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
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 1-13 and 16-20. Claims 14 and 15 have been cancelled. New claims 21-23 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 regarding the amended limitation of “after oscillation of the laser light, a first wavelength component, which is a wavelength component of an oscillation wavelength of the laser light, circulates in a propagation path of the laser light in the resonator without being blocked” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes that the first paragraph of page 8 of the remarks filed 02/02/2026 states in regard to Fig. 8 of the claimed application that that since there is only one filter part provided in the resonator, the first wavelength component propagates through the entire propagation path of the laser light and therefore it is clear that the first wavelength component circulates within the resonator without being blocked in the propagation path. Following that same ideology as stated by the Applicant, Yamada also discloses a first wavelength component circulating within the resonator without being blocked in the propagation path since Yamada discloses only one filter part [105].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn in light of the cancellation of claims 14 and 15.
The previous rejections of claims 3,5,7, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments made to claim 3 and the cancellation of claims 14 and 15.
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.
Claims 5,7,18 and 22 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the second wavelength component" in line 14 of claim 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination of the instant application, the term “the second wavelength component” in claim 22 is understood to read “a second wavelength component”
Claims 5,7 and 18 are rejected at least on their dependency to indefinite claim 22.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1,2,16 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (hereinafter Yamada) (JP 2012080013 A) in view of “Dual-Wavelength Passively Mode-Locked Fiber Ring Laser” (hereinafter Deng)
(Examiner notes an attached machine translation will be used for the claim mapping of Yamada for the remainder of the instant Office Action. See PTO-892 form)
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses
A laser device for generating a laser light [Fig. 1] (Para. [16]), comprising
a filter part [105] (Paras. [19 and 20]) that is provided in a resonator [104] (Para. [16]), for selectively allowing passage of a wavelength component of a light in accordance with a pass wavelength characteristic [frequency mode peaks under 501] (Para. [43]), wherein the pass wavelength characteristic has local maximum values in at least two or more wavelengths [multiple frequency mode peaks under 501] (See Fig. 5) (Paras. [32 and 43]),
wherein, after oscillation of the laser light, a first wavelength component (Paras. [32,43]), which is a wavelength component of an oscillation wavelength of the laser light (Paras. [32,43]), circulates in a propagation path of the laser light in the resonator without being blocked [see Fig. 1], and
Yamada fails to disclose,
an oscillation of the laser light in the first wavelength component is induced by a second wavelength component, which is passed by the filter part and is different from the first wavelength component
Deng discloses in Fig. 1,
an oscillation of laser light in a first wavelength component [1549.23nm wavelength from FBG] (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3) induced by a second wavelength component [1548.20 nm wavelength from FBG] (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3), which is passed by a filter part [FBG1 and FBG2 Fig. 1] (Page 0850, left column, paragraph 1) and is different from the first wavelength component (Page 0850, left column, paragraph 1)
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 interacting first and second wavelength components as disclosed in Deng in the device of Yamada for allowing passive mode locking. (Deng Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3)
Regarding claim 2, Yamada in view of Deng discloses the device outlined in the as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Deng,
a first passband [1549.23nm wavelength band from FBG see Figs. 2 and 3] (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3) comprising a wavelength of any of the local maximum values [1549.23nm wavelength] (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3)], for selectively allowing passage of a first wavelength component [1549.23nm wavelength band from FBG see Figs. 2 and 3] (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3) that is a wavelength component of an oscillation wavelength of the laser light (Page 0850, left column, paragraph 1); and
a second passband [1548.20 nm wavelength band from FBG see Figs. 2 and 3] comprising a wavelength of any of the local maximum values, for selectively allowing passage of a second wavelength component [1548.20 nm wavelength from FBG] (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3) that is a wavelength component different from the oscillation wavelength (Page 0850, left column, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 16, Yamada in view of Deng as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Yamada,
further comprising a polarization maintaining fiber for propagating the laser light (Paras. [43-45]).
Regarding claim 19, Yamada in view of Deng as applied to claim 1 above further discloses in Yamada,
wherein the filter part [105] allows passage of a mode-locked pulse for starting an oscillation of the laser light (Paras. [27,30,31]).
Regarding claim 23, Yamada in view of Deng discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Deng,
wherein a wavelength of the second wavelength component is smaller than that of the first wavelength component [1549.23nm and 1548.20 nm wavelengths] (Page 0850, left column, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 22, Yamada discloses,
A mode-locked laser device [Fig. 1] (Para. [18]) for generating a laser light (para. [16], comprising a filter part [105] (Paras. [19 and 20]) that is provided in a resonator [104] (Para. [16]), for selectively allowing passage of a wavelength component of a light in accordance with a pass wavelength characteristic [frequency mode peaks under 501] (Para. [43]), wherein the pass wavelength characteristic has local maximum values in at least two or more wavelengths [multiple frequency mode peaks under 501] (See Fig. 5) (Paras. [32 and 43]); and
an amplifying unit [101] (Para. [16]) provided in an propagation path of the laser light (Para. [16]), and configured to include an optical fiber (Para. [52]) or being connected to an optical fiber (Para. [17]),
wherein, after oscillation of the laser light, a first wavelength component (Paras. [32,43]), which is a wavelength component of an oscillation wavelength of the laser light (Paras. [32,43]), circulates in a propagation path of the laser light in the resonator without being blocked [see Fig. 1]
the pass wavelength characteristic of the filter part has a first passband [center maximum frequency mode Fig. 5] (Paras [32,33]) comprising a wavelength of any of the local maximum values [peak value 504 Fig. 5] (Paras. [32,43]), for selectively allowing passage of the first wavelength component (Paras. [32,43]), and a second passband [leftmost frequency mode peak Fig. 5] comprising a wavelength of any of the local maximum values [Fig. 5] (Para. [32]), for selectively allowing passage of the second wavelength component (Para. [32]), and
Yamada fails to disclose,
an induced emission cross-sectional area of the optical fiber in a distribution characteristic of the second wavelength is larger than that of the first wavelength.
Deng discloses in Fig. 1,
an oscillation of laser light in a first wavelength component [1549.23nm wavelength from FBG] (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3) induced by a second wavelength component [1548.20 nm wavelength from FBG] (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3), which is passed by a filter part [FBG1 and FBG2 Fig. 1] (Page 0850, left column, paragraph 1) and is different from the first wavelength component (Page 0850, left column, paragraph 1) where an induced emission cross-sectional area of the optical fiber in a distribution characteristic of the second wavelength is larger than that of the first wavelength (see Figs. 2 and 3)
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 interacting first and second wavelength components as disclosed in Deng in the device of Yamada for allowing passive mode locking. (Deng Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3)
Regarding claim 18, Yamada in view of Deng as applied to claim 22 above further discloses in Deng,
wherein the second wavelength component [1548.20 nm wavelength from FBG] (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3) of the laser light allowed passage by the filter part [FBG1 and FBG2 Fig. 1] induces an oscillation in the oscillation wavelength (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 20, Yamada discloses,
A mode-locking method for mode locking a laser light (Paras. [27,27,30]), wherein the laser light is mode locked by, in a resonator [104] of the laser light, selectively allowing passage of a first wavelength component [center maximum frequency mode Fig. 5] (Paras. [32,43]) and a second wavelength component [leftmost frequency mode peak Fig. 5] of a light, the second wavelength component being different from the first wavelength component (Para. [32]) in accordance with a pass wavelength characteristic having local maximum values in at least two or more wavelengths [See Fig. 3] (Paras. [30,31]),
wherein, after oscillation of the laser light, a first wavelength component (Paras. [32,43]), which is a wavelength component of an oscillation wavelength of the laser light (Paras. [32,43]), circulates in the resonator by propagating through an entire propagation path of the laser light [see Fig. 1] (Paras. [32,43]), and
Yamada fails to disclose,
the second wavelength component induces an oscillation of the laser light in the first wavelength component
Deng discloses in Fig. 1,
an oscillation of laser light in a first wavelength component [1549.23nm wavelength from FBG] (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3) induced by a second wavelength component [1548.20 nm wavelength from FBG] (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3)
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 interacting first and second wavelength components as disclosed in Deng in the device of Yamada for allowing passive mode locking. (Deng Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3)
Regarding claim 21, Yamada in view of Deng discloses the method outlined in the rejection of claim 20 above and further discloses in Deng,
wherein the pass wavelength characteristic has a first passband [1549.23nm wavelength band from FBG see Figs. 2 and 3] (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3) comprising a wavelength of any of the local maximum values [1549.23nm wavelength] (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3)], for selectively allowing passage of a first wavelength component [1549.23nm wavelength band from FBG see Figs. 2 and 3] (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3) and
a second passband [1548.20 nm wavelength band from FBG see Figs. 2 and 3] comprising a wavelength of any of the local maximum values, for selectively allowing passage of a second wavelength component [1548.20 nm wavelength from FBG] (Page 0851, right column, paragraphs 2 and 3)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Deng as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Eggleston et al. (hereinafter Eggleston) (US 10038301 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada in view of Deng discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 2 above but fails to disclose,
An intensity of the second wavelength component is 10% or less of the first wavelength component, in the laser light output by the laser device.
Eggleston discloses in Fig. 5c,
an intensity of a second wavelength component [λa] is 10% or less of a first wavelength component [λb] in a laser light output (Col. 5, lines 35-53)
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 reduced intensity of a second wavelength component in a laser output light as shown in Eggleston in the modified device of Yamada for the purpose of allowing a desired wavelength value to be output from the laser. (Eggleston Col. 5, lines 55-57)
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Deng as applied to claims 1 and 22 above and further in view of Jupé et al. (hereinafter Jupé) (DE 102017129069 B3) (Examiner notes the US publication (US 20200301050 A1) of Jupé will be used in the claim mapping of claims 4 and 5 below. See PTO-892 form.)
Regarding claim 4, Yamada in view of Deng discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 2 above but fails to disclose,
a width of the second passband is narrower than a width of the first passband.
Jupé discloses in Fig. 5,
a second passband [20] having a width that is narrower than a width of a first passband [19] (Para. [0043]) that is centered at an oscillation wavelength (Para. [0043])
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 passband having a larger width as shown in Jupé for the purpose of encompassing more wavelength values near the oscillation wavelength.
Regarding claim 5, Yamada in view of Deng discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 22 above but fails to disclose,
a width of the second passband is narrower than a width of the first passband.
Jupé discloses in Fig. 5,
a second passband [20] having a width that is narrower than a width of a first passband [19] (Para. [0043]) that is centered at an oscillation wavelength (Para. [0043])
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 passband having a larger width as shown in Jupé for the purpose of encompassing more wavelength values near the oscillation wavelength.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Deng as applied to claims 1 and 22 above and further in view of Popa et al. (hereinafter Popa) (US 20200203911 A1) in support of Wise et al. (hereinafter Wise) (US 20040114641 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Yamada in view of Deng discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 2 above and further discloses in Yamada Fig. 1,
comprising an amplifying unit [101] (Para. [16]) for amplifying the laser light in the resonator [104] (Para. [16]),
Yamada in view of Deng fails to disclose,
wherein the amplifying unit comprises a Yb fiber, and a center wavelength of the first passband and a center wavelength of the second passband are both 1020 nm or more and 1100 nm or less.
Popa discloses,
a Yb-doped fiber amplifier [36a] (Para. [0057]) operating at a wavelength range of 1040nm-1080nm (Para. [0019])
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 Yb-fiber amplification as shown in Popa into the amplifying unit structure of the modified device of Yamada for the purpose of providing high pulse energies and average power. (Wise Para. [0005])
Regarding claim 7, Yamada in view of Deng discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 22 above and further discloses in Yamada Fig. 1,
comprising an amplifying unit [101] (Para. [16]) for amplifying the laser light in the resonator [104] (Para. [16]),
Yamada in view of Deng fails to disclose,
wherein the amplifying unit comprises a Yb fiber, and a center wavelength of the first passband and a center wavelength of the second passband are both 1020 nm or more and 1100 nm or less.
Popa discloses,
a Yb-doped fiber amplifier [36a] (Para. [0057]) operating at a wavelength range of 1040nm-1080nm (Para. [0019])
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 Yb-fiber amplification as shown in Popa into the amplifying unit structure of the modified device of Yamada for the purpose of providing high pulse energies and average power. (Wise Para. [0005])
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Deng as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Brès et al (hereinafter Brès) (US 20180102625 A1)
Regarding claim 17, Yamada in view of Deng discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
a NALM functioning as a saturable absorber.
Brès discloses,
A NALM functioning as a saturable absorber (Para. [0116])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a NALM functioning as a saturable absorber as shown in Brès into the tmodified device of Yamada for the purpose of operating the laser in pulses. (Brès Para. [0116])
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
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights