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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 1, 5-7, 10 and the addition of claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 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.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant has not traversed the assertion of Official Notice made with respect to claim 7. Based on the lack of traversal, or the inadequacy thereof, the common knowledge assertion is taken to be admitted prior art (see MPEP 2144.03 C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn.
It is noted that the previous rejection based on the term “standard” is being withdrawn as the term would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art when read in light of the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichige et al. (US 2016/0043525) in view of Furuya et al. (US 7965916).
With respect to claim 1, Ichige teaches a fiber laser (fig.6) comprising: a single gain fiber (fig.6 #10) having a core doped with Yb ([0089]); and a forward pumping light source group (fig.6 #30) that generates forward pumping light that (necessary for pumping) is inputted into the gain fiber (fig.6 at #40) and belongs to a 915-nm band ([0056]), wherein an absorption amount of the forward pumping light in a section of the gain fiber, calculated according to ∫P(λ)A(λ)dλ, is greater than or equal to 100 W and less than or equal to 1100 W where P(λ) [W] is a power spectrum of the forward pumping light, and A(λ) [%/m] is an absorption rate spectrum of the doped Yb (#10 has an absorption rate for Yb of 1 dB/m, or 12.2%/m [0089] and corresponding to A(λ) [%/m]; forward pump total 1200W excitation [0089], corresponding to P(λ) [W]; which leads to 0.122*1200 = 146W in a 1m section), and a length of the section is 1 m ([0104], total length of #6 is 5m while previous calculation is for 1m [0089]) and includes an end face of the gain fiber on which the forward pumping light is incident (fig.61 left side of #6). Ichige does not teach pumping in the 976 band or the absorption amount of the forward pumping light to be more than 253W and less than or equal to 1100W. Furuya teaches a related Yb doped laser device (fig.1, col.6 lines 38-40) and further teaches the absorption amount of 976 band pumping exceeds that of 915 band pumping by 3x (fig.10, col.3 lines 32-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the pump band of Ichige to make use of 976 band pumps in place of the 915 band pumps as demonstrated by Furuya in order to achieve a desired pump absorption amount allowing for potential shortening of the gain fiber.
Note that after combination, the 146W value becomes 439W (0.122*3*1200).
With respect to claim 2, Ichige teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the absorption rate spectrum A(λ) is calculated according to A(λ)= A1(λ)xA2, where A1(λ) [%/m] is a standard absorption rate spectrum of Yb normalized at a wavelength of 978 nm, and A2 [%/m] is an absorption rate, at the wavelength of 978nm, of the doped Yb. The particular means by which the absorption amount is calculated within Yao does not appear critical to the operation of the device, therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute a different calculation means into the teachings of Yao by an obvious engineering design choice.
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed equation or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen feature or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen features are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 6, Ichige teaches the single gain fiber has, along an entire length of the single gain fiber, a refractive index distribution and a Yb concentration that are constant in the longitudinal direction of the single gain fiber (understood to be constant in longitudinal direction but varying radially fig.7-9).
With respect to claim 7, Ichige teaches the fiber laser outlined in the rejection to claim 1 above which demonstrated a calculated pump absorption amount between 253-1100W, but does not teach an actually measured value of an absorption amount of the forward pumping light in a section of the gain fiber is greater than or equal to 253 W and less than or equal to 1100 W. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to make an actual measurement of a value/parameter to verify the calculated amount of the same value/parameter is accurate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Ichige to conduct an actual measurement of the pump absorption amount to verify the calculated value of 312W is accurate and ensure the system operates as intended.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichige and Furuya in view of Yao et al. (US 2009/0080472).
With respect to claim 3, Ichige, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the absorption amount of the forward pumping light in the section is greater than or equal to 634 W. Yao teaches a related Yb laser device (fig.7), and does further demonstrate that the absorption amount, and therefore the absorption amount in W, is a result effective variable tied to the level of Yb concentration within the fiber section (fig.5-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the doping concentration of Yb within the given fiber section to achieve a higher absorption rate, and therefore absorption amount in W, to thereby achieve an increased absorption power of 634 or more as a means of optimizing the teachings of Yao to realize a larger uptake of pump light to convert to gain and thereby increase the output power of the laser and possibly shorten the length of fiber needed (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
With respect to claim 4, Ichige, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the forward pumping light has a total power of greater than or equal to 1500W. Yao further teaches the forward pumping light has a total power of greater than or equal to 1509 W ([0086]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the pump power of Ichige to make use of the higher value taught by Yao in order to produce higher laser output powers.
With respect to claim 8, Ichige, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the absorption amount of the forward pumping light in the section is greater than or equal to 634 W. Yao does further demonstrate that the absorption amount, and therefore the absorption amount in W, is a result effective variable tied to the level of Yb concentration within the fiber section (fig.5-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the doping concentration of Yb within the given fiber section to achieve a higher absorption rate, and therefore absorption amount in W, to thereby achieve an increased absorption power of 634 or more as a means of optimizing the teachings of Yao to realize a larger uptake of pump light to convert to gain and thereby increase the output power of the laser and possibly shorten the length of fiber needed (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
With respect to claim 9, Ichige, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the forward pumping light has a total power of greater than or equal to 1500W. Yao further teaches the forward pumping light has a total power of greater than or equal to 1509 W ([0086]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the pump power of Ichige to make use of the higher value taught by Yao in order to produce higher laser output powers.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichige and Furuya in view of Kasai (WO 2020/203136, Applicant submitted prior art).
With respect to claim 11, Ichige, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the forward pumping source group includes pumping light sources having different central wavelength such that a difference between a minimum central wavelength and a maximum central wavelength is equal to or greater than 1nm. Kasai teaches a fiber laser device (fig.1), including the usefulness of 976 band pumping (fig.5) and the use of a forward pumping source group (fig.1 #21-23) that includes pumping light sources having different central wavelength such that a difference between a minimum central wavelength and a maximum central wavelength is equal to or greater than 1nm (“The excitation light source 21 includes, for example, a high-power multimode semiconductor laser device having an oscillation wavelength of 976 nm, and is configured to generate excitation light P .sub.1 having a wavelength of 976 nm (= λ .sub.1 ). The excitation light source 22 includes, for example, a high-power multimode semiconductor laser device having an oscillation wavelength of 973 nm, and is configured to generate excitation light P .sub.2 having a wavelength of 973 nm (= λ .sub.2 ). The excitation light source 23 includes, for example, a high-power multimode semiconductor laser device having an oscillation wavelength of 970 nm, and is configured to generate excitation light P .sub.3 having a wavelength of 970 nm (= λ .sub.3 ).”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of multiple pumping light source devices having different central wavelengths with a minimum and central wavelength difference more than 1nm as demonstrated by Kasai in the device of Ichige in order to improve absorption of the pump light without needing to raise the doping concentration or increase the fiber length (“As a result, even if the wavelengths of the excitation lights of the plurality of excitation light sources 21 to 23 are different, the amount of the excitation light absorbed by the amplification optical fiber 12 can be made uniform at a high level, and the amplification optical fiber 12 The excitation light can be absorbed efficiently. Therefore, the residual excitation light can be reduced without increasing the addition concentration of the rare earth element ion or lengthening the amplification optical fiber 12, and the waveguide loss in the amplification optical fiber 12 is increased or induced.”) and allow for flexibility in choosing the laser diode sources and effects of temperature thereon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 10 add further detail including particular calculation means and pump light absorption rates which were not found to be taught or made obvious by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2012-238781, WO2021/045074 (both Applicant submitted) and US 7965916 each teach the absorption rate of 976 band light in Yb doped fibers is 3-4x that of 915 band light.
Please see the previously included PTO892 form for a list of related Yb doped fibers being pumped in the 976 band and including absorption rates.
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 TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828