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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claim 1. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite “a plurality of input pigtail fibers each associated with one of the pump lasers, each of the input pigtail fibers comprising a cladding that is brightness-matched to a cladding of the associated pump laser and a core that is brightness-matched to a core of the associated pump laser; and a seed-carrying input pigtail fiber associated with the seed laser, the seed- carrying input pigtail fiber comprising a cladding that is size-matched to a cladding of the seed laser and a core that is brightness-matched to a core of the seed laser…wherein the Raman fiber amplifier is brightness-matched to the cladding of the tapered portion of the pump/seed combiner.” Applicant has cancelled claim 3 which previously recited “a brightness of the Raman fiber amplifier is configured to match to a brightness of the cladding of the tapered portion of the pump/seed combiner.” Applicant contends that [0049]-[0053] and [0060]-[0062] provide support for this amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that “etendue” refers to the product of core diameter and numerical aperture while brightness refers to “radiance or luminescence”. The Office agrees with applicant’s definition of etendue and that brightness can mean “radiance or luminescence” in the context of a beam of light. However, in the context of optical fibers “brightness-matched” refers to core diameters and numerical apertures of different optical fibers. See, e.g., US20180151998A1 [0005] “This type of combiner has a low brightness ratio because the input and output fibers are similar in brightness (i.e. core diameter, NA).” Furthermore, the art recognizes “brightness” and “etendue” are equivalent terms. See, e.g., US20170214209A1 [0019] “(but not so much larger that the brightness or Etendue is unnecessarily lost)”. The Office further notes that the applicants’ own specification supports the Offices interpretation and directly contradicts their assertion in the response. The Pre-Grant Publication of this application US202400063598A1 at [0053] provides “The design criterion of etendue (or spatial-brightness) matching between FC and the Raman fiber amplifier to which the FC exit fiber is fusion-spliced is further illustrated in FIG. 8 (emphasis added).” Finally, applicant has repeatedly described “brightness-matched”. For instance, US20230119153A11 at [0053] provides “In some embodiments, each of the input pigtail fibers 302a-302n, 304 is brightness matched to its associated exit delivery fiber 116 or 120, meaning each of the input pigtail fibers 302a-302n, 304 has the same or substantially the same core diameter and numerical aperture as its associated exit delivery fiber 116 or 120 (emphasis added).” Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive and the Office has updated the rejections based on applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 4-15, and 17-22 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 and 14 recite “a cladding that is brightness-matched to a cladding of the associated pump laser and a core that is brightness-matched to a core of the associated pump laser”. “Brightness-matched”, as is understood in the art of fiber lasers, means two fibers have the same or substantially the same core diameter and numerical aperture. 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 “brightness-matched” in claims 1 and 14 is used contrary to the accepted meaning is “two fibers have the same or substantially the same core diameter and numerical aperture.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 2, 4-15, and 17-22 are indefinite at least based on their dependence from claims 1 or 14.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (CN210779481U), hereafter Yao, in view of Liu et al. (“High-Power Operation of Silica-Based Raman Fiber Amplifier at 2147 nm”), hereafter Liu, in further view of Marciante (WO2015057482A1), hereafter Marciante.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Yao discloses a high-power Raman fiber laser (Title) comprising: a seed laser configured to operate in a first spectral window (Fig. 1 element 1; [0036]); a plurality of pump lasers, each including a cladding (Fig. 1 element 2; [0037]2) configured to operate in a spectral window ([0037]), a pump/seed combiner to combine outputs of the pump lasers and output of the seed laser (Fig. 1 element 3; Fig. 2; [0038]); the pump/seed combiner having a tapered portion including a cladding (Fig. 2 shows a combiner having an unlabeled cladding; [0038] describes the combiner as being tapered); a plurality of input pigtail fibers each associated with one of the pump lasers (Figs. 2 and 3; [0038]) each of the input pigtail fibers comprising a cladding (Figs. 2 and 3; [0038]); and a seed-carrying input pigtail fiber associated with the seed laser (Figs. 2 and 3; [0038]); and a Raman fiber amplifier having a core and a cladding surrounding the core (Fig. 1 element 4; [0040]), wherein the seed laser is launched into the core ([0005]; [0040]), and pump laser output beams are launched into the cladding ([0005]; [0011]). Yao does not explicitly disclose the fiber pump lasers comprising of thulium (Tm)doped fiber laser (TDFL), and configured to operate in a 1935-2020 nm spectral window; the Raman fiber amplifier configured to amplify the seed laser to produce an amplified output signal having a wavelength in the first spectral window, each of the input pigtail fibers cladding and core are brightness-matched to a core of the associated pump laser; the seed-carrying input fiber comprising a cladding that is size-matched to a cladding of the seed laser and a core that is brightness-matched to a core of the seed laser; and wherein a brightness of the cladding of the Raman fiber amplifier is configured to match to a combined brightness of the plurality of pump lasers. However, Liu discloses the fiber pump lasers comprising of thulium (Tm)doped fiber laser (TDFL) (Abstract “thulium-doped all-fiber MOPA”), and configured to operate in a 1935-2020 nm spectral window (Abstract “The 1963 nm thulium-doped all-fiber MOPA”); the Raman fiber amplifier configured to amplify the seed laser to produce an amplified output signal having a wavelength in the first spectral window (Abstract “a 2147 nm silica-based Raman fiber amplifier…seeded with a 2147 nm thulium-doped all-fiber laser at the same time”). An advantage is to provide the materials and wavelength for a large number of applications including LIDAR, gas sensing, and optical communication (Sec. 1 first full paragraph). 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 Yao with the fiber pump lasers comprising of thulium (Tm)doped fiber laser (TDFL), and configured to operate in a 1935-2020 nm spectral window; the Raman fiber amplifier configured to amplify the seed laser to produce an amplified output signal having a wavelength in the first spectral window as disclosed by Liu in order to provide the materials and wavelength for a large number of applications including LIDAR, gas sensing, and optical communication. Yao in view of Liu do not explicitly disclose wherein a brightness of the cladding of the Raman fiber amplifier is configured to match to a combined brightness of the plurality of pump lasers. However, Marciante discloses that the etendue of fibers should be matched to the associated laser (Abstract) and the etendue of the Raman amplifier should be equal to the etendue of the pump source (Abstract). An advantage is to increase the pump intensity in the Raman amplifier ([0010]). 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 Yao in view of Liu with each of the input pigtail fibers cladding and core are brightness-matched to a core of the associated pump laser; the seed-carrying input fiber comprising a cladding that is size-matched to a cladding of the seed laser and a core that is brightness-matched to a core of the seed laser; and wherein a brightness of the cladding of the Raman fiber amplifier is configured to match to a combined brightness of the plurality of pump lasers as disclosed by Marciante in order to increase the pump intensity in the Raman amplifier. Yao further discloses maintaining the brightness at a fusion point between the combiner and the Raman fiber ([0008]). Additionally, Marciante discloses that the etendue of the Raman amplifier should be equal to the etendue of the pump source (Abstract) in order to increase the pump intensity in the Raman amplifier ([0010]). 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 Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante with a brightness of the Raman fiber amplifier is configured to match to a brightness of the cladding of the tapered portion of the pump/seed combiner, since Yao discloses maintaining brightness at a fusion point between the combiner and the Raman fiber and Marciante discloses etendue of the Raman amplifier should be equal to the etendue of the pump source in order to increase the pump intensity in the Raman amplifier.
Regarding claim 2, Liu further discloses the first spectral window comprises wavelengths in 2100-2200 nm range (Abstract). Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante do not explicitly disclose Tm-doping concentration of each of the plurality of pump lasers is equal or greater than 5% wt. However, the Office takes Official Notice that the optimization of dopant concentration is well known in the art in order to balance factors such as absorption and gain versus quenching and heat generation. 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 Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante with Tm-doping concentration of each of the plurality of pump lasers is equal or greater than 5% wt, since it is known in the art to optimize the dopant concentration in order to balance factors such as absorption and gain versus quenching and heat generation and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, Yao further discloses the pump/seed combiner is fusion-spliced with the Raman fiber amplifier ([0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante do not explicitly disclose a number of the plurality of pump lasers Nmax is given by:
N
m
a
x
=
d
r
*
N
A
R
d
T
D
F
L
*
N
A
T
D
F
L
2
where, dR and NAR denote the pump-cladding diameter and pump-cladding numerical aperture (NA) of the Raman fiber amplifier, and where dTDFL and NATDFL denote the core diameter and core NA of the terminal fiber in each of the pump TDFLs. However, Yao discloses optimizing the number of pump lasers (Compare the number of pump fibers in each of Fig. 2) and limiting the mode field mismatch between the beam combiner and Raman fiber ([0008]) in order to maintain the brightness of the laser ([0008]). 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 Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante with a number of the plurality of pump lasers Nmax is given by:
N
m
a
x
=
d
r
*
N
A
R
d
T
D
F
L
*
N
A
T
D
F
L
2
where, dR and NAR denote the pump-cladding diameter and pump-cladding numerical aperture (NA) of the Raman fiber amplifier, and where dTDFL and NATDFL denote the core diameter and core NA of the terminal fiber in each of the pump TDFLs, since Yao discloses optimizing the number of pump lasers and limiting the mode field mismatch between the beam combiner and Raman fiber in order to maintain the brightness of the laser and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante do not explicitly disclose a cladding-to-mode area ratio (CMAR) of the Raman fiber amplifier is selected to limit a cladding to mode diameter ratio between 2.5 - 2.8. However, the Office takes Official Notice that optimizing a cladding-to-mode area ratio (CMAR) of optical fibers is well known in the art in order to balance pump absorption efficiency in the fiber and ease of coupling light into the fiber. 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 Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante with a cladding-to-mode area ratio (CMAR) of the Raman fiber amplifier is selected to limit a cladding to mode diameter ratio between 2.5 - 2.8, since it is known in the art to optimize a cladding-to-mode area ratio (CMAR) of optical fibers in order to balance pump absorption efficiency in the fiber and ease of coupling light into the fiber and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante do not explicitly disclose the core of the Raman fiber amplifier has an effective fundamental-mode field diameter of 5µm or greater. However, the Office takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to optimize the effective fundamental-mode field diameter of an optical fiber laser to balance coupling efficiency and increased bending losses. 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 Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante with the core of the Raman fiber amplifier has an effective fundamental-mode field diameter of 5µm or greater as is known in the art in order to balance coupling efficiency and increased bending losses and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 15, Liu further discloses the first spectral window comprises wavelengths in 2100-2200 nm range (Abstract) and the second spectral window comprises wavelengths in 1935-2020 nm range (Abstract “The 1963 nm thulium-doped all-fiber MOPA”). Yao in view of Liu do not explicitly disclose Tm-doping concentration of each of the plurality of pump lasers is equal or greater than 5% wt. However, the Office takes Official Notice that the optimization of dopant concentration is well known in the art in order to balance factors such as absorption and gain versus quenching and heat generation. 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 Yao in view of Liu with Tm-doping concentration of each of the plurality of pump lasers is equal or greater than 5% wt, since it is known in the art to optimize the dopant concentration in order to balance factors such as absorption and gain versus quenching and heat generation and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 18, Yao in view of Liu do not explicitly disclose a cladding-to-mode area ratio (CMAR) of the Raman fiber amplifier is selected to limit a cladding to mode diameter ratio between 2.5 - 2.8. However, the Office takes Official Notice that optimizing a cladding-to-mode area ratio (CMAR) of optical fibers is well known in the art in order to balance pump absorption efficiency in the fiber and ease of coupling light into the fiber. 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 Yao in view of Liu with a cladding-to-mode area ratio (CMAR) of the Raman fiber amplifier is selected to limit a cladding to mode diameter ratio between 2.5 - 2.8, since it is known in the art to optimize a cladding-to-mode area ratio (CMAR) of optical fibers in order to balance pump absorption efficiency in the fiber and ease of coupling light into the fiber and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 6, 7, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante, as applied to claim 1, in further view of McCahon et al. (US20220239055A1), hereafter McCahon.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante do not explicitly disclose the seed laser is configured to output a sequence of pulses having a duration of 1-3 nano seconds or shorter that are time-synchronized and temporally overlapped with pulses produced by the plurality of pump lasers. However, McCahon discloses the seed laser is configured to output a sequence of pulses having a duration of 1-3 nano seconds or shorter (Fig. 6 elements 620) that are time-synchronized and temporally overlapped with pulses produced by the plurality of pump lasers ([0060]). An advantage is to provide short high power pulses based on the intended use of the device ([0006]). 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 Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante with the seed laser is configured to output a sequence of pulses having a duration of 1-3 nano seconds or shorter that are time-synchronized and temporally overlapped with pulses produced by the plurality of pump lasers as disclosed by McCahon in order to provide short high power pulses based on the intended use of the device.
Regarding claim 7, Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante in further view of McCahon do not explicitly disclose a pulse waveform corresponding to the sequence of pulses output by the seed laser comprises a high pulse repetition frequency of 100 MHz or higher and a pulse duty factor of 1% or higher. However, McCahon further discloses optimizing the pulse repetition rate and pulse duty factor based on intended use ([0055]-[0056]). 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 Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante in further view of McCahon with a pulse waveform corresponding to the sequence of pulses output by the seed laser comprises a high pulse repetition frequency of 100 MHz or higher and a pulse duty factor of 1% or higher, since McCahon discloses optimizing the pulse repetition rate and pulse duty factor based on intended use and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 21, Yao further discloses a master oscillator configured to emit a master oscillator signal within the first spectral window ([0044]); a doped laser source configured to emit a pumped signal ([0044]) a combiner configured to combine the master oscillator signal and the pumped signal ([0044]); and a second Raman fiber amplifier coupled to the combiner (Fig. 6; [0044]). Liu discloses the fiber pump lasers comprising of thulium (Tm)doped fiber laser (TDFL) (Abstract “thulium-doped all-fiber MOPA”). McCahon further discloses the master oscillator signal including pulses; including pulses having a same shape and duration as and time-synchronized to the pulses generated by the master oscillator ([0060])
Claims 10-13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante, as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, in further view of Gapontsev et al. (WO2019013862A2), hereafter Gapontsev.
Regarding claim 10, Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante do not explicitly disclose the Raman fiber amplifier is configured such that a favored fundamental mode in the Raman fiber amplifier has a higher gain than any other mode in the Raman fiber amplifier. However, Gapontsev discloses the Raman fiber amplifier is configured such that a favored fundamental mode in the Raman fiber amplifier has a higher gain than any other mode in the Raman fiber amplifier ([0025]). An advantage is to select the desired mode of the device based on intended use ([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 further modify Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante with the Raman fiber amplifier is configured such that a favored fundamental mode in the Raman fiber amplifier has a higher gain than any other mode in the Raman fiber amplifier as disclosed by Gapontsev in order to to select the desired mode of the device based on intended use.
Regarding claim 11, Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante do not explicitly disclose a central portion of the core of Raman fiber amplifier is doped with GeO2, and wherein a fraction of the core diameter including the GeO2 doping and a magnitude of the GeO2 concentration within the fraction of the core diameter, are both varied to achieve a desired gain filtering. However, Gapontsev discloses doping a central portion of the core of the Raman fiber amplifier with GeO2, wherein a fraction of the core diameter doped with GeO2 and a magnitude of the GeO2 concentration within the fraction of the core diameter are varied to achieve a desired gain filtering ([0025]). An advantage is to achieve higher gain for the fundamental mode ([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 further modify Yao in view of Liu with doping a central portion of the core of the Raman fiber amplifier with GeO2, wherein a fraction of the core diameter doped with GeO2 and a magnitude of the GeO2 concentration within the fraction of the core diameter are varied to achieve a desired gain filtering as disclosed by Gapontsev in order to achieve higher gain for the fundamental mode.
Regarding claim 12, Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante do not explicitly disclose a portion of the core of Raman fiber amplifier that is outside of the GeO2 doping is doped with alumina (Al203). However, Gapontsev further discloses a portion of the core of Raman fiber amplifier is doped with GeO2 ([0025]). An advantage is to achieve higher gain for the fundamental mode ([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 further modify Yao in view of Liu with a portion of the core of Raman fiber amplifier is doped with GeO2 as disclosed by Gapontsev in order to achieve higher gain for the fundamental mode. Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante in further view of Gapontsev do not explicitly disclose a portion of the core of Raman fiber amplifier that is outside of the GeO2 doping is doped with alumina (Al203). However, the Office takes Official Notice that doping with alumina is well known in the art to optimize the refractive index profile of optical fibers. 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 Yao in view of Liu in further view of Marciante in further view of Gapontsev with a portion of the core of Raman fiber amplifier that is outside of the GeO2 doping is doped with alumina (Al203) as is known in the art in order to optimize the refractive index profile of the fiber.
Regarding claim 13, Gapontsev further discloses controlling gain filtering in the Raman fiber amplifier based on at least two of: GeO2 concentration in the core, spatial variation of the GeO2 concentration between a plurality of regions of the core, a pump-cladding refractive index, core and pump-cladding diameters, and the core and cladding numerical apertures ([0025]).
Regarding claim 19, Yao in view of Liu do not explicitly disclose doping a central portion of the core of the Raman fiber amplifier with GeO2, wherein a fraction of the core diameter doped with GeO2 and a magnitude of the GeO2 concentration within the fraction of the core diameter are varied to achieve a desired gain filtering. However, Gapontsev discloses doping a central portion of the core of the Raman fiber amplifier with GeO2, wherein a fraction of the core diameter doped with GeO2 and a magnitude of the GeO2 concentration within the fraction of the core diameter are varied to achieve a desired gain filtering ([0025]). An advantage is to achieve higher gain for the fundamental mode ([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 further modify Yao in view of Liu with doping a central portion of the core of the Raman fiber amplifier with GeO2, wherein a fraction of the core diameter doped with GeO2 and a magnitude of the GeO2 concentration within the fraction of the core diameter are varied to achieve a desired gain filtering as disclosed by Gapontsev in order to achieve higher gain for the fundamental mode.
Regarding claim 20, Gapontsev further discloses controlling gain filtering in the Raman fiber amplifier based on at least two of: GeO2 concentration in the core, spatial variation of the GeO2 concentration between a plurality of regions of the core, a pump-cladding refractive index, core and pump-cladding diameters, and the core and cladding numerical apertures ([0025]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited.
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 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 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.
/Joshua King/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 05/30/2026
1 US20230119153A1 share a common inventor, Fabio Di Teodore, and a common applicant, Raytheon Company.
2 The Office notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the doped fiber lasers described in [0037] to have a cladding in order to form an optical fiber.
Prosecution Insights