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 Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges amended claims 1 and 3 as well as cancelation of claims 2 and 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 03/16/2026 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.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 6: Chen does not anticipate:
wherein an output ratio of the first light to the laser light from the first reflecting unit input to the divider is 80% or higher and 99% or lower: the Examiner disagree because Chen teaches a splitter 455 in Fig. 4 with a splitting ratio S of 1 when laser emits either light1 or light 2, see column 8 lines 23-25 states, therefore the ratio is higher than 80%.
between the divider and the second end portion, only a waveguide which propagates the second light without performing amplification is provided: the Examiner disagree with the Applicant because Chen in Fig. 4 light1 is not being amplified.
the first end portion and the second end portion are respectively positioned at a first end and a second end of a longitudinal length of the laser device: the Examiner disagree with the Applicant because Chen’s modified in the view of Kurobe would have the curve portion that would allow to have both ends positioned in a longitudinal lenght, see rejection below;
light that has not been optically coupled to either a waveguide for the first light or a waveguide for the second light at the divider becomes stray light: the Examiner disagree with the Applicant because it is inherent that the light not been optically coupled would become stray light;
a first direction in which the first end portion is present in relation to the divider and a second direction in which the second end portion is present in relation to the divider are different from each other so that a mixing of the stray light into the second light output from the second end portion is reduced: Chen’s modified device in the view of Satoh would teach that stray light is reduced by adding a filter, see rejection below;
the waveguide for the second light has a curved portion; and
light output from the second end portion is weaker than light output from the first end portion: Chen teaches a ration S, column 8 lines 23-25 , therefore in the case when laser 400 emits light 1 with S=1; light 2 is close to zero therefore light2 is weaker than light 1.
the stray light travels in a direction of light input from the first reflecting unit to the divider: it is inherent that a laser would produce stray light also called unwanted light in gain 405 and would be travel in the direction of the light is propagated.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 7:
Paragraph 2 “Kurobe simply does not disclose an output ratio of the first light to the laser light from the first reflecting unit input to the divider is 80% or higher and 99% or lower”: Examiner disagree since Chen teaches this line, see above and claim 1 rejection.
Paragraph 3 “Kurobe cannot be relied upon to teach the feature wherein "between the divider and the second end portion, only a waveguide that propagates the second light without performing amplification is provided"”: Chen teaches that portion see above and claim 1 rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 8:
“Kurobe does not define the traveling direction of stray light …It is uncertain if or how Kurobe can prevent or reduced the influence caused by stray light…Kurobe does not teach that a mixing of the stray light into the second light output from second end portion is reduce”. It is inherent that the stray light would travel in the direction of the beam: The Examiner agrees with the Applicant that Kurobe or Chen does not teach that the stray light is reduced; however, Chen’s modify device in the view of Sathoh teaches that the stray light is reduced by adding a filter, see rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Chen (US Patent US-9509119-B2) in the view of Kurobe (US Patent US-20150103853-A1), hereinafter Kurobe, and Satoh (US Patent US-4949347-A), hereinafter Satoh.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a laser device (Fig. 4 tunable laser 400), comprising:
a first reflecting unit (Fig. 4 reflector 403);
a second reflecting unit (Fig. 4 mirror 407);
a gain unit (Fig. 4 gain medium 405) provided between the first reflecting unit and the second reflecting unit (gain medium 405 is between 403 and 407);
a divider (Fig. 4 splitter 455) provided after the first reflecting unit (splitter 455 is positioned on the side of reflector 403 where laser light is generated by the gain medium 405; hence, splitter 455 is provided after reflector 403) and configured to divide laser light (column 7 lines 21-30 states “The first power splitter 455 receives an input light from the bandpass filter 420, splits the input light into two light”; therefore splitter 455 divides laser light) from the first reflecting unit ( column 5 lines 66-67 & column 6 lines 1-3 states “When a light travels from the gain medium 405 to the reflector 403, depending on R.sub.R, the reflector 403 reflects a first portion of the light back to the gain medium 405”; therefore, a portion of laser light travels from reflector 403 to splitter 455 since the light back to the gain medium 405 will travel till reach splitter 455 since it is a resonator; consequently, splitter 455 divides the laser light from reflector 403) into
first light (Fig. 1 Light 1; light 1 is a laser light ,see column 5 lines 53-55, that comes after laser light is split by splitter 455 since laser light 1 depends of the splitting ratio “S” of splitter 455, , see column 7 line 45 for definition of “S” and column 8 lines 24-26 for relation of “S” with light 1)and
second light (Fig. 1 Light 2; light 2 is a laser light ,see column 5 lines 53-55, that comes after laser light is split by splitter 455 since laser light 2 depends of the splitting ratio “S” of splitter 455, see column 7 line 45 for definition of “S” and column 8 lines 24-26 for relation of “S” with light 2);
a first end portion positioned separately from the divider (Fig. 4 first end portion, see annotated figure below, is positioned separately from splitter 455) in a first direction (Fig. 4 first direction to be the dotted arrow from light 1), and positioned after the divider (first end portion from annotated figure below is positioned after the splitter 455 because light 1 is coming out from the first portion after laser light is being divided by splitter 455; see column 5 lines 66-67 & column 6 lines 1-3 ); the first end portion being configured to output, as output light, the first light (Fig. 4 first end portion is configured to output “light 1”) or the first light that has been amplified; and
a second end portion positioned separately from the divider in a second direction different from the first direction (Fig. 4 second end portion, see annotated figure below, is positioned separately from splitter 455 in the direction indicated by the dotted arrow which is different from the direction of the first end portion), the second end portion being configured to output the second light (Fig. 4 second end portion from annotated figure below is configured to output “light 2”);
an output ratio of the first light to the laser light from the first reflecting unit input to the divider is 80% or higher (column 8 lines 23-25 states “splitter 455 has a splitting ratio S….The laser emits either light.sub.1 or light.sub.2. to emit light.sub.1, the laser 400 is designed so that R.sub.R is low, S is 1, and R.sub.CR is 100%”) and 99% or lower
between the divider and the second end portion, only a waveguide which propagates the second light without performing amplification is provided (Fig. 4 first end portion is configured to output “light 1” and it is not amplified);
light that has not been optically coupled to either a waveguide for the first light or a waveguide for the second light at the divider becomes stray light (it is inherent that light that has not optically couple to a waveguide would become a stray light);
a first direction in which the first end portion (Fig. 4 direction of Light1, see annotated figure below) is present in relation to the divider (first portion is in relation of the divider 455 , since laser light 1 depends of the splitting ratio “S” of splitter 455, see column 8 lines 24-26) and a second direction (Fig. 4 direction of Light2 see annotated figure below) in which the second end portion is present in relation to the divider (second portion is in relation of the divider 455 , since laser light 2 depends of the splitting ratio “S” of splitter 455, see column 8 lines 24-26) are different from each other (direction of Light 1 is different from direction of Light 2);
light output from the second end portion (Fig. 4 Light 2) is weaker than light output from the first end portion (column 8 lines 23-25 states “splitter 455 has a splitting ratio S….The laser emits either light.sub.1 or light.sub.2. to emit light.sub.1, the laser 400 is designed so that R.sub.R is low, S is 1, and R.sub.CR is 100%”; therefore in the case when laser 400 emits light 1 with S=1; light 2 is close to zero therefore light2 is weaker than light 1);
a mixing of the stray light into the second light output from the second end portion (it is inherent that the stray light would keep travel after the diver; therefore it is inherent that there is a mixing of the stray light into the light 2 of the second portion, see annotated figure below)
the stray light travels in a direction of light input from the first reflecting unit to the divider (Fig. 4 stray light travels in the direction of the light input of reflector 403 to splitter 455 since it is inherent that a laser would produce stray light also called unwanted light in gain 405 and would be travel in the direction of the light is propagated).
PNG
media_image1.png
495
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen fails to teach a mixing of the stray light into the second light output from the second end portion is reduced, the waveguide for the second light has a curved portion; the first end portion and the second end portion are respectively positioned at a first end and a second end of a longitudinal length of the laser device.
Kurobe teaches a waveguide having a curved portion (Fig. 13 U-shaped branch portion 23b).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s device with a waveguide having a curved portion as taught by Kurobe to have the first end portion and the second end position are respectively positioned at one end and another end of a longitudinal length of the laser device (e.g. having the second end portion to be located so that light 2 exits parallel and in the opposite direction of light 1, see annotated figure below) because having a U-shaped branch would allow to control the direction of the laser light to a desire location.
PNG
media_image2.png
519
1105
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chen’s device modified above fails to teach a mixing of the stray light into the second light output from the second end portion is reduced.
However, Satoh teaches stray light is reduced (column 6 lines 41-59 states “Stray light due to the pumping light was reduced by a filter 18 ”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen’s device in the view of Kurobe to reduce the stray light as taught by Satoh (e.g. having filter in the path of light 2 after 447 in Fig. 4) because it would improve the output signal by blocking unwanted light.
Regarding claim 5, Chen’s modified device teaches the laser device according to claim 1, wherein the second reflecting unit (from Chen Fig. mirror 407) is a ring resonator filter (from Chen Fig. mirror 407 is a ring resonator since mirror 407 includes a ring resonator 453).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDA ADRIANA CAMACHO ALANIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm Friday off.
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, 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.
/FERNANDA ADRIANA CAMACHO ALANIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights