DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because Patton modifies Iwama to teach a first lens system that converts the divided pulsed light beams output from the cores of the multicore fiber or the cores of the bundle fiber to parallel light beams respectively, so as to make the parallel light beams overlap in the substantially same region. In particular, Iwama teaches light deflection unit 3 provided at the emission side bundle end to overlap spots on the surface of a laser processing target (Iwama, [0037]). Iwama teaches in [0041] that the light deflection unit can be any unit, such as a lens, as long as it “causes at least two light beams emitted from a plurality of optical fibers, respectively, to be deflected toward different directions so that the at least two light beams overlap each other on at least one cross section…”. Iwama fails to specify the type of lens or the specifics of the structure that allows the light deflection unit to accomplish the overlap. Patton modifies Iwama by providing the structure of a light deflection unit/lens system that achieves overlap in substantially the same region by converting divided pulsed light beams output from the cores of the multicore fibers or cores of the bundle fiber to parallel light beams respectively, so as to make the parallel light beam overlap in the substantially same region. As pointed out in the remarks filed 03/23/2026, in the particular case of Patton, this feature of the collimators 22, 52, is used in Patton to couple beams between two optical fibers arranged coaxilly and facing each other. The collimators in Patton are able to couple the beams between the two optical fibers because the collimators parallelize the beams and allow them to overlap in substantially the same region (Patton, [0048]). This feature of the collimators of Patton provides the parallelization of the light beams and allows for the overlap of the collimated light beams that would be useful as the lens system of Iwama. Consequently, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Patton with the teachings of Iwama (and Aya, in the case of claim 1) to achieve the claimed invention.
Applicant asserts on page 6 of the remarks filed 03/23/2026 that “in Patton, the two lenses 22 and 52 and the two fibers 18 and 48 constitute an inseparable, integrated optical system. Note that it is proper to utilize the condenser lens of Patton in the system of Iwama because the collimator lenses are separate physical objects that could be utilized in the system of Iwama to achieve collimated beams from the beams leaving the emission side bundle end. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) filed on 09/02/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwama, et. al. (US 20200408992 A1; see IDS 05/16/2023), hereinafter Iwama, in view of Patton (US 20190310283 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Iwama teaches an irradiation unit for multifiber connected to an output side of a multifiber which is a multicore fiber or a bundle fiber ([0014], [0037], Fig. 5), the irradiation unit for multifiber comprising:
a first lens system that includes one or a plurality of lenses structured to make light beams output from the cores of the multicore fiber or the cores of the bundle fiber overlap in a substantially same region on a plane perpendicular to an optical axis (light deflection unit 3, [0037], [0041]); and
a second lens system that includes one or a plurality of lenses structured to project an image in the substantially same region onto an irradiation surface (two lenses 5, [0037], Fig. 5),
wherein the second lens system includes a plurality of lenses (equal-magnification two-lens system, [0037]) capable of adjusting a projection magnification on the irradiation surface ([0037]).
Iwama does not teach wherein the first lens system is a lens system that converts the divided pulsed light beams output from the cores of the multicore fiber or the cores of the bundle fiber to parallel light beams respectively, so as to make the parallel light beams overlap in the substantially same region.
Patton teaches a lens system (collimators 22, 52, [0048], Fig. 1) that converts the pulsed light beams ([0014] teaches pulsed stream of light) output from the optical fiber (optical fibres 18, 48, [0042], Fig. 1) to parallel light beams respectively (collimators 22, 52 collimate the light), so as to make the parallel light beams overlap in the substantially same region ([0048] teaches the collimation allows for sufficient overlap of the light beams on the respective optical fibres, Fig. 1).
Patton modifies Iwama by suggesting a collimator lens be used to parallelize light beams in order to concentrate the light in the same region.
Since Patton is directed to a lens system proximate an optical fiber for transferring light, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Patton because the ability of each collimator to focus light incident upon it from the respective distal sides to the respective fiber tips allowing for sufficient optical signal strength means that the optical fibers need only be approximately aligned, (Patton, [0048]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aya, et. al. (WO 2018225799 A1; see translated document with paragraph numbers), hereinafter Aya, in view of Iwama (US 20200408992 A1) and Patton (US 20190310283 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aya teaches a pulse spectrometer comprising:
a pulse light source (laser light source 1 generates broadband pulsed light L1, [0017]);
an optical fiber (2, 3 optical fiber, [0018]-[0019]) that transmits a pulsed light beam emitted from the pulse light source, wherein the pulsed light beam output from the optical fiber follows a one-to- one correspondence between time and wavelength (one-to-one correspondence between the time within the pulse and the wavelength, [0015]); and
a photodetector structured to detect light from an object irradiated with the pulsed light beam (detector 5, [0031], [0055]),
Aya does not teach a multicore fiber or a bundle fiber that transmits divided pulsed light beams divided from a pulsed light beam emitted from the pulse light source, wherein each of the divided pulsed light beams output from cores of the multicore fiber or from cores of the bundle fiber. Further, Aya does not teach wherein the pulse spectrometer further comprises, arranged on an output side of the multicore fiber or the bundle fiber, a first lens system that includes one or a plurality of lenses structured to make the divided pulsed light beams output from the cores of the multicore fiber or the cores of the bundle fiber overlap in a substantially same region on a plane perpendicular to an optical axis; and a second lens system that includes one or a plurality of lenses structured to project an image in the substantially same region onto an irradiation surface, wherein the second lens system includes a plurality of lenses capable of adjusting a projection magnification on the irradiation surface, and wherein the first lens system is a lens system that converts the divided pulsed light beams output from the cores of the multicore fiber or the cores of the bundle fiber to parallel light beams respectively, so as to make the parallel light beams overlap in the substantially same region.
Iwama teaches a multicore fiber or a bundle fiber (optical fiber bundle, [0014]) that transmits divided light beams divided from a light beam emitted from the light source, wherein each of the divided pulsed light beams output from cores of the multicore fiber or from cores of the bundle fiber ([0014], [0038]).
wherein the pulse spectrometer further comprises, arranged on an output side of the multicore fiber or the bundle fiber ([0014], [0037], Fig. 5),
a first lens system that includes one or a plurality of lenses structured to make the divided pulsed light beams output from the cores of the multicore fiber or the cores of the bundle fiber overlap in a substantially same region on a plane perpendicular to an optical axis (light deflection unit 3, [0037], [0041]); and
a second lens system that includes one or a plurality of lenses structured to project an image in the substantially same region onto an irradiation surface (two lenses 5, [0037, Fig. 5),
wherein the second lens system includes a plurality of lenses (equal-magnification two-lens system, [0037]) capable of adjusting a projection magnification on the irradiation surface ([0037]).
Patton teaches a lens system (collimators 22, 52, [0048], Fig. 1) that converts the pulsed light beams ([0014] teaches pulsed stream of light) output from the optical fiber (optical fibres 18, 48, [0042], Fig. 1) to parallel light beams respectively (collimators 22, 52 collimate the light), so as to make the parallel light beams overlap in the substantially same region ([0048] teaches the collimation allows for sufficient overlap of the light beams on the respective optical fibres, Fig. 1).
Iwama modifies Aya by suggesting a first and second lens system arranged on an output side of the multicore fiber that allow the light to be overlapped and projected onto an irradiation surface where the second lens system is a two-lens system capable of adjusting a projection magnification on the irradiation surface. Patton modifies Iwama by suggesting a collimator lens be used to parallelize light beams in order to concentrate the light in the same region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Iwama because the lens systems allow for forming an irradiation spot of a laser beam having a large power density by combining a plurality of laser lights without using a power combiner (Iwara, [0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Patton because the ability of each collimator to focus light incident upon it from the respective distal sides to the respective fiber tips allowing for sufficient optical signal strength means that the optical fibers need only be approximately aligned, (Patton, [0048]).
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 LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights