DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “approximately” in claims 5, 7, 14, and 15 as well as 6, and 8-12 due to their dependency is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close a value must be to the claimed value to be “approximately equal.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0039200 (Zhou ‘200) in view of US 2020/0147720 (Zhou ‘720) and further in view of US 2012/0116159 (Mizuyoshi) and US 2017/0336698 (Lyngsoe).
For claim 1, Zhou ‘200 teaches A laser system for processing a workpiece (fig. 3-4B), the laser system comprising:
an optical fiber having an input end and an output end opposite the input end (fig. 3, 345 and fig. 4A-4B, 420; [0070]), wherein the optical fiber comprises (i) a center core having a refractive index n0, (ii) surrounding the center core, a first cladding layer having a refractive index n1 1, (iii) surrounding the first cladding layer, a ring core having a refractive index n2, and (iv) surrounding the ring core, a second cladding layer having a refractive index n3 ([0020]);
a primary laser emitter (fig. 3, 310) configured to emit a primary laser beam (fig. 3-4B, 305); a secondary laser emitter (fig. 3, 320) configured to emit a secondary laser beam (fig. 3-4B, 315), wherein a wavelength of the primary laser beam is longer than a wavelength of the secondary laser beam ([0026], [0060]);
and a coupling mechanism for coupling the primary laser beam and the secondary laser beam into the input end of the optical fiber (fig. 4A-4B, 410).
Zhou ‘200 does not teach the n3 is less than n0 and n3 is less than n2;
wherein (i) the center core is composed of doped or undoped low-OH fused silica having an OH content of 10 ppm or less, and the ring core is composed of doped or undoped high-OH fused silica having an OH content of 200 ppm or more, or (ii) the center core is composed of doped or undoped high-OH fused silica having an OH content of 200 ppm or more, and the ring core is composed of doped or undoped low-OH fused silica having an OH content of 10 ppm or less.
However, Zhou ‘200 does teach the delivery fiber may be provide by the fiber of US application 16/675,655 ([0020]) which is the application number of Zhou ‘720.
Further, Zhou ‘720 teaches the optical fiber comprising (i) a center core having a refractive index n0 (fig. 1, 110), (ii) surrounding the center core, a first cladding layer having a refractive index n1 (fig. 1, 115), (iii) surrounding the first cladding layer, a ring core having a refractive index n2 (fig. 1, 120), and (iv) surrounding the ring core, a second cladding layer having a refractive index n3 (fig. 1, 125), wherein n3 is less than n0 and n3 is less than n2 (fig. 1) used with a dual laser system with different lasers for each core ([0046]);
Zhou ‘720 further teaches (i) the center core is composed of doped or undoped fused silica, and the ring core is composed of doped or undoped fused silica having ([0006]).
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 fiber of Zhou ‘720 with the device of Zhou ‘200 in order to provide the delivery fiber as taught by Zhou ‘200.
Neither Zhou 720 nor Zhou 200 teach (i) the center core having an OH content of 10 ppm or less, and the ring core having an OH content of 200 ppm or more, or (ii) the center core having an OH content of 200 ppm or more, and the ring core having an OH content of 10 ppm or less.
However, Mizuyoshi teaches that OH content is a results effective variable should be optimized in fiber cores based on wavelength absorption dependency ([0114]). While Mizuyoshi does not state the cores are in the same fiber, Lyngsoe does teach that a high OH content region and a low OH content region may be formed within the same fiber with similar concentrations to those claimed ([0058]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the OH content in the previous combination such that (i) the center core having an OH content of 10 ppm or less, and the ring core having an OH content of 200 ppm or more, or (ii) the center core having an OH content of 200 ppm or more, and the ring core having an OH content of 10 ppm or less in order to control absorption at the two wavelengths of 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.
For claim 2, Zhou ‘200 teaches the coupling mechanism comprises one or more of a focusing lens, a prism, and a dichroic mirror (fig. 4A-4B, 400 and 410, [0070]).
For claim 3, Zhou ‘200 teaches the primary laser beam comprises infrared and/or near-infrared light, and the secondary laser beam comprises visible and/or ultraviolet light ([0026] and [0060]).
For claim 4, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Zhou ‘720 teaches a dual laser system with different lasers for each core ([0046]), and Mizuyoshi teaches OH concentration is results effective based on wavelength. Mizuyoshi further teaches low OH for longer wavelengths and high OH for shorter wavelengths ([0114]).
The combination does not explicitly teach the center core is composed of doped or undoped high-OH fused silica; the ring core is composed of doped or undoped low-OH fused silica; the coupling mechanism is configured to couple the primary laser beam into the ring core; and the coupling mechanism is configured to couple the secondary laser beam into the center core.
However, given the teaching of Zhou ‘720 where a different laser is coupled into each core ([0046]), and given that there are two cores in the fiber of Zhou ‘720 (fig. 1, 110 and 120, [0044]) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to couple the primary laser into the ring core (as recited in claim 4 of the instant application) using the coupling mechanism and couple the secondary laser into the center core (as recited in claim 4 of the instant application). Alternatively it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to couple the primary laser into the center core using the coupling mechanism and couple the secondary laser into the ring core as these are the two particular configurations which meet the teaching of [0046] of Zhou ‘0072.
Further, given that Mizuyoshi teaches low OH concentration for longer wavelengths and high OH concentration for shorter wavelengths in order to reduce transmission loss ([0114]) and the optimization of OH in the fused silica discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a center fused silica core with high-OH and a ring fused silica core with low-OH fused in order to minimize absorption loss of the primary beam coupled to the ring core and secondary beam coupled to the center core.
For claim 5, Zhou ‘720 teaches n0 is approximately equal to n2; and n1 is approximately equal to n3 (fig. 1A).
For claim 7, Zhou ‘720 teaches n0 is approximately equal to n2 (fig. 1A). The previously applied embodiment of Zhou ‘720 (fig. 1A) does not teach n1 is greater than n3; sqrt(n12-n32) > 0.15; sqrt(n02-n12) > 0.1; and the first cladding layer is composed of doped or undoped low-OH fused silica. However, Zhou ‘720 (fig. 2) does teach n1 is greater than n3 (fig. 3) in order to allow additional beam shapes ([0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set n1 > n3 in the previous combination as taught by Zhou ‘720 in order to allow additional beam shapes.
The combination does not teach sqrt(n12-n32) > 0.15 and sqrt(n02-n12) > 0.1. However, these were known results effective variable before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example Zhou ‘720 [0056]) which determine the acceptable angle for coupling light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the sqrt(n12-n32) > 0.15 and sqrt(n02-n12) > 0.1 in order to achieve a desired acceptance angle/numerical aperture, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Zhou ‘720 further teaches the first cladding layer is composed of doped or undoped fused silica ([0006]). The combination does not specify the first cladding is low OH. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, OH content is a results effective variable, and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the OH content in order to control absorption of light to a desired level, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 8, Zhou ‘720 teaches coupling a laser beam to the first cladding allows formation of additional beam shapes ([0049]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the primary laser beam into the first cladding layer in order to allow formation of additional beam shapes.
For claim 9-10, Zhou ‘720 teaches coupling a laser beam to the first cladding allows formation of additional beam shapes ([0049]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the secondary laser beam into the first cladding layer in order to allow formation of additional beam shapes.
For claim 11, The previously applied embodiment of Zhou ‘720 (fig. 1A) does not teach n1 is greater than n3; sqrt(n12-n32) > 0.15; sqrt(n02-n12) > 0.1; sqrt(n22-n12) > 0.13 and the first cladding layer is composed of doped or undoped high-OH fused silica. However, Zhou ‘720 (fig. 2) does teach n1 is greater than n3 (fig. 3) in order to allow additional beam shapes ([0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set n1 > n3 in the previous combination as taught by Zhou ‘720 in order to allow additional beam shapes.
The combination does not teach sqrt(n12-n32) > 0.15, sqrt(n02-n12) > 0.1, and sqrt(n22-n12) > 0.13. However, these were known results effective variable before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example Zhou ‘720 [0056]) which determine the acceptable angle for coupling light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the sqrt(n12-n32) > 0.15, sqrt(n02-n12) > 0.1, and sqrt(n22-n12) > 0.13 in order to achieve a desired acceptance angle/numerical aperture, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Zhou ‘720 further teaches the first cladding layer is composed of doped or undoped fused silica ([0006]). The combination does not specify the first cladding is high OH. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, OH content is a results effective variable, and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the OH content in order to control absorption of light to a desired level, 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.
The above combination does not teach n0 is less than n2. However, Zhou ‘720 teaches a central core (fig. 5B, 510b) maybe be formed with a ring core (fig. 5B, 520) with an index of the core (fig. 5B, n’0) less than an index of the ring (fig. 5B, n2) as an alternative to a core (fig. 5A, 510) which does not include an index less than the ring index (fig. 5A, n2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the core of the embodiment of fig. 5B of Zhou ‘720 with a smaller index n’0 as a simple substitution for the fig. 1A or fig. 2 of the previous combination as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative central core to guide a beam. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
For claim 12, Zhou ‘720 teaches coupling a laser beam to the first cladding allows formation of additional beam shapes ([0049]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the secondary laser beam into the first cladding layer in order to allow formation of additional beam shapes.
For claim 13, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Zhou ‘720 teaches a dual laser system with different lasers for each core ([0046]), and Mizuyoshi teaches OH concentration is results effective based on wavelength. Mizuyoshi further teaches low OH for longer wavelengths and high OH for shorter wavelengths ([0114]).
