DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 31 March 2023. By amendment received 26 May 2026; claims 1, 7, 13, and 20 are amended, claims 5, 11, and 17 are cancelled, and claims 21 through 23 are added. Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 10, 12 through 16, and 18 through 23 are addressed by this 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; they are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the previous drawing objections are improper because, according to applicant, the noted views are separately labeled.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because the noted labels do not comply with the requirements for view numbers (37 CFR 1.84(u)(1)). Specifically, the various views appearing within each of figures 2A, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 5A, 5B, and 5C must be separately labeled. Furthermore, the different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals and view numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." (37 CFR 1.84(u)(1)). The labels identified in the argument are not consecutive with the other view numbers and are not preceded by the abbreviation "FIG.". Since the labels identified in the argument do not meet the requirements for the presentation of view numbers, the present drawings do not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1). As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The drawing objections are maintained. Applicant's argument that the previous drawing objections are improper is not persuasive because the noted labels do not comply with the requirements for view numbers (37 CFR 1.84(u)(1)).
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 20 overcomes the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). This argument is persuasive and the corresponding rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Mizuuchi et al. (Mizuuchi, US Pub. 2009/0067453), Kliner et al. (Kliner, US Pub. 2013/0301116), Scifres et al. (Scifres, US Patent 5,566,196), and Gibson et al. (Gibson, US Pub. 2011/0002585) do not teach or render obvious the limitation "The multiple… active fiber cores embedded in a shared cladding" because, according to applicant, Gibson does not teach this limitation.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it only addresses the presence of this feature within Gibson (MPEP §2145IV). Specifically, Scifres explicitly states that multicore fiber thereof embeds the cores thereof within a shared cladding (Scifres, col. 3, lines 15-18 describing the assembly depicted in Figure 1). Since Scifres explicitly teaches this feature and since the present rejection is based on the combined teachings of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson, the present argument based on the absence of this feature from Gibson alone does not address the present rejection (MPEP §2145IV). As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "The multiple… active fiber cores embedded in a shared cladding" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson (see below). Applicant's argument that Gibson does not teach this limitation is not persuasive because it only addresses the presence of this feature within Gibson (MPEP §2145IV).
Applicant argues that the combined teachings of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson does not teach or render obvious the limitation "[The signal combiner] configured to receive multiple… laser inputs from the multicore fiber laser in the shared cladding" because, according to applicant, Gibson does not teach this feature. To support this argument, applicant contends that each of the fibers employed in Gibson have their own cladding rather than a shared cladding.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because it addresses Gibson alone without addressing the combination on which the rejection is based (MPEP §2145IV). Specifically, the rejection modifies the multicore fiber of Mizuuchi, which is not stated explicitly to employ a shared cladding, to employ a shared cladding as in Scifres. The rejection also modifies this device to employ a fiber coupling arrangement, as set forth in Gibson, so as to allow the generated signals to be delivered by a single fiber. The arrangement resulting from this combination employs a shared cladding prior to the coupler due to the teachings of Scifres (Scifres, col. 3, lines 15-18 describing the assembly depicted in Figure 1). The arrangement resulting from this combination also employs a shared cladding throughout and after the coupler due to the teachings of Gibson (Gibson, ¶18 and 24 describing the arrangements depicted in Figure 1 in which the fibers are drawn together such that the claddings thereof become a single internal cladding that carries the combined signal and is surrounded by a second cladding). While the arrangement of Gibson starts with distinct fibers, there is no apparent reason the multicore fiber of Scifres could not be drawn in the same manner set forth in Gibson to achieve the same effect. Since the arrangement according to the combined teachings of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson starts with a multicore fiber having a shared cladding, since the signal combiner is constructed by drawing into a fiber having a shared cladding in which the signal is carried, and since this drawing process could be employed with a multicore fiber having a shared cladding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious in light of the combined teachings of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson to form a signal combiner within a multicore fiber having a shared cladding by drawing the multicore fiber in the manner of Gibson. As such, this argument is not persuasive.
The limitation "[The signal combiner] configured to receive multiple… laser inputs from the multicore fiber laser in the shared cladding" is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson (see below). Applicant's argument that Gibson does not teach this feature is not persuasive because it addresses Gibson alone without addressing the combination on which the rejection is based (MPEP §2145IV).
As such, all claims are addressed as follows:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1).
Each of figures 2A, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 5A, 5B, and 5C include multiple views that are not separately labeled. Each view must be individually labeled. Further, when labeling views, view numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG.".
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuuchi et al. (Mizuuchi, US Pub. 2009/0067453), in view of Kliner et al. (Kliner, US Pub. 2013/0301116), in view of Scifres et al. (Scifres, US Patent 5,566,196), and further in view of Gibson et al. (Gibson, US Pub. 2011/0002585).
Regarding claim 1, Mizuuchi discloses, "A pump laser source" (p. [0193] and Fig. 14A, pt. 1). "A multicore fiber laser" (p. [0254] and Fig. 14B, pts. 122, 126a, and 126b). "An oscillator comprising an input side coupled to the pump laser source and an output side" (p. [0253] and Fig. 14A, pts. 104, 122, 123a, and 123b). "Wherein the oscillator comprises an active fiber comprising multiple… active fiber cores" (p. [0254] and Fig. 14B, pts. 122, 126a, and 126b). "[The multiple active fiber cores] to convert pump light generated by the pump laser source into signal light" (p. [0254] and Fig. 14B, pts. 122, 126a, and 126b). "[The multiple first reflectors] are each configured to operate as a high reflector (HR) on the input side of the oscillator" (p. [0253] and Fig. 14A, pt. 104). "Multiple second reflectors, respectively associated with the multiple… active fiber cores" (p. [0253] and Figs. 14A and 14B, pts. 123a, 123b, 126a, and 126b). "[The multiple second reflectors] are each configured to operate as an output coupler (OC) on the output side of the oscillator" (p. [0253] and Figs. 14A and 14B, pts. 123a, 123b, 125a, 125b, 126a, and 126b). Mizuuchi does not explicitly disclose, "Multiple first reflectors, respectively associated with the multiple… active fiber cores." "A power amplifier coupled to the output side of the oscillator." Kliner discloses, "Multiple first reflectors, respectively associated with the multiple… active fiber cores" (p. [0021] and Fig. 1, pt. 111, where employing an FBG rear reflector in the multicore arrangement of Mizuuchi results in multiple rear reflectors because FBGs are implemented on a per core basis in Mizuuchi). "A power amplifier coupled to the output side of the oscillator" (p. [0021] and Fig. 1, pts. 110 and 150). 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 teachings of Mizuuchi with the teachings of Kliner. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber, the additional inclusion of the fiber in a MOPA system and the additional use of splices to join separate fiber elements as taught by Kliner would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi by allowing the laser system to produce a higher power output and by allowing differently constructed fibers to be joined.
The combination of Mizuuchi and Kliner does not explicitly disclose, "[The multiple active fiber cores are each] singlemode active fiber cores." "The multiple… active fiber cores embedded in a shared cladding." "Wherein the power amplifier comprises multiple cores that are matched to the multiple… active fiber cores of the oscillator." Scifres discloses, "[The multiple active fiber cores are each] singlemode active fiber cores" (col. 3, lines 15-22 and Fig. 1, pt. 11). "The multiple… active fiber cores embedded in a shared cladding" (col. 3, lines 15-18 and Fig. 1, pts. 11 and 13). "Wherein the power amplifier comprises multiple cores that are matched to the multiple… active fiber cores of the oscillator" (col. 5, lines 45-62 and Fig. 10, pt. 106, where the cores of the amplifier fiber must be matched to the laser fiber when implemented as in the combined teachings of Mizuuchi and Scifres so as to maintain operation). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi and Kliner with the teachings of Scifres. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber and the teachings of Kliner regarding inclusion of the laser into a MOPA system, the alternate construction of the amplifier as a multicore fiber and the additional indication that a multicore fiber may be composed of single mode fibers as taught by Scifres would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi and Kliner by allowing each laser region to be uniquely associated with a corresponding amplifier region and by allowing for control over the modes supported by multicore fibers.
The combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, and Scifres does not explicitly disclose, "A multimode delivery fiber." "A signal combiner, integrated with the multicore fiber laser." "[The signal combiner] configured to receive multiple… laser inputs from the multicore fiber laser in the shared cladding." "[The signal combiner configured] to combine the multiple singlemode laser inputs into a multimode output that is provided to the multimode delivery fiber." Gibson discloses, "A multimode delivery fiber" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pt. 102). "A signal combiner, integrated with the multicore fiber laser" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 102). "[The signal combiner] configured to receive multiple… laser inputs from the multicore fiber laser in the shared cladding" (p. [0018], [0024], and Figs. 1A and 1D, pts. 100, 102, 104, and 106, where the signal is dejected into the cladding and confined by the secondary cladding). "[The signal combiner configured] to combine the multiple singlemode laser inputs into a multimode output that is provided to the multimode delivery fiber" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 102). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, and Scifres with the teachings of Gibson. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber, the additional inclusion of a fiber signal combiner as taught by Gibson would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi, Kliner, and Scifres by allowing the generated signals to be delivered by a single fiber of relatively simpler construction.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a quantity of the multiple… laser inputs from the multicore fiber laser equals a quantity of supported modes in the multimode delivery fiber." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coordinate the mode volume of the multimode delivery fiber with the desired number of modes produced by the lasers, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuuchi, in view of Kliner, in view of Scifres, in view of Gibson, and further in view of Bansal et al. (Bansal, US Pub. 2016/0139336).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, and Scifres does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises multiple symmetric cores." "[The multiple symmetric cores] to receive the multiple… laser inputs from the multicore fiber laser." Gibson discloses, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises multiple symmetric cores" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 102, where the cores must be symmetrical to match the symmetrical arrangement of Mizuuchi). "[The multiple symmetric cores] to receive the multiple… laser inputs from the multicore fiber laser" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 102). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, and Scifres with the teachings of Gibson for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "[The multiple symmetric cores] taper adiabatically to a splice point with the multimode delivery fiber." Bansal discloses, "[The multiple symmetric cores] taper adiabatically to a splice point with the multimode delivery fiber" (p. [0034], [0036], and Fig. 5, pts. 4a, 4b, 4c, and 18). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson with the teachings of Bansal. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber and the teachings of Gibson regarding a fiber signal combiner for combining light from the laser, the alternate construction of the fiber signal combiner to include adiabatic tapering to a splice between the tapered fibers and the delivery fiber as taught by Bansal would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson by allowing the light combined by the fiber signal combiner to be well coupled to the multimode fiber.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuuchi, in view of Kliner, in view of Scifres, in view of Gibson, in view of Bansal, and further in view of Gregg et al. (Gregg, US Pub. 2021/0223467).
Regarding claim 3, Mizuuchi does not explicitly disclose, "[The signal combiner] is spliced to the multicore fiber laser at a first splice point." Kliner discloses, "[The signal combiner] is spliced to the multicore fiber laser at a first splice point" (p. [0020] and Fig. 1, pts. 110 and 105d). 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 teachings of Mizuuchi with the teachings of Kliner for the reasons provided above regarding claim 1.
The combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "[The signal combiner is] spliced to the multimode delivery fiber at a second splice point." Bansal discloses, "[The signal combiner is] spliced to the multimode delivery fiber at a second splice point" (p. [0034], [0036], and Fig. 5, pts. 4a, 4b, 4c, and 18). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson with the teachings of Bansal for the reasons provided above regarding claim 2.
The combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, Gibson, and Bansal does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises a graded index fiber with a quarter-pitch length." Gregg discloses, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises a graded index fiber with a quarter-pitch length" (p. [0020]). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, Gibson, and Bansal with the teachings of Gregg. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber and the teachings of Gibson regarding a fiber signal combiner for combining light from the laser, the alternate construction of the fiber signal combiner to include a graded index region as taught by Gregg would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, Gibson, and Bansal by providing a suitably alternate manner of providing good coupling between the two joined fibers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuuchi, in view of Kliner, in view of Scifres, in view of Gibson, and further in view of Isenhour et al. (Isenhour, US Pub. 2014/0270626).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises a hydrophobic surface coating." Isenhour discloses, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises a hydrophobic surface coating" (p. [0046]). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson with the teachings of Isenhour. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber and the teachings of Gibson regarding a fiber signal combiner for combining light from the laser, the additional inclusion of a hydrophobic coating on a fiber face as taught by Isenhour would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson by allowing for improved coupling between the face of the signal combiner and the fiber to which it is connected.
Claims 7, 10, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuuchi, in view of Scifres, and further in view of Gibson.
Regarding claim 7, Mizuuchi discloses, "A multicore input fiber comprising multiple cores" (p. [0254] and Fig. 14B, pts. 122, 126a, and 126b). Mizuuchi does not explicitly disclose, "[The multiple cores] are each configured to support an independent singlemode laser." "Wherein the multiple cores embedded in a shared cladding." Scifres discloses, "[The multiple cores] are each configured to support an independent singlemode laser" (col. 3, lines 15-22 and Fig. 1, pt. 11). "Wherein the multiple cores embedded in a shared cladding" (col. 3, lines 15-18 and Fig. 1, pts. 11 and 13). 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 teachings of Mizuuchi with the teachings of Scifres. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber, the additional indication that a multicore fiber may be composed of single mode fibers as taught by Scifres would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi by allowing for control over the modes supported by multicore fibers.
The combination of Mizuuchi and Scifres does not explicitly disclose, "A delivery fiber comprising a single core configured to support multiple modes." "A signal combiner, coupled to the multicore input fiber and to the delivery fiber." "Wherein the signal combiner is configured to receive multiple independent… laser inputs from the multicore input fiber in the shared cladding." "[The signal combiner is configured] to combine the multiple independent… laser inputs into a multimode output that is provided to the delivery fiber." Gibson discloses, "A delivery fiber comprising a single core configured to support multiple modes" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pt. 102). "A signal combiner, coupled to the multicore input fiber and to the delivery fiber" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 102). "Wherein the signal combiner is configured to receive multiple independent… laser inputs from the multicore input fiber in the shared cladding" (p. [0018], [0024], and Figs. 1A and 1D, pts. 100, 102, 104, and 106, where the signal is dejected into the cladding and confined by the secondary cladding). "[The signal combiner is configured] to combine the multiple independent… laser inputs into a multimode output that is provided to the delivery fiber" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 102). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi and Scifres with the teachings of Gibson. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber, the additional inclusion of a fiber signal combiner as taught by Gibson would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi and Scifres by allowing the generated signals to be delivered by a single fiber of relatively simpler construction.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a quantity of the multiple independent… laser inputs received at the signal combiner from the multicore input fiber equals a quantity of the multiple modes supported in the delivery fiber." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coordinate the mode volume of the multimode delivery fiber with the desired number of modes produced by the lasers, 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.
