-clad fiber comprising a core, a first cladding, a second cladding and a buffer layer, wherein the core has a higher refractive index than the first cladding, the first cladding has a higher index than the second cladding and the second cladding a higher index than the buffer layer. However, the Office takes Official Notice that triple-clad fibers comprising a core, a first cladding, a second cladding and a buffer layer, wherein the core has a higher refractive index than the first cladding, the first cladding has a higher index than the second cladding and the second cladding a higher index than the buffer layer are well known in the art. Some advantages known in the art include a smaller diameter pump cladding resulting in stronger coupling of the pump light to the fiber core. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kashiwagi in view of Hao in further view of Fujita in further view of Sung with the multi-clad fiber is a triple-clad fiber comprising a core, a first cladding, a second cladding and a buffer layer, wherein the core has a higher refractive index than the first cladding, the first cladding has a higher index than the second cladding and the second cladding a higher index than the buffer layer as is known in the art in order to provide a smaller diameter pump cladding resulting in stronger coupling of the pump light to the fiber core.
Regarding claim 6, Kashiwagi does not explicitly disclose the protective element is a reflector or an absorber or a combination thereof. However, Sung discloses the protective element is a reflector or an absorber or a combination thereof (Abstract). An advantage is to use a known component ([0049]) to protect a guide laser from damage ([0025]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashiwagi with the protective element is a reflector or an absorber or a combination thereof as disclosed by Sung in order to use a known component to protect a guide laser from damage and since the Court has held simply substituting one known element (the filter of Kashiwagi) with another known element (the reflective filter of Sung) to obtain predictable results (both filters prevent unwanted light from entering and damaging the light source) requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, Sung further discloses the protective element is a dichroic filter configured to transmit optical radiation at the first wavelength and to reflect optical radiation at the second wavelength ([0014]).
Claims 8, 9, 15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwagi in view of Hao in further view of Fujita in further view of Sung, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Yamaguchi et al. (US20020039227A1), hereafter Yamaguchi.
Regarding claim 8, Hao further disclose the fiber is a multi-clad fiber ([0076]). Sung further discloses the protective element is a dichroic filter configured to reflect optical radiation at the second wavelength ([0025]; [0027]). Kashiwagi in view of Hao in further view of Fujita in further view of Sung do not explicitly disclose the protective element is a dichroic filter configured to reflect optical radiation at the second wavelength in such a way as to couple a portion of the backward-propagating optical radiation into one or more cladding layers of the fiber. However, Yamaguchi discloses a dichroic filter configured to reflect optical radiation at the second wavelength in such a way as to couple a portion of the backward-propagating optical radiation into one or more cladding layers of the fiber (Fig. 2B element 12A; [0043]). An advantage is to help reduce the amount of light returned to the resonator ([0043]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kashiwagi in view of Hao in further view of Fujita in further view of Sung with the protective element is a dichroic filter configured to reflect optical radiation at the second wavelength in such a way as to couple a portion of the backward-propagating optical radiation into one or more cladding layers of the fiber as disclosed by Yamaguchi in order to help reduce the amount of light returned to the resonator.
Regarding claim 9, Sung further discloses the dichroic filter is applied to an output end of the fiber (Fig. 6 element 122)
Regarding claim 15, Sung further discloses multiple dichroic filters (Fig. 7 elements 122a and 122b), in a separate embodiment a dichroic filter on the output end (Fig. 6 element 122), and that multiple combinations of the films may be formed on various surfaces ([0046]-[0047]). An advantage is to use a known component ([0049]) to protect a guide laser from damage ([0025]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Kashiwagi in view of Hao in further view of Fujita in further view of Sung in further view of Yamaguchi with the output end is coated with a second dichroic filter, since Sung discloses using multiple dichroic filters on various surfaces in order to use a known component to protect a guide laser from damage and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 17, Kashiwagi further discloses a fiber pigtail configured to be optically coupled (Fig. 9 Fiber connecting elements 11 to 112) to an input fiber (Fig. 9 element 32) of a fiber laser (Fig. 9 elements 14-16). Kashiwagi in view of Yamaguchi do not explicitly disclose the fiber pigtail is the multi-clad fiber. However, Hao discloses using multi-clad fiber as a fiber pigtail ([0076]). An advantage is to use a known component. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kashiwagi in view of Yamaguchi with the fiber pigtail is the multi-clad fiber as disclosed by Hao in order to use a known component and since the Court has held simply substituting one known element (a fiber pigtail) with another known element (a multi-clad fiber pigtail) to obtain predictable results (both pigtails carry light to a fiber laser) requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 18, Kashiwagi further discloses the pigtail is further configured to couple the optical radiation at the first wavelength from the light source to the input fiber (Fig. 9 fibers connecting elements 11 and 32), wherein the first wavelength is in the visible spectrum ([0112]) and the fiber laser is configured to propagate the optical radiation through an output fiber to a workpiece (Abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Kashiwagi further discloses the fiber laser is a diode pumped fiber laser (Fig. 9 element 19).
Regarding claim 20, Kashiwagi in view of Yamaguchi in further view of Hao do not explicitly disclose the fiber laser is a counter-pumped fiber laser. However, the Office takes Official Notice that counter-pumped fiber lasers are well known in the art. An advantage, as is known in the art, is lower ASE losses in counter-pumped fiber lasers. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kashiwagi in view of Hao in further view of Fujita in further view of Sung in further view of Yamaguchi with the fiber laser is a counter-pumped fiber laser as is known in the art in order to provide lower ASE losses and since the Court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified (counter-pumping, co-pumping, or bidirectional pumping), predictable (all three function to pump a laser device with various known considerations) solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (all three have created viable fiber laser devices) requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 21, Kashiwagi does not explicitly disclose the protective element is configured to reflect optical radiation at the second wavelength in such a way as to direct the optical radiation away from the core. However, Yamaguchi discloses the protective element is configured to reflect optical radiation at the second wavelength in such a way as to direct the optical radiation away from the core(Fig. 2B element 12A; [0043]). An advantage is to help reduce the amount of light returned to the resonator ([0043]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention further modify Kashiwagi in view of Hao in further view of Fujita in further view of Sung with the protective element is configured to reflect optical radiation at the second wavelength in such a way as to direct the optical radiation away from the core as disclosed by Yamaguchi in order to help reduce the amount of light returned to the resonator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited. US20130020474A1 discloses a bidirectional pumping configuration. US20100202481 discloses known double and triple cladding fibers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10am-5pm MT.
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, Min Sun 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 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.
/Joshua King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 01/09/2026