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.
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 20, 22-24, 26, 29-30, and 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2002/0172486 (Fermann) in view of US 20127563 (Farmer).
For claim 20, Fermann discloses a section of an active optical fiber (see Fig.8 with par.24,80-82 and claims 3,6), comprising:
an active core doped with at least one rare-earth element, the active core having a first refractive index and being configured to support a single mode operation of an optical signal (fiber 1, fig. 4a, [0071], [0073]).
Fermann teaches the core may be multimode or single mode and 8 micron cores such as the one in fiber 1 are typically single mode. Further, even if the core of fiber 1 is determined not to be single mode, Farmer teaches single mode cores have advantages such as minimum beam expansion during propagation through free space and optimum focus ability ([0006]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form fiber 1 as a single mode fiber in order to provide minimum beam expansion during propagation through free space and optimum focus ability as taught by Farmer.
Fermann further teaches an inner cladding layer around the active core (fig. 2a and 4a, 1st cladding), the inner cladding layer having a second refractive index, wherein the second refractive index is less than the first refractive index (fig. 2a and 4a, first cladding);
an outer cladding layer around the inner cladding layer, the outer cladding layer having a third refractive index less than the second refractive index (fig. 2a and 4a, 2nd cladding or coating) wherein a birefringence of the active core is less than 10-5 (table 1, fiber 1).
Fermann does not teach a diameter of the active core changes gradually along a length of the section of the active optical fiber forming a tapered longitudinal profile in the embodiment of fiber 1.
However, Farmer does teach a diameter of the active core changes gradually along a length of the section of the active optical fiber forming a tapered longitudinal profile (fig. 1) in order to provide high power while reducing nonlinearities and preserving beam quality ([0012])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the taper off Farmer with the device of Fermann in order to provide high power while reducing nonlinearities and preserving beam quality.
Farmer further teaches a thickness of the inner cladding layer changes gradually along the tapered longitudinal profile (fig. 1, [0017], [0042]),
wherein a narrow end of the active core is configured to receive the optical signal (fig. 1, 122 and fig. 8, 802, [0060]) and wherein a wide end of the inner cladding layer is configured to receive a pump radiation (fig. 8, 804 and 806, [0018] and [0042]; see also, [0039] and [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pumping configuration of Farmer as a simple substitution for the pumping configuration of Fermann 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 pumping configuration. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
For claim 22, Farmer discloses a radius of a first portion of the active core is less than a radius of a second portion of the active core (fig. 1).
For claim 23, Farmer discloses the first portion of the active core satisfies a propagation condition for the single mode operation of the optical signal, and wherein the second portion of the active core supports multimode operation of the optical signal ([0052] and abstract).
For claim 24, Farmer discloses the first portion is single mode ([0052] and abstract) and the known propagation condition for single mode is 2πrNA/λ < 2.405, wherein r is the radius of the first portion the active core, NA is a numerical aperture of the first portion of the active core, and λ is a wavelength of the optical signal ([0006]). It is noted that while Farmer writes the definition of “V” in such a way that it is ambiguous whether 2πr/λ is multiplied by NA or NA is in the denominator, the V-number was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the V-number is (2πr/λ) x NA . Further, the inequality defines the cutoff for single mode so the inequality will be inherently met due to the first portion being single mode.
For claim 26, Farmer teaches the first portion of the active core is configured to receive pump radiation (fig. 7, pumps 704 and 706, [0018], [0038] and [0042]), and/or wherein the second portion of the active core is configured to receive the pump radiation (fig. 8, 804 and 806, [0018], [0039] and [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pumping configuration of Farmer as a simple substitution for the pumping configuration of Fermann 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 pumping configuration. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
For claim 29, Farmer teaches a first portion of the inner cladding layer around the first portion of the active core and a second portion of the inner cladding layer around the second portion of the active core, wherein a thickness of the first portion of the inner cladding layer is less than a thickness of the second portion of the inner cladding layer (fig. 1, [0017], [0042]).
For claim 30, Farmer teaches the first portion of the inner cladding layer is configured to receive the pump radiation (fig. 7, pumps 704 and 706, [0018] and [0042]), and/or wherein the second portion of the inner cladding layer is configured to receive the pump radiation (fig. 8, 804 and 806, [0018] and [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pumping configuration of Farmer as a simple substitution for the pumping configuration of Fermann 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 pumping configuration. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
For claim 33, Farmer teaches the pump radiation is configured to propagate in a substantially same direction as the optical signal (fig. 7, pumps 704 and 706, [0018] and [0042]) and/or in a substantially opposite direction to the optical signal (fig. 8, 804 and 806, [0018] and [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pumping configuration of Farmer as a simple substitution for the pumping configuration of Fermann 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 pumping configuration. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
For claim 34, Farmer teaches at least one pump radiation source (fig. 8, 806 and 804) optically connected to at least one pump radiation coupler (fig. 8, combiner 820), wherein the pump radiation coupler is configured to couple radiation from the pump radiation source to the active optical fiber (fig. 8, 808 704).
For claim 35, Fermann teaches the apparatus comprises a fiber laser device (fig. 8), further comprising: a first reflective mirror optically connected to a first end of the active optical fiber (fig. 8, SA on gold, [0080]).
For claim 36, Fermann teaches a second reflective mirror optically connected to a second end of the active optical fiber or to a second pump radiation coupler optically connected to the second end of the active optical fiber (fig. 8, [0080], right straight cleaved surface of fiber).
For claim 37, Farmer further teaches a fiber master oscillator power amplifier (fig. 7), further comprising: a seed laser source (fig. 7, 702, [0059]) optically connected to the pump coupler (fig. 7, [0705]), wherein the pump coupler is configured to couple light from the seed laser source to the active optical fiber (fig. 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at pages 5-6 that the applied references fail to disclose or suggest “a wide end of the inner cladding layer is configured to receive pump radiation.” Applicant acknowledges that fig. 6 and [0058] show pump light is coupled to the inner cladding of the active taper but states at page 6, paragraph 2 that fig. 6 does not teach which portion of the inner cladding. In fig. 8, the pump fibers are coupled into the active taper 808 at the right (i.e. wide end) of the active taper and inner cladding 812 [0060]. Given these descriptions and figures, one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded that the pump light is coupled into the inner cladding at the wide end of the inner cladding.
Applicant further argues at page 7-8 that farmer does not teach an active core with less than 10-5 and one would have no reason to modify Farmer’s tapered fiber based on Fermann (page 8, 3rd paragraph of remarks). However, the argument presumes that Farmer is modified by Fermann, and a motivation is required to have a value less than 10-5 as taught by Fermann. On the contrary though, Fermann is the primary reference in the rejection and already includes the claimed value. No modification of Fermann is required to suggest the claimed value.
Applicant further asserts, page 7, first paragraph, that modifying Fermann to include a taper would increase the birefringence. Applicant offers no evidence to support the assertion. Further, in the combination, the taper occurs only at a portion of the fiber, and it is unclear, without further evidence, whether the taper would affect the birefringence along the entire length of the fiber.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 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.
/Michael Carter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