Regarding claim 13, Mizuuchi discloses, "Multiple independent… laser inputs from a multicore fiber laser" (p. [0254] and Fig. 14B, pts. 122, 126a, and 126b). Mizuuchi does not explicitly disclose, "[The multicore fiber laser] comprises multiple cores." "Wherein the multiple cores are embedded in a shared cladding." Scifres discloses, "[The multicore fiber laser] comprises multiple cores" (col. 3, lines 15-22 and Fig. 1, pt. 11). "Wherein the multiple cores are embedded in a shared cladding" (col. 3, lines 15-18 and Fig. 1, pts. 11 and 13). 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 teachings of Mizuuchi with the teachings of Scifres for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
The combination of Mizuuchi and Scifres does not explicitly disclose, "Receiving, by a signal combiner, [the] multiple independent… laser inputs." "[The multiple cores] are each configured to support an independent singlemode laser of the multiple independent singlemode laser inputs." "Combining, by the signal combiner, the multiple independent… laser inputs, in the shared cladding, into a multimode output." "Providing, by the signal combiner, the multimode output to a delivery fiber comprising a single core configured to support multiple modes." Gibson discloses, "Receiving, by a signal combiner, [the] multiple independent… laser inputs" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pt. 102). "[The multiple cores] are each configured to support an independent singlemode laser of the multiple independent singlemode laser inputs" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 102). "Combining, by the signal combiner, the multiple independent… laser inputs, in the shared cladding, into a multimode output" (p. [0018], [0024], and Figs. 1A and 1D, pts. 100, 102, 104, and 106, where the signal is dejected into the cladding and confined by the secondary cladding). "Providing, by the signal combiner, the multimode output to a delivery fiber comprising a single core configured to support multiple modes" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 102). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi and Scifres with the teachings of Gibson for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein a quantity of the multiple independent… laser inputs received at the signal combiner from the multicore fiber laser equals a quantity of the multiple modes supported in the delivery fiber." It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coordinate the mode volume of the multimode delivery fiber with the desired number of modes produced by the lasers, 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.
Claims 8, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuuchi, in view of Scifres, in view of Gibson, and further in view of Bansal.
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Mizuuchi and Scifres does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises multiple symmetric cores." "[The multiple symmetric cores] to receive the multiple independent… laser inputs from the multicore input fiber." Gibson discloses, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises multiple symmetric cores" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 102, where the cores must be symmetrical to match the symmetrical arrangement of Mizuuchi). "[The multiple symmetric cores] to receive the multiple independent… laser inputs from the multicore input fiber" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 102). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi and Scifres with the teachings of Gibson for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "[The multiple symmetric cores] taper adiabatically to a splice point with the delivery fiber." Bansal discloses, "[The multiple symmetric cores] taper adiabatically to a splice point with the delivery fiber" (p. [0034], [0036], and Fig. 5, pts. 4a, 4b, 4c, and 18). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson with the teachings of Bansal. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber and the teachings of Gibson regarding a fiber signal combiner for combining light from the laser, the alternate construction of the fiber signal combiner to include adiabatic tapering to a splice between the tapered fibers and the delivery fiber as taught by Bansal would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson by allowing the light combined by the fiber signal combiner to be well coupled to the multimode fiber.
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Mizuuchi and Scifres does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises multiple symmetric cores." "[The multiple symmetric cores] to receive the multiple independent… laser inputs from the multicore fiber laser." Gibson discloses, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises multiple symmetric cores" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 102, where the cores must be symmetrical to match the symmetrical arrangement of Mizuuchi). "[The multiple symmetric cores] to receive the multiple independent… laser inputs from the multicore fiber laser" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 102). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi and Scifres with the teachings of Gibson for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "[The multiple symmetric cores] taper adiabatically to a splice point with the delivery fiber." Bansal discloses, "[The multiple symmetric cores] taper adiabatically to a splice point with the delivery fiber" (p. [0034], [0036], and Fig. 5, pts. 4a, 4b, 4c, and 18). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson with the teachings of Bansal for the reasons provided above regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the multicore fiber laser is an end-pumped master oscillator power amplifier (MOPA) laser with a pump laser source." "A combiner coupled to an input end of a multicore oscillator and a multicore power amplifier." Bansal discloses, "Wherein the multicore fiber laser is an end-pumped master oscillator power amplifier (MOPA) laser with a pump laser source" (p. [0034], [0036], and Fig. 5, pts. 4a, 4b, 4c, and 18). "A combiner coupled to an input end of a multicore oscillator and a multicore power amplifier" (p. [0031] and Fig. 5, pts. 3 and 18). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson with the teachings of Bansal for the reasons provided above regarding claim 8.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuuchi, in view of Scifres, in view of Gibson, in view of Kliner, in view of Bansal, and further in view of Gregg.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "[The signal combiner] is spliced to the multicore input fiber at a first splice point." Kliner discloses, "[The signal combiner] is spliced to the multicore input fiber at a first splice point" (p. [0020] and Fig. 1, pts. 110 and 105d). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson with the teachings of Kliner. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber, the additional use of splices to join separate fiber elements as taught by Kliner would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson by allowing different fiber elements to be constructed separately and joined.
The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, Gibson, and Kliner does not explicitly disclose, "[The signal combiner is] spliced to the delivery fiber at a second splice point." Bansal discloses, "[The signal combiner is] spliced to the delivery fiber at a second splice point" (p. [0034], [0036], and Fig. 5, pts. 4a, 4b, 4c, and 18). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, Gibson, and Kliner with the teachings of Bansal. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber and the teachings of Gibson regarding a fiber signal combiner for combining light from the laser, the alternate construction of the fiber signal combiner to include adiabatic tapering to a splice between the tapered fibers and the delivery fiber as taught by Bansal would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi, Scifres, Gibson, and Kliner by allowing the light combined by the fiber signal combiner to be well coupled to the multimode fiber.
The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, Gibson, Kliner, and Bansal does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises a graded index fiber with a quarter-pitch length." Gregg discloses, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises a graded index fiber with a quarter-pitch length" (p. [0020]). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, Gibson, Kliner, and Bansal with the teachings of Gregg. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber and the teachings of Gibson regarding a fiber signal combiner for combining light from the laser, the alternate construction of the fiber signal combiner to include a graded index region as taught by Gregg would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi, Scifres, Gibson, Kliner, and Bansal by providing a suitably alternate manner of providing good coupling between the two joined fibers.
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "[The signal combiner] is spliced to the multicore fiber laser at a first splice point." Kliner discloses, "[The signal combiner] is spliced to the multicore fiber laser at a first splice point" (p. [0020] and Fig. 1, pts. 110 and 105d). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson with the teachings of Kliner for the reasons provided above regarding claim 9.
The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, Gibson, and Kliner does not explicitly disclose, "[The signal combiner is] spliced to the delivery fiber at a second splice point." Bansal discloses, "[The signal combiner is] spliced to the delivery fiber at a second splice point" (p. [0034], [0036], and Fig. 5, pts. 4a, 4b, 4c, and 18). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, Gibson, and Kliner with the teachings of Bansal for the reasons provided above regarding claim 9.
The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, Gibson, Kliner, and Bansal does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises a graded index fiber with a quarter-pitch length." Gregg discloses, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises a graded index fiber with a quarter-pitch length" (p. [0020]). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, Gibson, Kliner, and Bansal with the teachings of Gregg for the reasons provided above regarding claim 9.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuuchi, in view of Scifres, in view of Gibson, and further in view of Isenhour.
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises a hydrophobic surface coating." Isenhour discloses, "Wherein the signal combiner comprises a hydrophobic surface coating" (p. [0046]). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson with the teachings of Isenhour. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber and the teachings of Gibson regarding a fiber signal combiner for combining light from the laser, the additional inclusion of a hydrophobic coating on a fiber face as taught by Isenhour would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson by allowing for improved coupling between the face of the signal combiner and the fiber to which it is connected.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuuchi, in view of Scifres, in view of Gibson, and further in view of Kliner.
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the multicore fiber laser is a master oscillator power amplifier (MOPA) laser with a bi-directional pump." "[The bi-directional pump comprises] a first pump laser source and a first combiner coupled to an input end of a multicore oscillator and a multicore power amplifier." "A second pump laser source and a second combiner coupled to an output end of the multicore oscillator and the multicore power amplifier." "Wherein the first pump laser source and the second pump laser source are configured to generate pump light that propagates in opposite directions." Kliner discloses, "Wherein the multicore fiber laser is a master oscillator power amplifier (MOPA) laser with a bi-directional pump" (p. [0031] and Fig. 5, pts. 101, 110, 151, and 211b). "[The bi-directional pump comprises] a first pump laser source and a first combiner coupled to an input end of a multicore oscillator and a multicore power amplifier" (p. [0022] and Fig. 5 and 6, pts. 101, 103, 110, 150, and 214, where combiner 214 is used to deliver light 103 in place of splice 105). "A second pump laser source and a second combiner coupled to an output end of the multicore oscillator and the multicore power amplifier" (p. [0031] and Fig. 5, pts. 151, 211b, and 214). "Wherein the first pump laser source and the second pump laser source are configured to generate pump light that propagates in opposite directions" (p. [0031] and Fig. 5, pts. 103, 151, 211b, and 214). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson with the teachings of Kliner for the reasons provided above regarding claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, Mizuuchi discloses, "Wherein the multicore fiber laser comprises a pump laser source" (p. [0207], [0253], and Fig. 14A, pt. 1, where GaN laser 1 is a pump laser source for the subsequent laser element). "A seed laser source" (p. [0267] and Fig. 17, pts. 151a, 151b, and 152). Mizuuchi does not explicitly disclose, "A multicore power amplifier." Scifres discloses, "A multicore power amplifier" (col. 5, lines 45-62 and Fig. 10, pt. 106). 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 teachings of Mizuuchi with the teachings of Scifres. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber, the additional inclusion of an amplifier as taught by Scifres would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi by allowing the system to produce high power output.
The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "A multicore pre-amplifier." "A combiner coupled to an input end of [the] multicore pre-amplifier and [the] multicore power amplifier." Kliner discloses, "A multicore pre-amplifier" (p. [0030] and Fig. 4, pts. 130 and 131). "A combiner coupled to an input end of [the] multicore pre-amplifier and [the] multicore power amplifier" (p. [0030] and Fig. 4, pts. 130 and 150, where the combiner 103 of Scifres must be coupled to both the pre-amplifier and the amplifier). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson with the teachings of Kliner. In view of the teachings of Scifres regarding a multicore amplifier fiber, the additional inclusion of pre-amplifier stages with the amplifier as taught by Kliner would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson by allowing for a higher degree of amplification.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuuchi, in view of Kliner, in view of Scifres, in view of Gibson, and further in view of Fini et al. (Fini, US Pub. 2011/0279888).
Regarding claim 21, The combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the multiple… active fiber cores are configured to be separated to satisfy a threshold level of crosstalk between the multiple… active fiber cores." Fini discloses, "Wherein the multiple… active fiber cores are configured to be separated to satisfy a threshold level of crosstalk between the multiple… active fiber cores" (p. [0073]). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson with the teachings of Fini. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber, the additional construction requirement of the multiple cores to have a particular spacing between cores to regulate crosstalk as taught by Fini would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson by allowing the expected degree of crosstalk to be regulated by the design of the fiber.
Regarding claim 22, The combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the multiple… active fiber cores are configured with uniform separation from each other." Fini discloses, "Wherein the multiple… active fiber cores are configured with uniform separation from each other" (p. [0050]). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson with the teachings of Fini for the reasons provided above regarding claim 21.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuuchi, in view of Scifres, in view of Gibson, and further in view of Fini.
Regarding claim 23, The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the multiple cores of the multicore input fiber are configured to be separated to satisfy a threshold level of crosstalk between the multiple cores of the multicore input fiber." Fini discloses, "Wherein the multiple cores of the multicore input fiber are configured to be separated to satisfy a threshold level of crosstalk between the multiple cores of the multicore input fiber" (p. [0073]). 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 teachings of the combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson with the teachings of Fini. In view of the teachings of Mizuuchi regarding a multicore laser fiber, the additional construction requirement of the multiple cores to have a particular spacing between cores to regulate crosstalk as taught by Fini would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson by allowing the expected degree of crosstalk to be regulated by the design of the fiber.
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 Sean P Hagan whose telephone number is (571)270-1242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/SEAN P HAGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights