DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copy of foreign application JP 2021-030665 , however the present application does not properly claim priority to the submitted foreign application. If this copy is being filed to obtain priority to the foreign filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a), applicant must also file a claim for such priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b) or 365(b), and 37 CFR 1.55. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the priority claim must be made in either the oath or declaration or in an application data sheet; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be presented in an application data sheet. If the application being examined is an original application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than a design application), the claim for priority must be presented during the pendency of the application, and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1). If the application being examined is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and Regulations under the PCT. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2). Any claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) not presented within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55 is considered to have been waived. If a claim for foreign priority is presented after the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55, the claim may be accepted if the claim properly identifies the prior foreign application and is accompanied by a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority and the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (m)(2). Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the implied language “the present disclosure provides” in lines 2 and 3. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 7-9 and 17 a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamauchi et al . USPGPUB 2020/0379180 . See Figs. 1, 4 and 5 of Yamauchi. Regarding claim 1, Yamauchi discloses “ A light amplification device (Fig. 1, a system comprising optical amplifiers)comprising: a first optical waveguide (first wavelength conversion device 20A (20)) including a first light amplification medium (optical amplifier 13 from the first transmission group); a second optical waveguide (second wavelength conversion device 20B) including a second light amplification medium (optical amplifier 13 from the third transmission group); a first excitation light introducing circuit (excitation light source 32) configured to introduce first excitation light that excites the first light amplification medium, into the first optical waveguide (wavelength conversion device 20 as shown in Fig. 5, paragraph [0072]); and a first residual excitation light introducing circuit configured to introduce first residual excitation light that is output from the first optical waveguide and contains a wavelength component of the first excitation light (The first residual excitation light is the reduced modulation component after wavelength conversion. Paragraphs [0010] and [0037] and Fig. 4, paragraph [0057]), into the second optical waveguide (second modulation unit 36, paragraphs [0059] through [0073])”. Regarding claim 7, Yamauchi discloses “The light amplification device according to claim 1, further comprising: a signal light separation circuit (Fig. 35, PBS 34 splits light into X-polarized light and Y-polarized light) configured to separate signal light into first signal light (first modulation unit 35) to be introduced into the first optical waveguide (20A) and second signal light (second modulation unit 36) to be introduced into the second optical waveguide (20B); and a signal light multiplexing circuit configured to multiplex (Fig. 1, wavelength multiplexer 30) the first signal light being output form the first optical waveguide and the second signal light being output from the second optical waveguide (ultimately light is output to a transmission path which may be an optical fiber. See paragraph [0041])”. Regarding method claim 8 , the limitations of claim 8 are rejected for the same reasons already applied in the rejection of claim 1 as recited above. Yamauchi discloses both a wavelength conversion device and a method of performing wavelength conversion. See paragraphs [0002], [0010], [0045], and [0046]. Regarding method claim 9 , the limitations of claim 9 are rejected for the same reasons applied in the rejection of claim 7 as recited above. Regarding claim 17, Yamauchi discloses “ The light amplification device according to claim 1, wherein the first optical waveguide has gain in a first wavelength band, and the second optical waveguide has gain in a second wavelength band being different from the first wavelength band”. As disclosed in paragraph [0041] of Yamauchi, “The WDM system 1 illustrated in Fig. 1, for example, is a multiband system that transmits multiplexed light of different spectrum bands such as, for example, the conventional band (C-band), the long wavelength band (L-band), and the short wavelength band (S- band)” For first wavelength conversion device 20A, see paragraph [0045], and for second wavelength conversion device 20B, see paragraph [0046]. Therein the types of each type of band are disclosed respectively. Gain ranges for apparatus with C-band, S-band and L-band wavelength devices are known and differ between wavelength bands. 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. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi in view of Tanaka et al . US PGPUB US 2020/0284988 A1 . Regarding claim 18, the combination of Yamauchi and Tanaka discloses “The light amplification device according to claim 1, wherein both the first light amplification medium (optical amplifier 13 from the first transmission group) and the second light amplification medium (optical amplifier 13 from the second transmission group) are constituted of a plurality of cores doped with a rare-earth ion (erbium doped optical fiber amplifier (EDFA)), both the first optical waveguide (first wavelength conversion device 20A920)) and the second optical waveguide (second wavelength conversion device 20B) include a multicore optical fiber including a plurality of optical transmission paths constituted of the plurality of cores and a double-cladding structure, and the first excitation light introducing circuit introduces the first excitation light into the first optical waveguide by using a cladding excitation method”. Yamauchi is silent to “both the first optical waveguide and the second optical waveguide include a multicore optical fiber including a plurality of optical transmission paths constituted of the plurality of cores and a double-cladding structure, and the first excitation light introducing circuit introduces the first excitation light into the first optical waveguide by using a cladding excitation method”. However, in an analogous device, Tanaka teaches an optical connection structure with multiple transmission lines comprising the elements not met by Yamauchi are well known in the art as taught in paragraphs [0096] and [0105] of Tanaka. it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamauchi in view of Tanaka to include optical waveguides comprising amplification mediums having multicores doped with a rare-earth ion such as erbium and having double cladding structures as shown by Tanaka because i mproved beam quality and improved overall performance of the device would be achieved by the mo d if i cation. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 2-6, 1 0 -15, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 2 , the closest prior art to Yamauchi does not teach or suggest “The light amplification device according to claim 1, further comprising a second residual excitation light introducing circuit configured to introduce the first residual excitation light into the first optical waveguide.” . There is no teaching in Yamauchi that suggest s the introduction of a second residual excitation light in to the system. It appears that multiplying components within the system would be less efficient and would require the entire system to be duplicated. The same reasons given above for indicating allowable subject matter also apply to claim s 3 and 10 , and furthermore claim 3 introduces “a third residual excitation light”. Claims 19 and 20 also introduce “a third residual excitation light” . Claims 4, 12, 13, 14 are dependent upon claim 3. Claim 11 is dependent upon claim 4. Claim 15 is dependent upon claim 13. Claim 16 is dependent upon claim 14. The same reasons given above for indicating allowable subject matter also apply to claim 5, and furthermore claim 5 introduces “a fourth residual excitation light”. Claim 6 is dependent upon claim 5. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takeshita et al . US PGPUB 2021/0057869 A1 ( WO2019/198663 A1 and on IDS ) teaches an optical amplifier and optical amplification method that regenerates and reuses residual excitation light. Kilner U.S. Patent 10,975,885 B2 teaches a “SCALABLE HIGH POWER FIBER LASER” which cites numerous publications teaching types of multicore, double-clad rare-earth ion fiber optics. Ohtsuka USPGPUB 2020/0381885 (on IDS) teaches an optical waveguide having a gain fiber with a double-cladding structure and rare earth doping. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MELISSA J KOVAL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2121 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Telework M, T, W, F, on campus Thurs. General schedule is 7:30 am to 4:30 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Alejandro Rivero can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3641 . 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. /MELISSA J KOVAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6216