DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 through 20 originally filed 19 June 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 .
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 preferably 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 it includes fewer than 50 words. 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).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4).
The description uses the reference character "17.1" to refer to more than one part each. The same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "17.1" is mentioned in ¶103, ¶104, ¶107, and ¶112.
The drawings refer to more than one part each with the reference characters "1", "4", "13", "52", "57", "59", and "60". The same part of an invention must be designated with the same reference character throughout the drawings.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
The description includes the reference characters "17.4", "17.5", "19", "43", and "51" which do not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.
In the present case, these reference characters or similar numbers appear in the following locations: "17.4" is mentioned in ¶103 and ¶104, "17.5" is mentioned in ¶103, ¶104, and ¶106, "19" is mentioned in ¶103, "43" is mentioned in ¶112, and "51" is mentioned in ¶112.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1).
Figure 4 includes 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 19 June 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically, no copy has been filed for document number "AD" of the IDS received 19 June 2023.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Dohyun et al. (Dohyun, "Polarization-maintaining nonlinear-amplifying-loop-mirror mode-locked fiber laser based on a 3×3 coupler," March 2019, Opt. Lett. 44, 1068-1071).
Dohyun was initially cited in the IDS received 19 June 2023.
Regarding claim 1, Dohyun discloses, "A bidirectional loop" (pg. 1068, col. 2, 2nd paragraph and Fig. 2A, where the presence of counter-propagating pulses in the NALM section indicate that the NALM section is bidirectional). "A unidirectional loop" (pg. 1069, col. 2, 1st paragraph and Fig. 2A, where the optical loop is unidirectional). "A 3×3 coupler" (pg. 1068, col. 2, 3rd paragraph and Fig. 2A). "Wherein the bidirectional loop and the unidirectional loop are coupled to each other via the 3×3 coupler" (Fig. 2A, pts. NALM, OL, and 3x3 coupler). "Wherein the bidirectional loop comprises a first amplifying fiber" (pg. 1069, col. 2, 1st paragraph and Fig. 2A). "Wherein the fiber oscillator has overall a normal dispersion" (pg. 1069, col. 2, 1st paragraph and Fig. 2A, where negative net cavity dispersion corresponds to normal dispersion).
Regarding claim 2, Dohyun discloses, "Wherein the first amplifying fiber is doped with at least one element selected from a group consisting of ytterbium, neodymium, erbium, thulium, holmium, and a combination thereof" (pg. 1069, col. 2, 1st paragraph and Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 4, Dohyun discloses, "Wherein the bidirectional loop comprises an asymmetrically arranged amplifying element and/or an asymmetrically arranged attenuating element" (pg. 1069, col. 2, 1st paragraph and Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 5, Dohyun discloses, "Wherein the unidirectional loop does not comprise an amplifying medium" (Fig. 2A, pt. OL).
Regarding claim 17, Dohyun discloses, "Wherein all optical components of the fiber oscillator are configured as polarization-maintaining optical components" (pg. 1068, col. 2, 3rd paragraph and Fig. 2A, where the laser is an all polarization maintaining system).
Regarding claim 18, Dohyun discloses, "A pump light source configured to produce pump light" (pg. 1069-1070, col. 2-1, 3rd-1st paragraph and Fig. 2A, pt. LD). "Wherein the pump light source and the fiber oscillator are connected to one another so as to conduct light" (pg. 1069-1070, col. 2-1, 3rd-1st paragraph and Fig. 2A, pts. Er-fiber and LD). "The pump light of the pump light source is capable of being coupled into the fiber oscillator" (pg. 1069-1070, col. 2-1, 3rd-1st paragraph and Fig. 2A, pts. Er-fiber and LD).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohyun in view of Ohishi et al. (Ohishi, US Pub. 2002/0080474).
Regarding claim 3, Dohyun does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first amplifying fiber is doped with Er and Yb, or with Tm and Ho." Ohishi discloses, "Wherein the first amplifying fiber is doped with Er and Yb, or with Tm and Ho" (p. [0273]). 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 Dohyun with the teachings of Ohishi. In view of the teachings of Dohyun regarding a fiber laser having a nonlinear amplifying loop mirror, the alternate doping of the gain regions of the fiber as taught by Ohishi would enhance the teachings of Dohyun by allowing the gain regions to be pumped by a broader pump spectrum.
Claims 6, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohyun in view of Desbiens (US Pub. 2011/0002348).
Regarding claim 6, Dohyun does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the unidirectional loop comprises an amplifying medium." "The fiber oscillator further comprising an isolator element arranged between the amplifying medium and the first amplifying fiber." Desbiens discloses, "Wherein the unidirectional loop comprises an amplifying medium" (p. [0066] and Fig. 1A, pt. 46). "The fiber oscillator further comprising an isolator element arranged between the amplifying medium and the first amplifying fiber" (p. [0066] and Fig. 1A, pts. 44 and 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 teachings of Dohyun with the teachings of Desbiens. In view of the teachings of Dohyun regarding a fiber laser having a nonlinear amplifying loop mirror, the additional inclusion of an amplifier in the unidirectional loop Desbiens as taught by would enhance the teachings of Dohyun by providing independent control over the pulse power.
Regarding claim 16, Dohyun does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the unidirectional loop further comprises a second amplifying fiber." "The second amplifying fiber is doped with a same element as the first amplifying fiber." Desbiens discloses, "Wherein the unidirectional loop further comprises a second amplifying fiber" (p. [0066] and Fig. 1A, pt. 46). "The second amplifying fiber is doped with a same element as the first amplifying fiber" (p. [0079] and Fig. 1A, pts. 34 and 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 teachings of Dohyun with the teachings of Desbiens for the reasons provided above regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, Dohyun does not explicitly disclose, "A control device." "Wherein the control device is actively connected to the pump light source." "[The control device] is configured to adjust a pulse duration of the fiber oscillator by selecting a pump power of the pump light source." Desbiens discloses, "A control device" (p. [0031], [0049], and Fig. 1A, pts. 34, 38, and 42). "Wherein the control device is actively connected to the pump light source" (p. [0031], [0049], and Fig. 1A, pts. 34, 38, and 42). "[The control device] is configured to adjust a pulse duration of the fiber oscillator by selecting a pump power of the pump light source" (p. [0031], [0049], and Fig. 1A, pts. 34, 38, and 42). 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 Dohyun with the teachings of Desbiens for the reasons provided above regarding claim 6.
Claims 7 through 9, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohyun in view of Barre et al. (Barre, US Pub. 2016/0204565).
Barre was initially cited in the IDS received 19 June 2023.
Regarding claim 7, Dohyun does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the unidirectional loop comprises a reflecting branch." "The reflecting branch comprising a reflector element." Barre discloses, "Wherein the unidirectional loop comprises a reflecting branch" (p. [0100] and Fig. 7, pt. 62). "The reflecting branch comprising a reflector element" (p. [0100] and Fig. 7, pt. 62). 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 Dohyun with the teachings of Barre. In view of the teachings of Dohyun regarding a fiber laser having a nonlinear amplifying loop mirror, the additional inclusion of a dispersion compensation unit attached to the unidirectional loop by a circulator as taught by Barre would enhance the teachings of Dohyun by allowing for supplemental compensation of dispersion within the overall device.
Regarding claim 8, Dohyun does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the reflector element is configured as a fiber Bragg grating." Barre discloses, "Wherein the reflector element is configured as a fiber Bragg grating" (p. [0102] and Fig. 7, pt. 62). 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 Dohyun with the teachings of Barre for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Dohyun does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the reflector element is configured as a chirped fiber Bragg grating that functions as a dispersion-compensating element." Barre discloses, "Wherein the reflector element is configured as a chirped fiber Bragg grating that functions as a dispersion-compensating element" (p. [0044]). 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 Dohyun with the teachings of Barre for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, Dohyun does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the reflecting branch is connected to a ring part of the unidirectional loop via a circulator element." Barre discloses, "Wherein the reflecting branch is connected to a ring part of the unidirectional loop via a circulator element" (p. [0100] and Fig. 7, pts. 58, 62, and P). 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 Dohyun with the teachings of Barre for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Dohyun does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the first Bragg grating is configured as a bandwidth-limiting element." Barre discloses, "Wherein the first Bragg grating is configured as a bandwidth-limiting element" (p. [0100] and Fig. 7, pt. 62, where a grating is necessarily a bandwidth limiting element). 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 Dohyun with the teachings of Barre for the reasons provided above regarding claim 7.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohyun in view of Lin (US Pub. 2002/0071453).
Regarding claim 10, Dohyun does not explicitly disclose, "A dispersion-compensating fiber arranged in the unidirectional loop." Lin discloses, "A dispersion-compensating fiber arranged in the unidirectional loop" (p. [0028] and Fig. 1, pt. 112). 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 Dohyun with the teachings of Lin. In view of the teachings of Dohyun regarding a fiber laser having a nonlinear amplifying loop mirror, the additional inclusion of a dispersion compensating fiber within the laser loop as taught by Lin would enhance the teachings of Dohyun by allowing for supplemental compensation of dispersion within the overall device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohyun, in view of Barre, and further in view of Nakazato et al. (Nakazato, US Patent 5,572,357).
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Dohyun and Barre does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the unidirectional loop comprises a second amplifying fiber arranged in the reflecting branch." Nakazato discloses, "Wherein the unidirectional loop comprises a second amplifying fiber arranged in the reflecting branch" (col. 5, lines 41-53 and Fig. 1, pts. 40 and 100, where amplifier 40 of Nakazato is included in the dispersion compensation unit 24 of Barre). 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 Dohyun and Barre with the teachings of Nakazato. In view of the teachings of Dohyun regarding a fiber laser having a nonlinear amplifying loop mirror and the teachings of Barre regarding the use of a dispersion compensation unit attached to the unidirectional loop by a circulator, the additional inclusion of an amplifying element in the reflecting arm as taught by Nakazato would enhance the teachings of Dohyun and Barre by providing independent control over the pulse power.
Claims 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dohyun in view of Vahala et al. (Vahala, US Patent 5,504,771).
Regarding claim 13, Dohyun does not explicitly disclose, "A bandwidth-limiting element having a bandwidth of from at least 1 pm to at most 20 nm." Vahala discloses, "A bandwidth-limiting element having a bandwidth of from at least 1 pm to at most 20 nm" (col. 3, lines 60-63 and Fig. 1, pt. 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 Dohyun with the teachings of Vahala. In view of the teachings of Dohyun regarding a fiber laser having a nonlinear amplifying loop mirror, the additional inclusion of a tunable Fabry-Perot filter as taught by Vahala would enhance the teachings of Dohyun by allowing for wavelength selection within the laser device.
Regarding claim 14, Dohyun does not explicitly disclose, "Wherein the bandwidth-limiting element is configured as a bandpass filter." Vahala discloses, "Wherein the bandwidth-limiting element is configured as a bandpass filter" (col. 3, lines 60-63 and Fig. 1, pt. 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 Dohyun with the teachings of Vahala for the reasons provided above regarding claim 13.
Regarding claim 20, Dohyun does not explicitly disclose, "A control device actively connected to a bandwidth-limiting element of the fiber oscillator." "Wherein the bandwidth-limiting element is characterized by a bandwidth that is variable." "Wherein the control device is configured to adjust the bandwidth of the bandwidth-limiting element." Vahala discloses, "A control device actively connected to a bandwidth-limiting element of the fiber oscillator" (col. 3-4, lines 64-5 and Fig. 1, pt. 18). "Wherein the bandwidth-limiting element is characterized by a bandwidth that is variable" (col. 3-4, lines 64-5 and Fig. 1, pt. 18). "Wherein the control device is configured to adjust the bandwidth of the bandwidth-limiting element" (col. 3-4, lines 64-5 and Fig. 1, pt. 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 Dohyun with the teachings of Vahala for the reasons provided above regarding claim 13.
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
Prosecution Insights