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 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myslinki et al, US Patent No. 5,530,584
Myslinski et al disclose a control of gain and dispersion of a signal in an optical medium comprising: a WDM 62 couples a pump signal, provided by a pump 61, at a wavelength of 980 nm with an input signal provided on an input terminal 60; as the input signal propagates through an erbium doped fiber 64 it is amplified; a second WDM 66 removes any remaining pump signal at the pump wavelength of 980 nm and provides this pump signal to a third WDM 68 for coupling downstream in the circuit; two NSAFs 70 and 72 with suitably selected parameters (numerical aperture, NA, fibre core, a, fibre length, L, ion concentration, N, cluster size, m), receive the amplified input signal and provide controlled non-saturable absorption of particular wavelengths; an erbium doped fiber 74 receives a pump signal and amplified input signal from the WDM 68 which is further amplified by the EDF 74. Similarly, as in FIG. 7, a WDM 76 removes any remaining pump signal; Particular wavelengths of the twice amplified signal are absorbed in a controlled manner by a third NSAF 78; an optional absorption bandpass filter 73a, for the provision of spectrally narrow optical signal channels; an optical isolator 73b may also be provided as shown to improve upon by lessening the noise characteristics of the circuit. (See Fig. 9B; col. 8, line 66 to col. 9).
Myslinski et al fails to disclose the specific wavelength bands and/or a second optical pump for providing optical pump signals. However, the specific wavelength bands or the additional optical is a matter of choice for meeting specific customer requirements. For instance, the specific wavelength bands are selected to meet specific customer operational wavelength whereas the optical pump is used so that more electrons are in an excited state than in the ground state in order to allow stimulated emission of photon for the laser operation and to enhance signal detection. Therefore, it would have been an obvious extension as taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baker et al, US Patent No. 11,043, 785, disclose a nanoparticle doping for lasers and amplifiers. Miura et al, US Patent No. 10,971,888, disclose an optical amplifier.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ST CYR whose telephone number is (571)272-2407. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:00-8:00.
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, Michael G Lee can be reached at 571-272-2398. 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.
DANIEL ST CYR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DANIEL ST CYR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876