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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 4 at line 4 refer to “oscillating laser” and are believed to more correctly read “oscillating a laser”.
Claim 2 is understood to contain a typographical error wherein the claim refers to itself, wherein the dependency is understood to be claim 1 and has been examined as such.
Claim 3 at lines 5-6 states “the grip portion projecting is” and is believed to more correctly read “the grip portion is”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 7, and 9 (and claim 10 via dependency) 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the other side" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the side being referred to is not clear.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “another side”.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “detector” in claim 7 is used by the claim to mean “an indicator,” while the accepted meaning is “an object/device which discovers or determines the existence presence or fact of.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
[0081-82] of the original specification is noted as explaining the detector is a plate #142 which tilts based on the adaptor being inserted (present) or not inserted (not present). #142 thereby indicates the presence of the adaptor rather than detects the presence thereof.
The claim has been examined in light of the “indicator” function.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the side being referred to is not clear.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “another end”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1+7, 8-10 of copending Application No. 18291637 in view of Kliner (US 208/0198252).
Claims 1 + 7 of the copending application contain all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application but lack “the end portion of the first fiber and the first fiber connector are provided to project from the module housing at one end portion of the module housing”. Kliner teaches a related device (fig.1/5/6) which includes an end portion of a first fiber (fig.5 #76/82) and a first fiber connector (fig.5 #83s) are provided to project from a module housing (fig.5 #66) at one end portion (fig.5 right side) of the module housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of the copending application to make use of the fiber and fiber connector projections from the module housing as demonstrated by Kliner to facilitate easy access to the fiber and connector for coupling and alignment of other optics.
Claim 10 of the copending application teaches all the limitations of claim 3.
Claim 8 of the copending application teaches all the limitations of claim 4.
Claim 9 of the copending application teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Kliner (US 2018/0198252).
With respect to claim 1, Kliner discloses a fiber laser device (fig.1a/2/5/6) comprising: a housing (fig.1a, rack + bays assembly); a first optical element configured to be housed in the housing (fig.1a/5 pump module), include a first fiber (fig.5 fiber from #74/80 extending to and through #83s) and a first fiber connector (fig.5 #83s) provided at an end portion of the first fiber (fig.5 internal module end portion), and be for oscillating laser beam (pump module provides light to gain module in fig.6 to oscillate a laser beam); and a second optical element (fig.1a/6 gain module) configured to be housed in the housing, include a second fiber (fig.6 fibers #86 extending into and out of the module) and a second fiber connector (fig.6 #87s) provided at an end portion of the second fiber (fig.6 internal module end portion), and be for oscillating the laser beam (fig.6 gain module produces oscillating laser beam), wherein the first optical element and the second optical element are optically connectable via the first fiber connector and the second fiber connector ([0046] as light transferred from pump module to gain module), at least a part of the first optical element is housed in a module housing (fig.1a pump module, fig.5 #66), an opening is formed in a wall portion of the housing (fig.1a opening to enable pump module to slide into associated bay), the module housing is detachably attached inside the housing through the opening (as seen in fig.1a), and the end portion of the first fiber and the first fiber connector are provided to project from the module housing at one end portion of the module housing (fig.5 right side).
With respect to claim 2, Kliner discloses the first optical element includes a saturable absorber, an excitation light source (fig.5 pump module is excitation light source), or a wavelength division multiplexing coupler.
With respect to claim 4, Kliner discloses the module housing is inserted through the opening from the one end portion side (fig.1a as fibers emerge from back), the module housing has a shape such that one side in a first direction is different from the other side when viewed from the one end portion side (fig.1a up/down direction shorter than left/right direction forming rectangle), and the opening corresponds to the shape of the module housing (as seen in fig.1a).
With respect to claim 9, Kliner discloses a fiber module (fig.5) for a fiber laser device comprising: a module housing (fig.1a/5 pump module #66); and an optical element (fig.5 #68s) configured to be at least partially housed in the module housing, have a fiber (fig.5 #76/82 internal and external) and a fiber connector (fig.5 #83s) provided at an end portion of the fiber (fig.5 internal module end portion), and be for oscillating laser beam (fig.5 pump provides excitation light to create laser beam), wherein the end portion of the fiber and the fiber connector are provided to project from the module housing at one end portion of the module housing (fig.5 right side), and the fiber is fixed on the other end portion side of the module housing in the module housing (fig.5 fibers fixed to #74/80).
With respect to claim 10, Kliner discloses in the module housing, a straight portion that is a linearly extending portion of the fiber is fixed on the other end portion side (fig.5 portions extending from #74/80 above/below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kliner in view of Miyauchi et al. (JP 2006-147986; Applicant submitted prior art).
