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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/02/2026.
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, 4, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gapontsev et al. (US 9716365) in view of Hwang et al. (US 11515682).
With respect to claim 1, Gapontsev teaches a pump-signal combiner (fig.1/2/4), comprising: an enclosure (fig.1 #26); and a fiber bundle (fig.4 with pump fiber above/below signal) disposed within the glass enclosure, wherein the fiber bundle comprises: a plurality of pump fibers (fig.4 #52/56, col.5 lines 33-35); and a signal fiber (fig.1 #24, fig.4 #54), surrounded by the plurality of pump fibers (as seen in fig.4), that comprises: an input section having an input core diameter (fig.2 #36 on left); an output section having an output core diameter (fig.2 #36 on right); and an intermediate section (fig.2 #38), provided between the input section and the output section, wherein the intermediate section comprises: a first tapered section (fig.2 left taper), adjacent to the input section, in which a core diameter of the intermediate section increases from the input core diameter to a maximum value (max throughout #38); and a second tapered section (fig.2 right taper), adjacent to the output section, in which the core diameter of the intermediate section decreases from the maximum value to the output core diameter (as seen in fig.2). Gapontsev does not specify the enclosure is glass. Hwang teaches a related fiber combiner (fig.1 #150) which makes use of a glass enclosure (fig.1 #154, col.8 lines 35-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the enclosure of Gapontsev to make use of glass material as demonstrated by Hwang in order to protect and bind the individual fibers as well as to withstand heating (Hwang, col.8 lines 35-38).
With respect to claim 4, Gapontsev teaches the intermediate section of the signal fiber further comprises: an intermediate section, provided between the first tapered section and the second tapered section, having a uniform core diameter equal to the maximum value (fig.2 #38 uniform between tapers).
With respect to claim 16, Gapontsev teaches an optical system (fig.1/2/4/5), comprising: an input subsystem comprising: one or more first sources (fig.5 seed) configured to generate signal light; and a plurality of second laser sources configured to generate pump light (fig.5 #25x4); an output fiber (fig.5 fiber to right of #63); and a pump-signal combiner (fig.1/2/4/5 overlap of right side pump fibers with gain fiber #63), arranged between the input subsystem and the output fiber (at least partially between), wherein the pump-signal combiner comprises: a plurality of pump fibers (fig.4) configured to receive the pump light and to transmit the pump light into the output fiber (fig.2/4 based on pump light being introduced to clad of signal fiber arranged immediately adjacent the output fiber); and one or more signal fibers (fig.2 #24), surrounded by the plurality of pump fibers (fig.4, col.5 lines 33-35), wherein the one or more signal fibers each comprise: an input section (fig.2 #36), coupled to the one or more first laser sources (from left), having an input core diameter (as seen in fig.2); an output section (fig.2 #36 on right), coupled to the output fiber (as seen in fig.1/5), having an output diameter (inherent); a first tapered section (fig.2 right side taper), adjacent to the input section, in which a core diameter increases from the input core diameter to a maximum value (max at #38); and a second tapered section (fig.2 right side taper), adjacent to the output section, in which a core diameter decreases from the maximum value to the output diameter (as seen in fig.2). Gapontsev does not teach the seed to be one or more first laser sources configured to generate signal light, or the output fiber to be an output fiber comprising one or more cores configured to carry the signal light and a cladding, surrounding the core, configured to carry the pump light. Hwang teaches a related laser fiber system with combiners including the seed to be a laser (col.3 lines 25-26) and the use of fibers having a core/clad (fig.3a) and pump light to propagate in the cladding (fig.2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of a laser for the seed of Gapontsev as demonstrated by Hwang in order to use a coherent source with beam characteristics suitable for fiber transmission with associated optics. Further, it would have been obvious to adapt the device of Gapontsev to make use of a core/clad fiber for the output fiber , as well as to couple pump light to the clad, as demonstrated by Hwang in order to guide the signal light in a conventional manner via core/clad index contrast and to further make use of the pump light for down stream components (note Gapontsev fig.6).
With respect to claim 17, Gapontsev further teaches the pump-signal combiner is arranged between the input subsystem and the output fiber in a forward pumping configuration (fig.5 note the two pump sources #25 on #63 pump in opposite directions, such that one is forward pumping and one is backward pumping).
With respect to claim 18, Gapontsev further teaches the pump-signal combiner is arranged between the input subsystem and the output fiber in a cascaded pumping configuration (fig.5 note the two pump sources #25 on #63 follow one after the other in a cascade fashion).
With respect to claim 19, Gapontsev teaches the pump-signal combiner is arranged between the input subsystem and the output fiber in a backward pumping configuration (fig.5 note the two pump sources #25 on #63 pump in opposite directions, such that one is forward pumping and one is backward pumping).
With respect to claim 20, Gapontsev teaches the one or more signal fibers each further comprise an intermediate section, provided between the first tapered section and the second tapered section, having a uniform core diameter equal to the maximum value (fig.2 #38 uniform between tapers).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gapontsev and Hwang in view of Starodoumov (US 2004/0196537) and Farrow et al. (US 10971884).
With respect to claim 2, Gapontsev, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, and appears to teach, but not explicitly state the input core diameter is equal to the output core diameter (fig.2 #36 on either side), and does not teach the input section of the signal fiber and the output section of the signal fiber have different numerical apertures. Starodoumov teaches fiber combiners with similar tapers (fig.10e) and that the input/output fiber diameter sizing is a result effective variable that directly influences coupling losses. Further, Farrow teaches fiber combining of changing size (fig.1/2) and that the difference in numerical aperture (NA) difference between the fibers is a result effective variable influencing both coupling loss (col.5 lines 13-38) and beam parameter product (col.5 line 59 – col.6 line 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Gapontsev such that the input core diameter is equal to the output core diameter, and the input section of the signal fiber and the output section of the signal fiber have different numerical apertures in order to adjust the diameters and NA to select a desired coupling loss and beam parameter product as Starodoumov and Farrow have taught each is a result effective variable producing known results when changed (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
With respect to claim 3, Gapontsev, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the input section of the signal fiber and the output section of the signal fiber have equal numerical apertures, and the input core diameter is different from the output core diameter. Starodoumov teaches fiber combiners with similar tapers (fig.10e) and that the input/output fiber diameter sizing is a result effective variable that directly influences coupling losses. Further, Farrow teaches fiber combining of changing size (fig.1/2) and that the difference in numerical aperture (NA) difference between the fibers is a result effective variable influencing both coupling loss (col.5 lines 13-38) and beam parameter product (col.5 line 59 – col.6 line 16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Gapontsev such that the input section of the signal fiber and the output section of the signal fiber have equal numerical apertures, and the input core diameter is different from the output core diameter in order to adjust the diameters and NA to select a desired coupling loss and beam parameter product as Starodoumov and Farrow have taught each is a result effective variable producing known results when changed (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gapontsev and Hwang in view of Gapontsev et al. (US 9882341, hereafter ‘341).
With respect to claim 5, Gapontsev, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including an output fiber (fig.1 #16) but does not teach the output core diameter of the output section of the signal fiber equals a core diameter of an output fiber connected to the output section of the signal fiber. ‘341 teaches a similar fiber connector (fig.5) and further that output section core equals a core diameter of an output fiber (col.3 lines 19-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the output section core diameter to equal the output fiber core diameter as demonstrated by ‘341 in order to make use of a core/clad fiber to guide the light by conventional index contrast and to reduce any coupling light loss (see Starodoumov above).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gapontsev and Hwang in view of Kumkar et al. (US 8787716).
With respect to claim 6, Gapontsev, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the glass enclosure comprises a first tapered section that at least partially overlaps with the first tapered section of the signal fiber and a second tapered section that at least partially overlaps with the second tapered section of the signal fiber. Kumkar teaches a related fiber connector which includes a surrounding enclosure (fig.1 #3) which tapers as an internal fiber tapers (fig.1 PF tapers between C-D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system of Gapontsev to taper the enclosure as the fiber tapers (once in each taper section) as demonstrated by Kumkar in order to tightly bind the enclosure to the internal fibers.
With respect to claim 7, Gapontsev, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the enclosure to be a capillary type tube (see #26 surrounding as indicated above/below) but does not teach the glass enclosure comprises a capillary tube with a cladding light stripper on the capillary tube. Kumkar further teaches using a cladding light stripper on the tube (fig.46 S, on as in “nearby”). It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system of Gapontsev to make use of a light stripper on the tube as demonstrated by Kumkar in order to remove unwanted light (Kumkar, col.15 lines 42-50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included pto892 form for a list of related fiber connectors with similar tapered shapes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights