DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 31 March 2023. Claims 1 through 20 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 .
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.
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 § 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 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Regarding claim 20, this claim requires "Wherein the multicore fiber laser is an end-pumped multi-state amplifier." However, a laser and an amplifier are different types of devices that are structurally and operationally different. Notably, a laser generates coherent light through the additional inclusion of a resonator cavity whereas an amplifier merely amplifies existing light and the structure thereof is designed around amplifying a light input. As such, this claim is 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. For the remainder of this action, this claim will be interpreted such that the status of the claimed element as an amplifier supersedes the status of the claimed element as a laser.
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.
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 singlemode 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 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." "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). "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." "[The signal combiner configured] to combine the multiple… 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" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 102). "[The signal combiner configured] to combine the multiple… 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.
Claims 2 and 5 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 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.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Mizuuchi, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "A splice point between the signal combiner and the multimode delivery fiber." "Wherein the multiple… active fiber cores of the oscillator and the multiple cores of the power amplifier have respective core sizes and numerical apertures that match corresponding modes in the multimode delivery fiber at [the splice point]." Bansal discloses, "A splice point between the signal combiner and the multimode delivery fiber" (p. [0034], [0036], and Fig. 5, pts. 4a, 4b, 4c, and 18). "Wherein the multiple… active fiber cores of the oscillator and the multiple cores of the power amplifier have respective core sizes and numerical apertures that match corresponding modes in the multimode delivery fiber at [the splice point]" (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, Kliner, Scifres, and Gibson with the teachings of Bansal for the reasons provided above regarding claim 2.
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." Scifres discloses, "[The multiple cores] are each configured to support an independent singlemode laser" (col. 3, lines 15-22 and Fig. 1, pt. 11). 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." "[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" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 102). "[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." Scifres discloses, "[The multicore fiber laser] comprises multiple cores" (col. 3, lines 15-22 and Fig. 1, pt. 11). 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 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 into a multimode output" (p. [0018], [0024], and Fig. 1, pts. 100 and 102). "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, 11, 14, and 17 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 11, The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "A splice point between the signal combiner and the delivery fiber." "Wherein the multiple cores of the multicore input fiber have respective core sizes and numerical apertures that match corresponding modes in the delivery fiber at [the splice point]." Bansal discloses, "A splice point between the signal combiner and the delivery fiber" (p. [0034], [0036], and Fig. 5, pts. 4a, 4b, 4c, and 18). "Wherein the multiple cores of the multicore input fiber have respective core sizes and numerical apertures that match corresponding modes in the delivery fiber at [the splice point]" (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.
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 17, The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "A splice point between the signal combiner and the delivery fiber." "Wherein the multiple cores of the multicore fiber laser have respective core sizes and numerical apertures that match corresponding modes in the delivery fiber at [the splice point]." Bansal discloses, "A splice point between the signal combiner and the delivery fiber" (p. [0034], [0036], and Fig. 5, pts. 4a, 4b, 4c, and 18). "Wherein the multiple cores of the multicore fiber laser have respective core sizes and numerical apertures that match corresponding modes in the delivery fiber at [the splice point]" (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 18 through 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 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." Kliner discloses, "Wherein the multicore fiber laser is an end-pumped master oscillator power amplifier (MOPA) laser with a pump laser source" (p. [0021] and Fig. 1, pts. 110 and 150). "A combiner coupled to an input end of a multicore oscillator and a multicore power amplifier" (p. [0022] and Fig. 6, pts. 101, 110, 150, 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 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 does not explicitly disclose, "A pump laser source." "A seed laser source." "A multicore power amplifier." Scifres discloses, "A pump laser source" (col. 5, lines 45-62 and Fig. 10, pts. 106 and 108). "A seed laser source" (col. 5, lines 45-62 and Fig. 10, pts. 101 and 102). "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 alternate construction of the multicore fiber as an amplifier as taught by Scifres would enhance the teachings of Mizuuchi by providing a suitably alternate use for the multicore fiber.
The combination of Mizuuchi, Scifres, and Gibson does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the multicore fiber laser is an end-pumped multi-state amplifier." "A multicore pre-amplifier." "A combiner coupled to an input end of [the] multicore pre-amplifier and [the] multicore power amplifier." Kliner discloses, "Wherein the multicore fiber laser is an end-pumped multi-state amplifier" (p. [0030] and Fig. 4, pts. 130 and 150). "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.
Conclusion
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