With respect to claim 3, Kliner teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a grip portion provided on the module housing, wherein the grip portion is provided to project from an outer surface of the housing in a state where the module housing is attached inside the housing, and a projecting portion for covering at least a part of a periphery of the grip portion projecting is provided on the outer surface of the housing. Miyauchi teaches a related laser apparatus (fig.2-4) which includes a grip portion (fig.3 #28) provided on a module housing (fig.3 #5a), wherein a grip portion is provided to project from an outer surface of the housing in a state where the module housing is attached inside a housing (fig.2, when inside #11a), and a projecting portion (fig.3 #39) for covering at least a part of a periphery of the grip portion projecting is provided on the outer surface of the housing (fig.3 #39, when open, covers a lower portion of #38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Kliner to make use of the grip and projection portion arrangement of Miyauchi in order to ease removing/inserting the module into the housing and to enable access to the internal connections via the lid portion.
With respect to claim 5, Kliner teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a partition plate configured to partition an inside of the housing into a first space and a second space; and a fan configured to pump air in the first space, wherein the first optical element and the second optical element are arranged in the second space. Miyauchi teaches a related laser apparatus (fig.2-4), including a partition plate (fig.4 plate loosely indicated by #11c lower portion) configured to partition an inside of the housing into a first space (fig.4 remaining spaces left/below) and a second space (fig.4 where #5a rests); and a fan (fig.3 #36) configured to pump air in the first space, wherein the optics are arranged in the second space (#5 is an excitation light source module). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Kliner to make use of a partition plate and a fan as demonstrated by Miyauchi to protect the modules from each other and to cool the remaining elements such as the control module (Kliner, fig.1a #1004).
With respect to claim 8, Kliner teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a lock mechanism configured to prevent the module housing from being removed from an inside of the housing when the laser beam is oscillated by the fiber laser device. Miyauchi teaches a related laser apparatus (fig.2-4, including a lock mechanism (fig.1 #14b) configured to prevent the module housing from being removed from an inside of the housing when the laser beam is oscillated by the fiber laser device (switch prevents the module from being removed by disabling the source such that the beam would not be oscillated when removed; “The lid sensor 14b performs an operation of detecting whether or not a terminal lid that can be opened and closed in the main body casing is closed. Specifically, the opening / closing of the terminal lid can be detected using a switch that is turned on when the terminal lid is closed. The terminal lid covers the terminal portions 18 and 19 in a closed state so that the user cannot touch the terminal portions 18 and 19 or the connector. This prevents each connector from being inadvertently disconnected from the terminal portions 18 and 19 during laser oscillation.
The power supply circuit 13 supplies power to the head unit 2 and the excitation light source module 5 based on the monitoring result of the attachment / detachment state regarding the terminal portion 18 and the terminal portion 19 and the detection result of opening / closing regarding the terminal lid. Specifically, when the logical product of the monitoring result and the detection result is obtained, both the terminal portion 18 and the terminal portion 19 are connected, and the terminal lid is closed, the semiconductor laser of the excitation light source module 5 Power supply to the light emitting element 7 is permitted.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of the lock mechanism of Miyauchi in the device of Kliner in order to protect users from being exposed to the laser beam when the module is removed.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kliner in view of Nishio et al. (US 2016/0126698).
With respect to claim 6, Kliner teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach an elastic member configured to press the module housing toward a placement surface on which the module housing is placed. Nishio teaches a related device (fig.3a) which includes an elastic member (fig.4a/b #42) configured to press a module housing (fig.4a #7) toward a placement surface (fig.4a bottom of #8) on which the module housing is placed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the system of Kliner to make use of an elastic member to press the module toward a placement surface (e.g. rack/bay of Kliner) as demonstrated by Nishio in order to press the module towards the rack/bay edges (Nishio, [0044]) to prevent/reduce disturbances from mechanical shocks to the laser system.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kliner in view of Saraf (US 10998689).
With respect to claim 7, Kliner teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach an adapter configured to connect the first fiber connector and the second fiber connector; and an adapter detector configured to detect presence or absence of the adapter. Saraf teaches a related laser system (fig.1) which includes an adapter (fig.3 #115/314) configured to connect a first fiber connector (fig.3 #114) and a second fiber connector (fig.3 #312; see also fig.1 #112/114); and an adapter detector (fig.3 through-hole in housing) configured to detect presence or absence of the adapter (fig.3 when hole filled the presence of the adaptor is indicated, when hole not filled adaptor not present). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Kliner to make use of a fiber adaptor to connect the fiber connectors along with the adaptor detector as demonstrated by Saraf in order to more securely attach the connectors to the modules and provide for a means of verifying the fibers are properly connected by ensuring the adaptor(s) are in place.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included pto892 form for a list of related art.
US 10998689 is noted as teaching at least claims 9 and 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights