DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 3 October 2022. By amendment received 27 April 2026; claims 1 through 20 are cancelled and claims 21 through 23 are added. Claims 21 through 23 are addressed by this 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the objections to the drawings are overcome by the amendments to the drawings and disclosure. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding objections are withdrawn. However, upon consideration of the amended drawings, new objections are warranted. As such, new objections have been formulated as set forth below.
Applicant argues that the amendment cancelling claims 1 through 20 render all objections and rejections of these claims moot. This argument is persuasive and the corresponding objections and rejections are withdrawn. However, upon search and consideration of the new claims, new art has been located. As such, new rejections are formulated as set forth below.
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3).
The drawings include numbers that either cross or mingle with lead lines in Figures 8A and 8B. Numbers, letters, and reference characters should not cross or mingle with the lines.
Specifically, a lead line to "107" crosses that number in Figure 8A while lead lines and brackets mingle with the numbers "109", "110", "113", and "111" in Figure 8B. These deficiencies can be corrected by shifting the numbers somewhat away from the features or truncating the lead lines.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4).
The drawings refer to more than one part each with the reference character "116". The same part of an invention must be designated with the same reference character throughout the drawings.
In the present case, reference character "116" directs to a pair of splices as well as a fiber in Figure 8B. The lead line to the right instance of "116" should be changed to direct to the third splice as a preferred method of overcoming this objection. Other changes could also overcome this objection.
In line with the above drawing objections, it is noted that the numbering in Figures 8A and 8B are inconsistent with the numbering in the remainder of the drawings in that the numbering in only these figures appears to be hand drawn. Further, the lead lines to reference characters "105" and "113" are attached to the drawing in a way that causes them to resemble the fiber ends to which they are attached. If possible, it would be appreciated if edits to these figures to comply with the above objections also addressed these issues by rendering the numbering more in line with the remainder of the drawings and by creating a small gap between the noted lead lines and the parts to which they are directed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 23 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.
Regarding claim 23, this claim requires "Wherein after the repetition rate of the mode-locked laser has been set by the mode locking device, the position of the collimator is fixed in place via glue." However, parent claim 21 requires "Wherein a position of the collimator relative to the package is adjustable by sliding the collimator." The use of glue to fix the collimator in place would render the collimator no longer adjustable. Accordingly, this claim cannot simultaneously require the collimator be both adjustable and fixed in place. As such, this claim is of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon 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
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.
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 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (Lin, US Patent 6,097,741), in view of Fermann et al. (Fermann, US Patent 5,627,848), in view of Pedersen et al. (Pedersen, US Pub. 2011/0019701), and further in view of Nakae et al. (Nakae, US Pub. 2004/0213305).
Regarding claim 21, Lin discloses, "Altering a repetition rate of a mode-locked laser" (col. 8, lines 46-50 and Fig. 1, pt. 100). "An optical fiber adapted to be connected to the mode-locked laser while the mode-locked laser is operating and is mode-locked" (col. 8, lines 35-37 and Fig. 1, pt. 121a). "A collimator" (col. 8, lines 35-37 and Fig. 1, pt. 121). "The collimator having a portion of the optical fiber therein" (col. 8, lines 35-37 and Fig. 1, pts. 120, 121, and 121a). "The collimator providing collimated light" (col. 8, lines 35-39 and Fig. 1, pt. 121). "A focusing lens" (col. 8, lines 39-45 and Fig. 1, pt. 123). "A piezoelectric material controlled by an applied voltage" (col. 8, lines 58-62). "SESAM mounted on the piezoelectric material" (col. 8, lines 58-62). "Wherein the collimator is configured to launch said light at an angle substantially normal to a surface of the SESAM" (Fig. 1, pts. 121 and 125). Lin does not explicitly disclose, "The dichroic mirror positioned between the collimator and the focusing lens." "The dichroic mirror positioned between the pump light collimator and the focusing lens." "The dichroic mirror configured to receive both the collimated pump light from the pump light collimator and the collimated light from the collimator." "Wherein the dichroic mirror reflects a wavelength of the collimated pump light and transmits a lasing wavelength of the collimated light." Fermann discloses, "The dichroic mirror positioned between the collimator and the focusing lens" (col. 8, lines 17-19 and Fig. 9, pts. 109, 112, and 502). "The dichroic mirror positioned between the pump light collimator and the focusing lens" (col. 4, lines 41-44, col. 8, lines 17-20, and Fig. 9, pts. 103, 108, and 502). "The dichroic mirror configured to receive both the collimated pump light from the pump light collimator and the collimated light from the collimator" (col. 8, lines 17-19 and Fig. 9, pts. 108, 109, and 502). "Wherein the dichroic mirror reflects a wavelength of the collimated pump light and transmits a lasing wavelength of the collimated light" (col. 8, lines 17-19 and Fig. 9, pt. 502, in which the pump light from 103 is reflected by 502 and signal light from 101 is transmitted by 502). 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 teachings of Lin with the teachings of Fermann. In view of the teachings of Lin regarding a fiber laser in which pump light is injected via a fiber coupler, the alternate means of injecting pump light through the use of a free space dichroic mirror as taught by Fermann would enhance the teachings of Lin by indicating a suitably alternate pump injecting means that may be substituted for the existing pump injection means so as to achieve the predictable result of providing pump power to the laser system.
The combination of Lin and Fermann does not explicitly disclose, "A package having a free-space cavity defined therein." "A pump light collimator providing collimated pump light into the free space cavity." "A dichroic mirror positioned in the free space cavity of the package." Pedersen discloses, "A package having a free-space cavity defined therein" (p. [0069] and Fig. 9, pts. 10, 83, and 92). "A pump light collimator providing collimated pump light into the free space cavity" (p. [0069] and Fig. 9, pts. 88, 91, and 92, where injection of pump light of Fermann between the collimating and focusing lenses requires that injection to take place in the cavity between lens 88 and lens 91 of Pedersen). "A dichroic mirror positioned in the free space cavity of the package" (p. [0069] and Fig. 9, pts. 88, 91, and 92, where employing the dichroic mirror of Fermann between the collimating and focusing lenses requires the dichroic mirror to be placed in the cavity between lens 88 and lens 91 of Pedersen). 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 teachings of the combination of Lin and Fermann with the teachings of Pedersen. In view of the teachings of Lin regarding the use of a saturable absorber reflector with associated free space optics connected to a fiber laser, the additional inclusion of a package containing the saturable absorber and free space optics and connected to the laser fiber as taught by Pedersen would enhance the teachings of Lin and Fermann by allowing the free space optics to be relatively fixed and protected from the surroundings of the laser device.
The combination of Lin, Fermann, and Pedersen does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a position of the collimator relative to the package is adjustable by sliding the collimator." Nakae discloses, "Wherein a position of the collimator relative to the package is adjustable by sliding the collimator" (p. [0168] and Fig. 1A, pts. 1 and 21, where the fiber and collimator arrangement of Lin is adjustable in the context of the package of Pedersen using the adjustment technique of Nakae). 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 teachings of the combination of Lin, Fermann, and Pedersen with the teachings of Nakae. In view of the teachings of Lin regarding the use of a saturable absorber reflector with associated free space optics connected to a fiber laser and the teachings of Pedersen regarding the enclosure of such elements within a package, the additional adjustment of a lens that couples light from a package to a fiber as taught by Nakae would enhance the teachings of Lin, Fermann, and Pedersen by allowing adjustment of the optical alignment and configuration of the laser device so as to produce a desired operation.
Regarding claim 22, The combination of Lin, Fermann, and Pedersen does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein adjustment of the position of the collimator changes the repetition rate of the mode-locked laser." Nakae discloses, "Wherein adjustment of the position of the collimator changes the repetition rate of the mode-locked laser" (p. [0168], where the adjustment of Nakae applied to the lens of Lin alters the cavity length of Lin and thereby the repetition rate of Lin per col. 8, lines 56-58 of Lin). 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 teachings of the combination of Lin, Fermann, and Pedersen with the teachings of Nakae for the reasons provided above regarding claim 21.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of Fermann, in view of Pedersen, in view of Nakae, and further in view of Shyu et al. (Shyu, US Pub. 2007/0147461).
Regarding claim 23, The combination of Lin, Fermann, Pedersen, and Nakae does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein after the repetition rate of the mode-locked laser has been set by the mode locking device, the position of the collimator is fixed in place via glue." Shyu discloses, "Wherein after the repetition rate of the mode-locked laser has been set by the mode locking device, the position of the collimator is fixed in place via glue" (p. [0026], where the lens may be fixed in place after adjustment by adhesive as in Shyu rather than solder as in Nakae). 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 teachings of the combination of Lin, Fermann, Pedersen, and Nakae with the teachings of Shyu. In view of the teachings of Lin regarding the use of a saturable absorber reflector with associated free space optics connected to a fiber laser, the teachings of Pedersen regarding the enclosure of such elements within a package, and the teachings of Nakae regarding adjusting a lens within an optical package and subsequently fixing the lens in place, the alternate fixing of an optical element with an adhesive as taught by Shyu would enhance the teachings of Lin, Fermann, Pedersen, and Nakae by providing a suitably alternate material for fixing the optical elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kitamura (US Patent 4,447,136) is cited for teaching a process for adjusting and fixing an optical element.
Nijjar et al. (Nijjar, US Patent 9,397,469) is cited for teaching a bench on which a saturable absorber, a dichroic mirror, and an end mirror are all arranged.
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 Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights