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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1-5, 7-8 and 10 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 1, as well as 2-5, 7-8 and 10 due to their dependency recite the limitation "the one or more diode lasers" in lines 13-14, 17 and 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 introduces “a plurality of diode lasers” in line 8. For purposes of claim interpretation, "the one or more diode lasers" is assumed to be “the plurality of diode lasers.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0257801 (Sakamoto) in view of “Continuous-wave and quasi-continuous wave thulium-doped all-fiber laser: implementation on kidney stone fragmentations” (Pal) and US 2018/0092693 (Falkenstein).
For claim 1, Sakamoto teaches a laser system (fig. 1), comprising:
a plurality of fiber laser resonators (fig. 1, AF, FBG-HR and FBG-LR in FLU1-FLU7);
a beam combiner configured to combine laser light outputs from the plurality of fiber laser resonators fig. 1, OC);
an optical delivery fiber configured to receive the combined output from the plurality of laser resonators into the delivery fiber and configured to deliver the combined output to a target (fig. 1, ODF);
a plurality of diode lasers configured for optically pumping the plurality of the plurality of fiber laser resonators, wherein the laser light outputs from the plurality of fiber laser resonators are generated in response to the provided optical pump pulses (fig. 1, PS1-PS6 in FLU1-FLU7).
Sakamoto does not teach if the pumping is provided by pulses or is cw.
However, Pal teaches a fiber laser may be pumped by pulsed laser diodes in order to generate pulses with different peak powers (fig. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the pulsed pumping of Pal with the invention of Sakamoto (specifically each of the plurality of fiber laser resonators) in order to generate pulses with different peak powers.
Sakamoto further teaches
one or more power supplies configured to provide current to the plurality of diode lasers, wherein the diode lasers are configured to emit laser light in response to the provided electrical current (fig. 1, I1-I7).
Sakamoto does not teach the current is provided in a plurality of temporally spaced-apart electrical pulses such that the diodes emit laser light in pulses.
However, Falkenstein does teach current is provided to an optical pump (fig. 1, 24) via a plurality of temporally spaced-apart electrical pulses (fig. 4a, electrical pulses),
wherein the plurality of temporally spaced-apart electrical pulses include:
one or more first electrical pulses (fig. 4A, A) configured to cause at least one of the one or more optical pumps to emit one or more first light pulses ([0037]), and a plurality of second electrical pulses (fig. 4A, B,C,D) following the one or more first electrical pulses configured to cause the one or more optical pumps to emit second light pulses ([0037]),
wherein the one or more first light pulses excite a lasing medium of a gain sections of the laser resonators to an energy level below a lasing threshold of the lasing medium ([0037]),
wherein the plurality of second light pulses excite the lasing medium to an energy level above a lasing threshold of the lasing medium ([0037]),
wherein the laser resonators are configured to output a quasi- continuous laser pulse in response to the plurality of second light pulses(fig. 4A, Laser Pulses), and
wherein a laser pulse duration of the quasi-continuous laser pulses is between 250 µs to 10 ms ([0040]) in order to prevent a sharp energy spike ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electrical pulse configuration of Falkenstein for driving the optical pumps in the device of the previous combination in order to drive the diode laser pump sources so that a sharp energy spike is prevented.
For claim 2, Sakamoto does not teach the fiber laser resonators each include a Tm-doped gain section.
However, Pal teaches a fiber laser resonator includes a Tm-doped gain section (fig. 1, TDF) in order to generate high power between 1.90 and 2.05 µm (p. 6151, col. 2, l. 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Tm doping of Pal with the previous combination in order to generate high power between 1.90 and 2.05 µm.
For claim 3, the combination as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches each of the plurality of diode lasers is configured to generate optical pump pulses.
Sakamoto further teaches the laser system further comprising:
a first pump combiner configured for combining the generated optical pump pulses from a first set of the plurality of diode lasers into a first optical fiber that provides the combined optical pump pulses from the first set of diode lasers to a gain section of a first one of the fiber laser resonators (fig. 1, PDFs 1-6 and PC and fiber between PC and FBG-HR); and
a second pump combiner configured for combining the generated optical pump pulses from a second set of the plurality of diode lasers into a second optical fiber that provides the combined optical pump pulses from the second set of diode lasers to a gain section of a second one of the fiber laser resonators (fig. 1, pump delivery fibers and pump combiner and fiber between PC and FBG-HR of FLU2 ).
For claim 5, Sakamoto does not teach does not teach the combined laser output delivered to the target has a power of greater than 1.0 kW and wherein the laser output delivered to the target has a wavelength between 1925 nm and 2100 nm.
However, Sakamoto teaches using a rare earth dopant and provides Yb as an example to generate the laser beam, but does not strictly limit the rare earth material. Pal teaches using thulium as a dopant which generates a laser output with a wavelength between 1925 nm and 2100 nm (p 6151 col. 2, l. 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thulium and wavelength between 1925 nm and 2100 nm of Pal as a simple substitution for the rare earth dopant of Sakamoto as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative gain medium. See MPEP 2143 I.B. The wavelength of Pal has the additional advantage of being useful in medical devices and applications such as directed energy and long range sensing.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the combined laser output delivered to the target to provide a required power of greater than 1.0 kW for a particular application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 7, Falkenstein teaches each temporally spaced-apart electrical pulse has a duration in a range of 10 µs to 1000 µs ([0040]).
For claim 8, Falkenstein teaches a spacing between adjacent the temporally spaced-apart electrical pulses is between 10-300 µs ([0040]).
For claim 10, Falkenstein teaches the quasi-continuous laser pulses include a plurality of temporally spaced apart laser pulses having a frequency greater than or equal to 1 kHz ([0040]).
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0257801 (Sakamoto) in view of “Continuous-wave and quasi-continuous wave thulium-doped all-fiber laser: implementation on kidney stone fragmentations” (Pal) and US 2018/0092693 (Falkenstein) and further in view of US 8,094,370 (Lewis).
For claim 4, Sakamoto teaches each of the first and second pump combiners include a plurality of optical fibers (fig. 1, PDFs 1-6 and PDFs of FLU2) that are coupled into a single optical fiber (fig. 1, fiber between PC and FBG-HR in FLU1 and FLU2), each of the plurality of optical fibers being configured for receiving light pulses from one of the plurality of diode lasers (fig. 1, PS1-PS6 in FLU1 and FLU2) and providing the received light pulses into the single optical fiber (fig. 1).
Sakamoto does not teach the plurality of optical fibers are pigtailed and tapered or that the single optical fiber is multimode.
However, the examiner previously took official notice that fiber pigtails were well-known in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. The applicant did not traverse. It is therefore, taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03 C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the well-known fiber pigtails with the device of the previous combination in order to provide simple connection between the laser pump diodes and the pump delivery fibers.
Lewis teaches a pump combiner/multiplexer may be formed using a plurality of tapered fibers (fig. 1, 305) coupled into a single multimode optical fiber (fig. 3, 303 and fig. 5) in order to couple pump light (fig. 3, 306) into a rare earth double clad fiber (fig. 3, 302).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the particular combiner of Lewis as a simple substitution for the combiner of Sakamoto as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative pump combiner. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 11 was previously rejected under 35 USC 112 and under 35 USC 102 over US 2018/0102621 (Shi). Applicant has amended independent claim 11 to overcome the previous art rejection and overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112. There is no suggestion or motivation to modify Shi to meet the additional claimed limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 center around Shi modified by Pal and Falkentstein. However, the rejection of claim 1 does not rely upon Shi. Applicant’s arguments are, therefore, not persuasive as they do not address the particular combination used to reject independent claim 1.
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 Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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 contact the examiner at the above number.
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.
/Michael Carter/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828