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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s response filed on December 11, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
No amendment to the claims has been filed.
Claims 2-15, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 September 2, 2025. Claims 3-5 read on Figure 19 and do not belong to the elected species (referred to Figures 4 and 5).
Claims 1, 16, 17 and 19 remain pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 16, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Okorogu (US 2009/0086298 A1).
Okorogu teaches a beam combiner comprises at least one transmitting volume chirped Bragg grating (please see Figure 1) that diffracts a first beam propagating at one central wavelength which satisfies Bragg condition, which means a diffracted output beam at Bragg angle is generated, (please see Figure 1). It is implicitly true that the incident beam satisfies the Bragg condition and is diffracted by the volume chirped Bragg grating is incident on the grating at Bragg angle. Okorogu teaches that laser diode arrays may generate light beams having wavelengths different from the wavelengths used in manufacturing the grating, this implicitly means that light having a second wavelength may incident on the grating at Bragg angle which therefore does not satisfy the Bragg condition and therefore transmits through the grating, (please see paragraph [0030]). Okorogu teaches that the transmitting volume chirped Bragg grating combines the diffracted beam and the transmitted beam (with different wavelength ranges) into a first single collimated output beam (i.e. the side firing exit beam, please see Figure 1).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the first incident beam and the second incident beam (at wavelength different from the manufacturing wavelength) are each of a broadband beam. But it is known in the art that one of the factors that determines the diffraction properties of a Bragg grating is the wavelength of the incident beam, so whether the incident beam has narrow or broad wavelength band, it does not affect the incident beam meets the Bragg condition as long as the incident light has a central wavelength that satisfies the Bragg condition.
As shown in Figure 1, Okorogu further teaches that the transmitting volume chirped Bragg grating eliminates the divergence of the first beam which resulted from the dispersion on the chirped Bragg grating at the plane of the diffraction, (please see Figure 1).
With regard to claim 16, this reference does not teach explicitly that the first and second broadband beams each have a spectral width ranging between 3 and 10 nm. However, such feature is considered to be intended use of the transmitting volume chirped Bragg grating. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Madham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
With regard to claim 17, it is implicitly true that the first and second incident beams each are either of a single transverse mode or multimode beam.
With regard to claim 19, Okorogu teaches that the central wavelength for the first and second beams may be selected from 500 to 3000 nm, (please see Figure 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 11, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the restriction/election, the applicant is respectfully noted that the arguments based on the Bragg grating and the chirped Bragg grating were raised by the applicant in the response dated September 2, 2025. It was not raised by the examiner and the examiner was only responded to applicant’s arguments filed in the previous response (dated September 2, 2025). The comment by the applicant therefore is only noted.
In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the Okorogu (‘298) reference, the examiner disagrees for the reasons set forth below. Firstly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., multiple laser sources outputting respective broadband beams) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Secondly, since Bragg grating with Bragg condition has very limited selective concerning the wavelength of the incident light, therefore to use a broadband light source or a rather narrow band light source does not change the function of the Bragg grating. Furthermore, the cited Okorogu reference teaches a chirped Bragg grating, which has a variable Bragg constants and therefore variable Bragg condition. This means the chirped Bragg grating is capable of selecting multiple wavelengths of the incident light beams, which means it is capable to be function with a broadband light source. The feature concerning broadband beam therefore is an intended use.
The applicant is respectfully noted that the applicant has the duty to disclose relevant references before the examination of the application. It is noted the applicant fails to disclose and provide relevant references OLEKSIY G. ANDRUSYAK. “Dense Spectral Beam Combining With Volume Bragg Gratings In Photo-Thermo-Refractive Glass”, Electronic theses and dissertations, 2004-2019, 2009 D2 DANIEL OTT et al. “Scaling The Spectral Beam Combining Channels In A Multiplexed Volume Bragg Grating”. Optics Express. 2013, vol. 21, ISSUE 24, pp. 29620-29627, C.2023, 2025 cited in the PCT application.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872