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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant has indicated that “Claims 1-21 are pending in this Application, of which claim 1 is an independent claim and claims 2-21 are dependent claims, depending from independent claim 1.” The Office can find no evidence that claims 15-21 are pending or were ever presented. The claims filed 11/15/2022 and 11/13/2025 show claims 1-14 as pending. The Office can only comment on the claims actually presented. Should applicant include additional claims in the future, any new claims may be further subject to a restriction or species election.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “all pending claims are sufficiently generic to the alleged different species identified in the Office Action, and as such the allegation that there is a serious search burden to search identified species is incorrect” and “MPEP 806.05, a restriction is never proper unless there are two or more distinct inventions that are claimed”. This is not persuasive because applicant presents claims that are not generic to the species. Specifically, claims 4-7 require “a longer-wavelength portion of the first generator output is provided as a seed input to the second ASE generator”. Applicant’s specification as originally filed specifically indicates that this is a distinct embodiment. As is outlined at [0038] in the pre-grant publication of this application “FIG. 5 is a simplified diagram of an alternative dual-band ASE source 50 formed in accordance with the principles of this disclosure. Here, a portion of the ASE created within the first ASE generator is used as a seed input for the second ASE generator. In particular, a longer wavelength portion of the initially-generated ASE is utilized as an effective and efficient seed source for ensuring that the output ASE extends across the full C+L wavelength region. (emphasis added)” Accordingly, Applicant’s own specification indicates that Figs. 3-4 and 5-7 are directed to “alternative” species. The Office notes that the 1st and 2nd ASE sources cannot be both independent (i.e. they do not rely on each other to produce their output) and dependent (i.e. at least one relies on the other to produce its output). As such, the species recite “mutually exclusive” characteristics. Applicant has presented claims to two distinct species. These species are indicated by applicant’s specification to be mutually exclusive. Additionally, these species will require at least distinct text searches. Accordingly, applicant’s assertion that “all pending claims are sufficiently generic to the alleged different species identified in the Office Action” is incorrect and the distinct species will require a burden on the Office because they will require at least distinct text searches.
While applicant’s second argument is also incorrect because applicant actually includes claims directed to Species B, the Office notes that species elections may be required even when only generic claims are actually present. See, e.g., MPEP 808.01(a) and 809.02(a). As noted in MPEP 808.01(a) “Election of species may be required prior to a search on the merits…(B) in applications containing both species claims and generic or Markush claims (emphasis added)” and “In applications where only generic claims are presented, restriction cannot be required unless the generic claims recite or encompass such a multiplicity of species that an unduly extensive and burdensome search would be necessary to search the entire scope of the claim. (emphasis added)” Finally, the Office notes that the presence of a generic linking claim does render the election requirement improper. See MPEP 809.03. Accordingly, a species election may be required in this case.
Claims 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/13/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masuda et al. (US20020131695A1), hereafter Masuda.
Regarding claim 1, Masuda disclose a dual-band (Fig. 13D elements 1304 and 1305) amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) ([0190]) source (Figs. 13A and 29) operational across a combination of the C-band wavelength range and the L-band wavelength range (Fig. 13D elements 1304 and 1305 span from 1440 nm to 1640 nm which fully contains the combined C and L bands of 1530nm to 1625 nm), the dual-band ASE source comprising a first ASE generator (Fig. 13A element 1310; Fig. 29 top branch terminating in element 26a) comprising at least one section of rare-earth doped fiber (Fig. 13A element 13a; Fig. 29 element 13b; [0189]), responsive to the presence of an optical pump beam (Fig. 13A element 11; Fig. 29 element 11) to generate ASE spanning a first wavelength region along the C+L wavelength range as a first generator output (Fig. 13D element 1304); and a second ASE generator (Fig. 13A element 1320; Fig. 29 bottom branch terminating in element 26b) comprising at least one section of rare-earth doped fiber (Fig. 13A element 13b; Fig. 29 element 13a) and responsive to the presence of an optical pump beam (Fig. 13A element 31; Fig. 29 element 31) to generate ASE spanning a second wavelength region along the C+L wavelength range as a second generator output (Fig. 13D element 1305), the combination of the first and second generator outputs forming an output of the dual-band ASE spanning across the C+L band (Fig. 13D element 1301), wherein at least one of the first and second ASE generators is configured as a reflective module incorporating a reflective element at a termination of the at least one section of rare-earth doped fiber to create an optical path length greater than a physical length of the at least one section of rare-earth doped fiber (Fig. 13A elements 15 and 35; Fig. 29 elements 26a and 26b; [0116]).
Regarding claim 2, Masuda further discloses an optical combiner (Fig. 13A and 29 element 36) responsive to the outputs of the first and second ASE generators (Fig. 13A and 29 elements b and c), coupling both first and second generator outputs onto a common output path as the C+L band ASE output of the dual-band ASE source (Fig. 13A and 29 element d).
Regarding claim 8, Masuda further discloses a longer wavelength edge of the first generator output overlaps a shorter wavelength edge of the second generator output (Fig. 13D elements 1304 and 1305 overlap at the upper edge of element 1304 and lower edge of element 1305).
Regarding claim 10, Masuda further discloses the second ASE generator comprises a reflective module (Fig. 29 lower branch and element 26b).
Regarding claim 11, Masuda further discloses the first ASE generator comprises a reflective module (Fig. 29 upper branch and element 26a).
Regarding claim 12, Masuda further discloses the first ASE generator comprises a first reflective module (Fig. 29 upper branch and element 26a) and the second ASE generator comprises a second reflective module (Fig. 29 lower branch and element 26b).
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 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda in view of Foursa et al. (US20210376550A1), hereafter Foursa.
Regarding claim 3, Masuda does not explicitly disclose the dual-band ASE source further comprises a gain flattening filter disposed along the common output path. However, Foursa discloses the dual-band ASE source further comprises a gain flattening filter disposed along the common output path (Fig. 2 element 238). An advantage is to equalize the various wavelengths to approximately the same intensity ([0004]). 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 Masuda with the dual-band ASE source further comprises a gain flattening filter disposed along the common output path as disclosed by Foursa in order to equalize the various wavelengths to approximately the same intensity.
Regarding claim 14, Masuda does not explicitly disclose each section of rare-earth doped fiber comprises a section of erbium-doped fiber and each pump beam operates at a wavelength of about 980 nm. However, Foursa discloses each section of rare-earth doped fiber comprises a section of erbium-doped fiber (Fig. 2 elements 204 and 214) and each pump beam operates at a wavelength of about 980 nm (Fig. 2 element 228). An advantage is to use known materials and a known pumping wavelength to achieve the desired output wavelength based on the intended use of the device ([0001]). 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 Masuda with disclose each section of rare-earth doped fiber comprises a section of erbium-doped fiber and each pump beam operates at a wavelength of about 980 nm as disclosed by Foursa in order to use known materials and a known pumping wavelength to achieve the desired output wavelength based on the intended use of the device.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda in view of Isshiki (JP2000188437A), hereafter Isshiki.
Regarding claim 9, Masuda discloses a counter-propagating pump source (Fig. 29 element Pump Light is counter propagating with the reflected light). Masuda does not explicitly disclose a counter-propagating pump source integrated with the reflective element. However, Isshiki discloses a counter-propagating (Fig. 4 element 22 emits light counter-propagating with the non-reflected light) pump source (Fig. 4 element 22) integrated (Fig. 4 element 22 and 23 are integrated via element 5) with the reflective element (Fig. 4 element 23). An advantage is to help protect the pump source from other light without additional parts while still resulting in a high gain characteristic ([0011]-[0012]). 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 Masuda with a counter-propagating pump source integrated with the reflective element as disclosed by Isshiki in order to help protect the pump source from other light without additional parts while still resulting in a high gain characteristic.
Regarding claim 13, Masuda further discloses ASE is used and propagated through the reflective module ([0190]) Masuda does not explicitly disclose the reflective module further comprises a three-port optical circulator including an input port, a bi-directional signal port, and an output port, a first section of rare-earth doped fiber coupled to the input port such that any emission generated therein propagates through the optical circulator and exits at the bidirectional port, a second section of rare-earth doped fiber coupled at a first end termination to the bi-directional port and at a second end termination to the reflective element, wherein the emission generated within the second section of rare-earth doped fiber is directed into the bi-directional port of the optical circulator and propagates therethrough to exit the reflective module at the output port of the reflective module. However, Isshiki discloses the reflective module further comprises a three-port optical circulator (Fig. 4 element 1) including an input port (Fig. 4 element 11), a bi-directional signal port (Fig. 4 element 12), and an output port (Fig. 4 element 16), a first section of rare-earth doped fiber coupled to the input port such that any emission generated therein propagates through the optical circulator and exits at the bidirectional port (Fig. 4 element 41; [0030]), a second section of rare-earth doped fiber coupled at a first end termination to the bi-directional port and at a second end termination to the reflective element (Fig. 4 element 4 and 23; [0028]), wherein the amplified emission generated within the second section of rare-earth doped fiber is directed into the bi-directional port of the optical circulator and propagates therethrough to exit the reflective module at the output port of the reflective module ([0027]). An advantage is to help achieve higher amplification with lower noise ([0030]-[0031]). 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 Masuda with the reflective module further comprises a three-port optical circulator including an input port, a bi-directional signal port, and an output port, a first section of rare-earth doped fiber coupled to the input port such that any emission generated therein propagates through the optical circulator and exits at the bidirectional port, a second section of rare-earth doped fiber coupled at a first end termination to the bi-directional port and at a second end termination to the reflective element, wherein the emission generated within the second section of rare-earth doped fiber is directed into the bi-directional port of the optical circulator and propagates therethrough to exit the reflective module at the output port of the reflective module as disclosed by Isshiki in order to help achieve higher amplification with lower noise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited. See, e.g., US6424459 Fig. 9 showing a dual band amplifier with a shared gain equalization filter on the common output path and US20020159137A1 Fig. 24 showing two reflective amplifiers in parallel with a combined output.
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 02/20/2026