Non-Final Rejection
This application was filed with claims 1-9. Following a non-final rejection, applicant filed an amendment on 12/12/2025 in which claims 1, 5, and 7 are amended. Claim 1-9 are pending.
Claim 7 was indicated as having allowable subject matter in the prior action, and applicant placed it into independent form. The claim is rejected herein, therefore this action is made non-final.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0072248 to Johnson et al. (“Johnson”) in view of JP 2017-168772 (“JP ‘772”) (cited on 2/6/2023 IDS).
Regarding claim 1:
A fiber laser apparatus comprising: amplification optical fibers including a first amplification optical fiber and a second amplification optical fiber, each of the amplification optical fibers having different amplification characteristics and comprising a core to which an active element is doped;
Johnson describes a fiber laser apparatus. Fig. 4 shows a single amplification optical fiber 7 on a spool 11. [0041]. Fig. 6B shows that several of the spools may be stacked each with amplification optical fibers, i.e. there may be a second amplification optical fiber. [0045]. A person of ordinary skill would understand that such active fibers have an active doped core; Johnson shows core 76 and says the fiber is doped. Fig. 5, [0043]. It is not stated whether the fibers have the same or different amplification characteristics. However, a person of ordinary skill would understand that different fiber lasers have different characteristics and produce different light. There are certainly applications where one might want several of the same laser, but there are also numerous applications where one might want different beams having different outputs, whether that is a different power or a different wavelength, and thus it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use different fibers having different amplification characteristics. It would therefore also have been obvious to try this. MPEP 2143 I.E. There is a recognized need for devices having multiple lasers that have the option to provide multiple laser beams, as shown in Johnson. There are essentially two choices as relevant here—use all identical lasers or use different lasers with different characteristics. A person of ordinary skill could have chosen either path with a reasonable expectation of success, as the particular doping characteristics would not appreciably change the way in which Johnson operates.
Additionally, as discussed below in the “in series” limitation, JP ‘772 describes a similar system where multiple fiber modules are stacked vertically in an enclosure, the fibers configured as a MOPA with one fiber the master oscillator and a different fiber the power amplifier, and the examiner determined that it would have been obvious to do such a configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in such a MOPA the fibers will have different amplification characteristics as that is essentially the definition of a MOPA. The master oscillator generates a low power seed signal with the desired characteristics, and the power amplifier greatly amplifies it to the desired higher power level.
one or more cooling plates having a first cooling surface that thermally contacts and cools the first amplification optical fiber and a second cooling surface that thermally contacts and cools the second amplification optical fiber;
It is shown in Figs. 9-10 that the spools 12’, 12” may have a heat spreader 100 between them. [0051]. The heat spreader may provide thermal conduction between spools, therefore it thermally contacts and cools the fibers. It may be said the upper surface is a first cooling surface thermally contacting the upper spool and fiber that is on it, and the lower surface is a second cooling surface that thermally contacts and cools the lower spool and fiber that it is on.
one or more module boxes including a gain module box that houses the amplification optical fibers and the one or more cooling plates; and an enclosure housing the one or module boxes,
Johnson Fig. 6B shows a module box 14, 15, and sides that houses the fibers and cooling plate. Johnson does not show an additional enclosure housing the box. Adding an additional housing to further enclose a device is clearly something that was already known. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so as an additional housing would give more protection to the parts, depending on what kind of environment this device is being used in.
wherein the first cooling surface and the second cooling surface are disposed at different heights in a height direction in the gain module box, and at least a portion of the first cooling surface overlaps at least a portion of the second cooling surface as viewed along the height direction, and
The top and bottom surface of the heat spreader 100 are at different heights and overlap with each other in the height direction.
the amplification optical fibers are connected in series to each other.
Johnson does not specify that the fibers are connected in series. JP ‘772 shows a similar system where fiber modules are stacked vertically in an enclosure. See Fig. 14, with fiber modules 461 and 462 of Figs. 15-16 stacked therein, and Fig. 13 showing everything side by side in a plan view, and the discussion of these figures. The fiber 423 in 461 is in series with the fiber 434 in 462. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make these fibers in series because then the system may be implemented as a MOPA, as taught by JP ‘772.
Regarding claim 2, the heat spreader 100 has both the first cooling surface and the second cooling surface.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of US 2019/0280449 to Hodges et al. (“Hodges”).
Regarding claim 1:
A fiber laser apparatus comprising: amplification optical fibers including a first amplification optical fiber and a second amplification optical fiber, each of the amplification optical fibers having different amplification characteristics and comprising a core to which an active element is doped;
. . .
one or more module boxes including a gain module box that houses the amplification optical fibers and the one or more cooling plates; and an enclosure housing the one or module boxes . . . and the amplification optical fibers are connected in series to each other.
These limitations are described by Johnson and JP ‘772 as in the above rejection of claim 1.
one or more cooling plates having a first cooling surface that thermally contacts and cools the first amplification optical fiber and a second cooling surface that thermally contacts and cools the second amplification optical fiber;
. . .
wherein the first cooling surface and the second cooling surface are disposed at different heights in a height direction in the gain module box, and at least a portion of the first cooling surface overlaps at least a portion of the second cooling surface as viewed along the height direction,
The Johnson Fig. 6B and 7 embodiments (without the heat spreader) show stacked spools. However, it is apparent that in the way the fibers wind around the spool (see Fig. 5 or 10) that the spools themselves would not provide the claimed first and second cooling surfaces like those claimed that thermally contact and cool the fiber and also overlap in the height direction.
Hodges describes a fiber laser. In some cases, the fiber is wound around a spool (see Fig. 10), somewhat like in Johnson. In other cases, the fiber is coiled on top of a flat surface. See Figs. 1-2. Hodges treats these as equivalent. At least ten times Hodges says that the fibers of fiber lasers may be “coiled or spooled” and shows embodiments of each as noted above. [0004], [0014], [0028], [0061], [0075]-[0076]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the fiber coiled on a flat surface like in Hodges, rather than spooled like in Johnson, as Hodges recognizes that these two configurations are equivalent for mounting the fiber of a fiber laser. It is generally held to be obvious to substitute art recognized equivalents for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 II..
When the fiber is coiled onto a flat surface, like in Hodges Figs. 1-2, the surface may be a heat conductor 22 or 232 with cooling plate 250. [0037], [0043]. Thus, when modified as above, the spools of Johnson would be replaced with fibers coiled on top of a surface, a cooling plate that thermally contacts and cools the fiber. The surfaces will overlap in a height direction and be at different heights in the box.
3. The fiber laser apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a first cooling plate of the one or more cooling plates has the first cooling surface, and a second cooling plate of the one or more cooling plates has the second cooling surface.
4. The fiber laser apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the first cooling surface does not face the second cooling surface.
As noted, after the modification with Hodges the spools of Johnson would be replaced with fibers coiled on a cooling plate. There is therefore a first and second cooling plate under each of the first and second fibers, the first having the first cooling surface and the second having the second. Each cooling surface would face up like in Hodges Fig. 1, so the surfaces do not face each other.
Regarding claim 7,
A fiber laser apparatus comprising: amplification optical fibers including a first amplification optical fiber and a second amplification optical fiber, each of the amplification optical fibers having different amplification characteristics and comprising a core to which an active element is doped; one or more cooling plates having a first cooling surface that thermally contacts and cools the first amplification optical fiber and a second cooling surface that thermally contacts and cools the second amplification optical fiber; one or more module boxes including a gain module box that houses the amplification optical fibers and the one or more cooling plates; and an enclosure housing the one or module boxes, wherein the first cooling surface and the second cooling surface are disposed at different heights in a height direction in the gain module box, and at least a portion of the first cooling surface overlaps at least a portion of the second cooling surface as viewed along the height direction, a first cooling plate of the one or more cooling plates has the first cooling surface, a second cooling plate of the one or more cooling plates has the second cooling surface,
These are all part of claims 1 and 3 and thus are met by the art for the same reasons as above.
the fiber laser apparatus further comprises an intermediate optical fiber connecting the first amplification optical fiber to the second amplification optical fiber, and one or both of the first cooling plate and the second cooling plate have a fiber hole or a notch in which the intermediate optical fiber is disposed.
As discussed above re: Johnson in view of JP ‘477 and claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the Johnson general system as a MOPA in view of JP ‘477. In that case there is an intermediate fiber between the to amplification optical fibers, carrying the seed signal from the master oscillator part to be amplified in the power amplifier part. See F7, F8, F9, F10 in Fig. 13, carrying signal from amplification fiber 423 to amplification fiber 434. The modules additionally have a notch in which the intermediate fiber is disposed. See 461c in Fig. 15 and 462e in Fig. 16, where F10 exits one and enters the other. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such a notch as it clearly makes it easier to connect the fiber from a higher module to a lower module (or vice versa) when they are stacked vertically like in Johnson or JP ‘477. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the notch as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. MPEP 2143 I.C. Johnson/Hodges is a base device upon which the claimed device is an improvement by including the claimed notch, but JP ‘477 is a comparable device having the same kind of notch. A person of ordinary skill could have included such a notch and the result would have been predictable because it does not change the operation of the device, it merely adds an opening for the fiber to go from one level to another.
8. The fiber laser apparatus according to claim 3, wherein each of the first cooling plate and the second cooling plate includes: a passage through which a cooling medium passes, an inlet port that supplies the cooling medium to the passage, and an outlet port that discharges the cooling medium from the passage.
Each spool in Johnson includes passage 50 through which a cooling medium passes. [0045]. One may simply call the edge of the passage in each spool and inlet or outlet port. Such passages would remain when the device is modified as in this rejection of claim 1 above.
9. The fiber laser apparatus according to claim 8, further comprising a connection pipe connecting the outlet port of one of the first cooling plate and the second cooling plate to the inlet port of the other of the first cooling plate and the second cooling plate.
In the case where the heat spreader 100 is part of the device, there will also clearly be a passage for fluid through the heat spreader. See Fig. 11. This passage, which is between one spool and the next, would be considered the claimed connection pipe connecting the outlet of one spool with the inlet of the other. Again, these passages would remain if modified as in this rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are allowed. Reasons were given in the prior action. Claim 5 was placed in independent form and remains allowable.
It is noted that claim 7 was previously indicated as allowable above, but is now rejected in view of JP ‘772. One could argue that JP ‘772 is applicable to claim 5 as well, as it shows in Figs. 15 and 16 that support plates 461 and 462 (which might correspond to the cooling plates) have different perimeters and thus different sizes. However, there are two problems with this. First, the overall size of the plates in JP ‘772 are the same, i.e. the length and width, they only differ in the various notches. The present invention clearly distinguishes between “size” as in claim 5 and “notches” as in claim 7. Compare Figs. 5 and 6, which are alternatives. Furthermore, even if a change in notch was considered a change in size, Johnson teaches away from making the plates different sizes. Johnson is clear that it is advantageous that the device be modular so that it is easy to manufacture and easy to install by unskilled users. [0068]-[0069]. Johnson explains that typically such high power lasers are not modular and thus are difficult to install in certain applications. [0071]. In light of this, Johnson teaches away from non-modular constructions, and having the plates be different sizes would be non-modular. Note that the notch of claim 7 is not taught away from, as all plates could include a notch.
Conclusion
US 2010/0247055, cited in the last action, also shows vertically stacked fiber modules where the fibers are in series.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Menefee whose telephone number is (571)272-1944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 applications may be obtained from Patent Center. See 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.
/JAMES A MENEFEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828