The combination does not explicitly teach the center core is composed of doped or undoped low-OH fused silica; the ring core is composed of doped or undoped high-OH fused silica; the coupling mechanism is configured to couple the primary laser beam into the ring core; and the coupling mechanism is configured to couple the secondary laser beam into the center core.
However, given the teaching of Zhou ‘720 where a different laser is coupled into each core ([0046]), and given that there are two cores in the fiber of Zhou ‘720 (fig. 1, 110 and 120, [0044]) it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to couple the primary laser into the center core using the coupling mechanism and couple the secondary laser into the ring core as these are the two particular configurations which meet the teaching of [0046] of Zhou ‘0072 as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Further, given that Mizuyoshi teaches low OH concentration for longer wavelengths and high OH concentration for shorter wavelengths in order to reduce transmission loss ([0114]) and the optimization of OH in the fused silica discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a center fused silica core with low-OH and a ring fused silica core with high-OH fused in order to minimize absorption loss of the primary beam coupled to the central core and secondary beam coupled to the ring core.
The above combination does not teach the coupling mechanism is configured to couple the primary laser beam into the ring core; and the coupling mechanism is configured to couple the secondary laser beam into the center core. However, Zhou ‘720 teaches coupling a laser into both the center and ring core ([0048]) in order to form additional beam shapes ([0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the coupling mechanism to couple the primary laser beam into the ring core and to couple the secondary laser beam into the center core in order to form additional beam shapes.
For claim 14, Zhou 720 further teaches n0 is approximately equal to n2 (fig. 1A and 2); and n1 is approximately equal to n3 (fig. 1A and 2; note that difference between n3 and n1 is smaller than the difference between 33 and n0 or n2 and n3 may therefore be considered approximately equal to n1 in relation to n0 and n2). Further, the value of n2 is a results effective variable as difference between n1 and n3 is a results effective variable effecting leakage (Zhou ‘720, [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine the allowable difference between n1 and n3 such that n1 is approximately equal to n3, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
For claim 16, Zhou 200 further teaches the output end of the optical fiber (fig. 3, right side of 345) is coupled to a laser head containing one or more optical elements therein (fig. 3, 340, [0051]).
For claim 17, Zhou 200 further teaches the primary laser emitter comprises (fig. 6, [0073]):
one or more beam sources emitting a plurality of discrete beams (fig. 6, 605-1 – 605-9);
focusing optics (fig. 6, 615 and 620, [0076]) for focusing the plurality of beams toward a dispersive element (fig. 6, 610, [0076]);
the dispersive element for receiving and dispersing the received focused beams (fig. 6, 610, [0076]); and
a partially reflective output coupler positioned to receive the dispersed beams, transmit a portion of the dispersed beams therethrough as the primary laser beam, and reflect a second portion of the dispersed beams back toward the dispersive element, wherein the primary laser beam is composed of multiple wavelengths (fig. 6, 655, [0073], [0077]).
For claim 18, Zhou 200 further teaches the dispersive element comprises a diffraction grating ([0076]).
For claim 19, Zhou 200 further teaches the secondary laser emitter comprises (fig. 6, [0073]):
one or more beam sources emitting a plurality of discrete beams (fig. 6, 605-1 – 605-9);
focusing optics (fig. 6, 615 and 620, [0076]) for focusing the plurality of beams toward a dispersive element (fig. 6, 610, [0076]);
the dispersive element for receiving and dispersing the received focused beams (fig. 6, 610, [0076]); and
a partially reflective output coupler positioned to receive the dispersed beams, transmit a portion of the dispersed beams therethrough as the secondary laser beam, and reflect a second portion of the dispersed beams back toward the dispersive element, wherein the secondary laser beam is composed of multiple wavelengths (fig. 6, 655, [0073], [0077]).
For claim 20, Zhou 200 further teaches the dispersive element comprises a diffraction grating ([0076]).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0039200 (Zhou ‘200) in view of US 2020/0147720 (Zhou ‘720), US 2012/0116159 (Mizuyoshi) and US 2017/0336698 (Lyngsoe), and further in view of US 8,781,269 (Huber).
For claim 6 and 15, Zhou ‘720 teaches a thickness of the first cladding layer is quite thin ([0045]), but fails to teach it is less than approximately 15 µm, less than approximately 10 µm, or less than approximately 5 µm. However, Huber teaches a similar fiber (fig. 2a-2b) where a first cladding (fig. 2a-2b, 5) has a thickness less than approximately 15 µm, less than approximately 10 µm, or less than approximately 5 µm (col. 8, l. 44-46) in order to sufficiently guide the laser beam (col. 8, l. 44-46).
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 thickness of Huber with the previous combination in order to guide the laser beam.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to contact the examiner at the above number.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael Carter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights