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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: there is an unnecessary comma in line 3 in “wavelengths, incident on the optical amplifier” . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 and claims 2-13 dependent on it 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.
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 “wavelength-converting element” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “optical amplifying element” or “optical gain element,” while the accepted meaning is “nonlinear frequency conversion element” or “optical parametric element” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. See for example, “Nonlinear Frequency Conversion” which lists various nonlinear optical processes at the website https://www.rp-photonics.com/nonlinear_frequency_conversion.html (downloaded Nov. 26, 2025). The term “wavelength converting elment” throughout the application has been interpreted as “optical gain element” by the Examiner. Clarification and correction are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aketa et al. (US 2022/0283354).
The applied reference has a common inventor and applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With regard to claim 1, Aketa et al. disclose a light-emitting device comprising an optical amplifier (see Fig. 1)and configured to give off output light from the optical amplifier by making a plurality of seed light rays (from first light seed light sources 121, 122, & 123 ) having mutually different wavelengths incident on the optical amplifier,
The optical amplifier having a medium portion containing an optical gain element (23)
The optical amplifier configured to have the optical gain element excited by excitation light source (11) to produce a plurality of partially coherent light rays of wavelengths respectively the same as the mutually different wavelengths of the plurality of seed light rays, thereby giving off as the output light a multi-wavelength light beam (mixed light emerging from optical fiber is incoherent, paragraph [0048]),
The excitation light having a shorter wavelength than any of the plurality of seed light rays and being incident on the medium (excitation light wavelength 440 to 450 nm paragraph [0026], seed light ray wavelengths 520 nm, 600 nm, and 640 nm, [0043]),
The multi-wavelength light beam including a plurality of light rays amplified with wavelengths the same as the mutually different wavelengths of the plurality of seed light rays, (para. [0048]).
With regard to claim 2, the incoherent light rays have wavelengths from 440 nm to 640 nm (para. [0043]).
With regard to claim 4, the excitation light is blue (para. [0038]).
With regard to claim 5, in another embodiment (Fig. 6) the excitation light is incident from source (11) onto the medium from a direction (in section 13) intersecting the direction in which the plurality of seed light rays propagate in the optical amplifier (horizontal in the figure).
With regard to claim 6, the diffraction grating (7) causes part of the excitation light to be dispersed in a direction aligned with the direction in which the plurality of seed light rays propagate in the medium.
With regard to claims 9 and 10, in another embodiment the medium includes a plurality of gain regions arranged side by side and on which the plurality of seed light rays are respectively incident (para. [0085]).
With regard to claim 13, the totality of the system is a light emitting system with first light source (11) configured to emit excitation light, and a second light source (12) configured to emit the plurality of seed light rays.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aketa et al. (US 2022/0283354). Aketa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not specifically disclose the at least four partially coherent light rays having mutually different wavelengths. Aketa discloses as an example three seed light sources (para. [0043]). Aketa also teaches that the energy level diagram of the dopant Pr3+ in the gain medium results in more than three transitions for spontaneous or stimulated emission of light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled that four or more partially coherent light rays could be produced by the optical amplifier, based on the selected seed light wavelengths. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application to produce four or more partially coherent light rays for the purpose of a obtaining a broad output spectrum which is desirable in some applications.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aketa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Page et al. (US 6,167,069). Aketa does not disclose, but Page et al. teach (1st col. lines 22-26) , that a gain medium has a plate (slab) shape, with a first surface and a second surface facing each other in a thickness direction defined for the medium, excitation light is incident on the first surface (single-side pumping), and a heat-dissipating portion (heat sink) is disposed on the second surface of the medium portion. Page teaches this configuration is desirable so that heat due to absorbed pump light enters one face and is conducted out through the opposite face, without distortion of the beam to be amplified (1st col. lines 26-33). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, before the effective filing date of the application, to configure the gain medium, excitation beam and heat-dissipating portion of Aketa as taught by Page et al., for the purpose of enabling efficient absorption of excitation light without thermal distortion of the beam(s) to be amplified.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aketa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ulrich (US 4,087,159).
Aketa does not disclose, but Ulrich teaches in the same field of endeavor, that the medium portion has a plate shape (Figs. 1-2), and an absorption length of the excitation (pump light) in the medium (a rare-earth doped thin film waveguide, which has the form of a plate) is greater than a thickness of the medium (29th col. lines 7-68 and 30 col. lines 1-4.). The configuration of pumping through a large surface and with the absorption length is greater than the thickness of the medium ensures that a sufficiently large fraction of the excitation light is absorbed in the gain medium. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, before the effective filing date of the application, to configure the gain medium in the optical amplifier of Aketa as a plate or thin film such that absorption length is greater than the plate’s thickness, as taught by Ulrich.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aketa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krietzman (US 6,431,731). Aketa et al. do not disclose, but Krietzman teaches, an optical diffuser configured to diffuse output light of multiple wavelengths emerging from an optical amplifier (3rd col. lines 15-23 and 28-34). Further Aketa et al. do not disclose, but Krietzman teaches multiple wavelengths at the output of an optical amplifier are not synthesized. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, e. g. an optical engineer, before the effective filing date of the application, to provide an optical diffuser as suggested by Krietzman at the output of the optical amplifier of Aketa, for the purpose of producing a spot light within safety guidelines (1st col. lines 26-30).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on Dec. 18, 2023 and Dec. 6, 2022 have been considered by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lawrence and Chavez-Pirson et al. disclose multiple wavelength optical amplifiers, Krankel et al. “Out of the blue: semiconductor laser pumped visible rare-earth doped lasers”, Laser & photonics Reviews, vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 548-568, April 24, 2016 discloses visible rare-earth doped lasers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ERIC L BOLDA whose telephone number is 571-272-8104. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30am to 5pm.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ERIC L BOLDA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645