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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/12/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 09/02/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 1-5. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 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.
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 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 1,3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi et al. (hereinafter Nakanishi) (WO 2020171205 A1) in view of Sugaya (US 5995275 A) (Examiner notes the foreign document (EP 388071 A1) of Nakanishi (WO 2020171205 A1) will be used in the claim mapping of Nakanishi for the remainder of the instant Office Action, See PTO-892 form).
Regarding claim 1, Nakanishi discloses in Fig. 2
A fiber laser device [1B] (Para. [0056]) comprising:
a first pumping light source [2] (Para. [0058]) that outputs a first pumping light of a first wavelength (Para. [0053]);
a second pumping light source [2B] (Para. [0058]) that outputs a second pumping light of a second wavelength (Para. [0053]);
an amplifying fiber [5] (Para. [0057]) that comprises a core comprising an active element (Para. [0030]) that is configured to be excited by the first pumping light [2] and the second pumping light [2b] (Paras. [0030,0048]);
an HR-FBG (High Reflectivity-Fiber Bragg Grating) [4a] (Para. [0028]) on a side of a first end [left side Fig. 2] of the amplifying fiber [5];
an OC-FBG (Output Coupler-Fiber Bragg Grating) [6a] (Para. [0029]) disposed on a side of a second end [right side Fig. 2] of the amplifying fiber [5], and that has a reflectance lower than a reflectance of the HR-FBG [4a] (Para. [0029]);
a first coupler [3] that couples the first pumping light [2] to the amplifying fiber [5] from the side of the first end [right of 3, left of 5 Fig. 2] (Para. [0025]);
a second coupler [3B] that couples the second pumping light [2B] to the amplifying fiber [5] from the side of the second end [left of 3B, right of 5 Fig. 2] (Para. [0059]); and
an output end [8] (Para. [0024]) that outputs a laser light amplified by the amplifying fiber [5] and passed through the OC-FBG [6a] (Para. [0032]), wherein
the first wavelength [from 2] and the second wavelength [from 2B] are both shorter than a wavelength of the laser light [output light] (Paras. [0053,0081]). Nakanishi fails to disclose,
a first pumping light source that outputs first pumping light having a first peak wavelength and
a second pumping light source that outputs second pumping light having a second peak wavelength that is shorter than the first peak wavelength
an absorptivity of the active element at the first peak wavelength is lower than an absorptivity of the active element at the second peak wavelength
Sugaya discloses in Fig. 1,
a first pumping light source [8] (Col. 3, lines 46-54) that outputs first pumping light having a first peak wavelength [λ1] (Col. 5, lines 45-52) and
a second pumping light source [10] (Col. 3, lines 46-54) that outputs second pumping light having a second peak wavelength [λ2] (Col. 5, lines 45-52) that is shorter than the first peak wavelength [λ1] (See Fig. 5) (Col. 5, lines 45-52)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the first and second wavelength values of the forward and backwards pumping light sources of Sugaya into the forward and backward pumping light sources of Nakanishi for the purpose of stabilizing the gain in the device. (Sugaya Col. 5, lines 53-59)
Paragraph [0018] of Nakanishi discloses the absorption peak wavelength of 976nm. Therefore, using first and second pumping light wavelength values of λ1=980nm and λ2=975nm as shown in Sugaya, the limitations of a second wavelength that is shorter than a first wavelength and an absorptivity of an active element at a first wavelength is lower than an absorptivity of the active element at the second wavelength (See Nakanishi Fig. 4, Sugaya Fig. 5).
Examiner notes that paragraph [0051] of the Applicants specification discloses “The pumping light outputted from the pumping light source 11 is supplied from the side pump” where “the side pump” is noted as “first coupler” and “The pumping light outputted from the pumping light source 12 is supplied from the side pump” where “the side pump” is noted as “second coupler”. Therefore, using the same interpretation as the Applicant, the first and second couplers are cited as the first and second side pumps (respectively).
Regarding claim 3, Nakanishi in view of Sugaya as applied to claim 1 above further discloses
wherein the active element [Nakanishi 5] has a highest absorptivity at a wavelength between the first peak wavelength [Sugaya λ1] and the second peak wavelength [Sugaya λ2] (Nakanishi Paras. [0018,0053] Sugaya Col. 5, lines 53-59).
Using wavelength values of λ1=980nm and λ2=975nm, the absorption peak of 976nm falls between the respective first and second wavelength values.
Regarding claim 5, Nakanishi in view of Sugaya as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Sugaya.
wherein a difference between the first peak wavelength [λ1] and the second peak wavelength [λ2] is more than or equal to 1nm and less than or equal to 5nm (See Fig. 5 Col. 5, lines 53-59).
Using first and second pumping light wavelength values of λ1=980nm and λ2=975nm, the difference between the first wavelength and the second wavelength is 5 nm.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Sugaya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hovhannisyan et al. (hereinafter Hovhannisyan) (US 20190199053 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Nakanishi in view of Sugaya discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the active element has a highest absorptivity at the second peak wavelength.
Hovhannisyan discloses in Fig. 3,
the use of a pumping light [112] at a peak absorption wavelength value (Para. [0030])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the second pumping light of the modified device of Nakanishi at a peak absorption wavelength of 976nm as disclosed in Hovhannisyan for the purpose of decreasing modal instability. (Hovhannisyan Paras. [0029,0030])
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Sugaya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spinelli et al. (hereinafter Spinelli) (US 20100260210 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nakanishi in view of Sugaya discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the first peak wavelength and the second peak wavelength are longer than a wavelength at which the active element has a highest absorptivity.
Spinelli discloses,
Using pumping wavelengths longer than a wavelength at which an active element has a highest absorptivity (absorption peak) (Paras. [0050,0051])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the pumping wavelength above the absorption peak wavelength as disclosed in Spinelli with the first and second wavelengths of the modified device of Nakanishi for the purpose of lowering a quantum defect of pumping and producing less heat. (Spinelli Para. [0050])
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Sugaya as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Masuda et al. (hereinafter Masuda) (US 6172803 B1)
Regarding claim 6, Nakanishi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
a power of a pumping light coupled to the amplifying fiber from the side of the first end is equal to a power of a pumping light coupled to the amplifying fiber from the side of the second end, and
heat dissipation at the first end of the amplifying fiber is less than heat dissipation at the second end of the amplifying fiber
Masuda discloses in Fig. 31,
a power of a pumping light [a2] coupled to the amplifying fiber [a1] from the side of the first end [left side of a1 Fig. 31] is equal to a power of a pumping light [a5] coupled to the amplifying fiber [a1] from the side of the second end [right side of a1 Fig. 31] (Col. 12, lines 37-39)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the first and second pumping lights of the device of Nakanishi having the same power as disclosed in Masuda for the purpose of supplying more power to the amplifying fiber. (Masuda Col. 12, lines 39-41)
Examiner notes that when using the first and second wavelength values as described in the rejection of claim 1 above and each pumping light having equal power as disclosed in Masuda. Paragraph [0042] of the Applicant’s specification states that the longer the wavelength of a pumping light becomes, an amount of heat is reduced. Therefore, at an equal power value, the first pumping light (pumping light coupled to the amplifying fiber from the side of the first end) at a longer wavelength will have a smaller heat dissipation than the second pumping light (pumping light coupled to the amplifying fiber from the side of the second end) which is at a shorter wavelength.
Examiner also notes that a “heating value” is disclosed as “heating dissipation” in paragraph [0013] of the Applicant’s specification.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Sugaya as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nguyen (US 20200036154 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Nakanishi in view of Sugaya discloses the device outlined the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein a power of a pumping light coupled to the amplifying fiber from the side of the first end is less than a power of a pumping light coupled to the amplifying fiber from the side of the second end
Nguyen discloses in Fig. 1,
wherein a power [PF] (Para. [0031]) of a pumping light coupled to an amplifying fiber [AF] (Para. [0029]) from a side of a first end [left side Fig. 1] is less than a power [PB] (Para. [0031]) of a pumping light coupled to the amplifying fiber [AF] from a side of a second end [right side Fig. 1] (Para. [0031])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the forward and backward power of Nguyen into the first and second pumping lights of the device of Nakanishi for the purpose of reducing a power of Stokes light (Nguyen Paras. [0033,0034]).
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 HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 ET.
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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828