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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 has been entered.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0067453 (Mizuuchi) in view of US 2018/0246339 (Marciante) and US 2009/0245303 (Shimotsu).
For claim 1, Mizuuchi teaches a multicore oscillator (fig. 14(a)-14(b)), comprising:
an active fiber (fig. 14(a)/(b), 122, [0122]) that includes:
an inner cladding (fig. 14(b), 127);
an outer cladding surrounding the inner cladding (fig. 14(b), portion surrounding 127, [0254]); and
a plurality of active fiber cores, embedded in the inner cladding, configured to convert pump light into signal light (fig. 14(b), 126a/b);
a reflector configured to operate as a high reflector (HR) on an input side of each of the active fiber core of the plurality of active fiber cores (fig. 14(a), 104, [0250]); and
a plurality of second FBGs wherein each second FBG of the plurality of second FBGs is configured to operate as an output coupler (OC) on an output side of a respective active fiber core of the plurality of active fiber cores (fig. 14(a), 123a/b).
Mizuuchi does not teach the reflector configured to operate as a high reflector (HR) on an input side of each of the active fiber core of the plurality of active fiber cores is a plurality of first fiber Bragg gratings (FBGs) wherein each first FBG of the plurality of first FBG is configured to operate as a high reflector (HR) on an input side of a respective fiber core of the plurality of active fiber cores,
wherein, for each active fiber core of the plurality of active fiber cores, a respective first FBG of the plurality of first FBGs and a respective second FBG of the plurality of second FBGs are configured to reflect a respective single mode of the signal light in the active fiber core.
Mizuuchi also does not specify the dimensions of the fiber core in the embodiment of fig. 14 (a) and (b).
However, Marciante teaches a similar device (fig. 3 and 4) wherein the high reflector on the input side is a FBG (fig. 3, FBG1) and the device is a multicore oscillator (fig. 4, Tm-doped cores) with single mode cores ([0063]) and a plurality of first fiber Bragg gratings (FBGs) wherein each first FBG of the plurality of first FBG is configured to operate as a high reflector (HR) on an input side of a respective fiber core of the plurality of active fiber cores ([0063], “separate FBGs are written into each core”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use single mode cores and separate FBGs for each core as taught by Marciante as a simple substitution for the unspecified core and input reflector of Mizuuchi as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative core and input reflector to generate signal light. See MPEP 2143 I.B. An additional benefit is that using FBGs avoids an additional manufacturing process of applying a multilayer mirror to the fiber and single mode cores prevent additional transverse modes which lower efficiency and makes high reflectivity difficult.
The combination of separate FBGs and single mode fiber cores results in the claimed limitation “the plurality of first FBGs and a respective second FBG of the plurality of second FBGs are configured to reflect a respective single mode of the signal light in the active fiber core” because the cores support a single mode and the first and second FBGs reflect the single modes of the signal light.
The combination of Mizuuchi and Marciante the output side of the multicore oscillator is spliced to a passive bridge fiber that includes a single large core having a dimension that fully encircles the plurality of active fiber cores.
However, Shimotsu teaches the output side of multiple cores (fig. 5 and 6, 3i-3l) are spliced to a passive bridge fiber that includes a single large core (fig. 5 and 6, fiber 5 with core 5b) having a dimension that fully encircles the plurality of multiple cores (fig. 5 and 6, [0044]) in order to reduce coherence length and reduce speckle ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a passive bridge fiber with a single large core as taught by Shimotsu with the device of the previous combination such that the output side of the previous combination’s multiple cores (i.e. the output side of the multicore oscillator) are spliced to the single large core fiber with a dimension which fully encircles the plurality of multiple cores (i.e. the active fiber cores of the previous combination) in order to reduce coherence length and reduce speckle.
For claim 2, Mizuuchi’s embodiment of fig. 14 does not teach a respective first FBG of the plurality of first FBGs and a respective second FBG of the plurality of second FBGs are directly written into each active fiber core of the plurality of active fiber cores.
However, Mizuuchi teaches a FBG may be directly written into fiber cores in order to avoid alignment issues ([0256]). It, therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first FBGs and the second FBGs directly written into each active fiber core of the plurality of active fiber cores in order to avoid alignment issues.
Marciante also teaches the first FBGs and the second FBGs are directly written into each of the multiple single mode active fiber cores ([0063]).
For claim 3, the combination does not teach each first FBG of the plurality of first FBGs is included in a respective core of a first passive fiber spliced to the input side of the plurality of active fiber cores.
However, Mizuuchi generally teaches multiple FBGs are included in each core of a passive fiber spliced to the active fiber cores as with the second FBGs. Mizuuchi further teaches that forming FBGs within the doped core can result in wavelength fluctuation ([0256]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form each first FBG of the plurality of first FBGs included in a respective core of a first passive fiber spliced to the input side of the plurality of active fiber cores in order to avoid wavelength fluctuation.
Marciante also teaches forming the grating in the active material or a spliced passive material ([0057]).
For claim 4, Mizuuchi teaches the plurality of first FBGs and the plurality of second FBGs are fabricated for different wavelengths ([0259]).
For claim 5, the combination inherently teaches the plurality of active fiber cores are separated from one another within the inner cladding to satisfy a threshold level of crosstalk. Note that “a threshold level of cross talk” can be arbitrarily set. Further, regardless of where the level is set, the specification, at [0043], states that the phrase “satisfy a threshold” may refer to substantially any relationship including greater than, less than, or equal to. The all-inclusive nature of the phrase means that the separation of cores will necessarily “satisfy a threshold level of cross talk.”
For claim 6, Mizuuchi teaches the plurality of active fiber cores are associated with one or more of a uniform separation, a uniform core size, or a uniform doping (fig. 14(a)(b), uniform separation between 126a and 126b along the length of the fiber 122).
For claim 7, Mizuuchi teaches the plurality of active fiber cores are associated with one or more of different separations, different core sizes, or different doping ([0254]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 11-22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: claims 8 and 11-22 are allowed based on applicant’s arguments submitted 12/16/2025. In particular, see page 9, paragraphs 5-6.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-78, 10-11, 13-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that independent claim 1 as well as its dependent claims have been amended to include the limitations of previously indicated allowable subject matter; however, claim 1 does not include all the limitations of previous claim 9 as it does not include all the limitations of the claim from which claim 9 depended.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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 contact the examiner at the above number.
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.
/Michael Carter/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights