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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 states “ and a fiber oscillator as claimed in claim 1 ”. It should read “and the passive mode-coupled fiber oscillator as claimed in claim 1 ” Appropriate correction is required. 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(s) 1 - 3, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as being unpatentable by Kim (NPL Optics Letters, March 2019, pp. 1068-1071, Vol. 44, Issue 5; included in the IDS) over the view of Nicholson (US Patent US-20100296527-A1 ), hereinafter Nicholson . Regarding claim 1 , Kim teaches a passive mode-coupled fiber oscillator (Fig. 2a fiber oscillator) , comprising: a bidirectional loop (Fig. 2a NALM is a loop mirror ) , a unidirectional loop (Fig. 2a OL is an optical loop the arrow indicates that the propagation direction is in one direction; see page 1069 right column first paragraph) , and a 3x3 coupler (Fig. 2a 3 x3 coupler) , wherein the bidirectional loop and the unidirectional loop are coupled to one another via the 3x3 coupler (Fig. 2a OL and NALM are coupled to one another via the 3x3 coupler) , wherein the bidirectional (Fig. 2a NALM) loop includes a first amplification fiber that is doped using at least one element selected from the group consisting of ytterbium, neodymium, erbium, thulium, and holmium (Fig. 2a Er fiber is an amplifier fiber ) , and wherein the fiber oscillator has an anomalous dispersion overall (page 1069 second paragraph states “ The repetition-rate is 36.56 MHz, and the estimated net cavity dispersion is −0.133 ps2 at 1560 nm. ”; therefore the fiber in Fig. 2a has an anomalous dispersion overall ) . Kim fail s to teach the fiber oscillator further comprising a dispersion compensation element . Nicholson the fiber oscillator (Fig. 10 fiber 82) further comprising a dispersion compensation element (Fig. 10 element 94). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s device with a dispersion compensation element as taught by Nicholson (e.g. having element 94 from Nicholson arrange in the side of the OL from Kim) because having a dispersion compensation element would allow to provide desired anomalous dispersion for output sub-picosecond pulse widths (from Nicholson [0045]). Regarding claim 2 , Kim’s modified device teaches t he fiber oscillator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the 3x3 coupler (from Kim Fig. 2a 3x3 coupler) is configured to convey a phase shift of 2π/3 to light pulses that cross talk between various direct connections of ports of the 3x3 coupler (from Kim page 1069 left column second paragraph states “ A 3 × 3 coupler causes a 120-deg phase difference between the original port and the coupled port ”) . Regarding claim 3, Kim’s modified device teaches t he fiber oscillator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the unidirectional loop (from Kim Fig. 2a OL) does not include an amplification medium (from Kim Fig. 2a OL does not include an amplification medium as seen by the figure and text) . Regarding claim 11 , Kim’s modified device teaches t he fiber oscillator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the dispersion compensation element comprises a dispersion-compensating fiber (from Nicholson Fig. 10 element 94; [0045] states “ For example, elements such as a section of higher-order mode fiber, photonic crystal fiber or photonic bandgap fiber are known to exhibit anomalous dispersion in the 1 . mu.m wavelength range. ”) arranged in the unidirectional loop (modified Kim’s device would have element 94 from Nicholson arranged in the OL from Kim) . Regarding claim 14 , Kim’s modified device teaches t he fiber oscillator as claimed in claim 1, wherein all optical components of the fiber oscillator are configured to be polarization-maintaining (from Kim Fig. 2a is a polarization maintaining fiber) . Regarding claim 1 5 , Kim’s modified device teaches a laser device (from Kim Fig. 2a is a fiber laser device) , comprising a pump light source (from Kim LD is the pump diode) and a fiber oscillator (from Kim Fig. 2a NALM) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pump light source and the fiber oscillator are connected to one another in a light-conducting manner (from Kim Fig. 2a LD and NALM are connected to one another in a light-conducting manner ) , so that pump light emitted by the pump light source is capable of being coupled into the fiber oscillator (it is inherent that the pump light from the LD in Fig. 2a from Kim is capable of being coupled into the NALM since table 1 shows the laser characteristics based on the pump power and the NALM) . Claim(s) 4 - 8 , 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as being unpatentable by Kim (NPL Optics Letters, March 2019, pp. 1068-1071, Vol. 44, Issue 5; included in the IDS) over the view of Nicholson (US Patent US-20100296527-A1 ), as per claim 1, in further view of Al- Kadry (US Patent US-20220131331-A1 ) hereinafter Al- Kadry . Regarding claim 4 , Kim’s modified device teaches t he fiber oscillator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the unidirectional loop (from Kim Fig. 2a OL) includes an isolator element (from Kim Fig. 2a OL includes an isolator) arranged behind the first amplification fiber (from Kim Fig. 2a isolator is behind the Er fiber) . Kim’s modified device failed to teach the unidirectional loop includes an amplification medium and an isolator element arranged between the amplification medium and the first amplification fiber . However, Al- Kadry teaches teach the unidirectional loop (Fig. 1 uni -directional loop 2) includes an amplification medium (Fig. 1 amplifier 4) and an isolator element (Fig. 1 isolator 8) arranged between the amplification medium and the first amplification fiber (Fig. 1 isolator 8 is between the amplifier 2 and amplifier 9). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s device with a amplification medium as taught by Al- Kadry (e.g. having an amplifier from Al- Kadry in the OL from Kim so that the isolator from Kim is arrange between the amplifier from Al- Kadry and Er fiber from Kim) because having an amplifier in the unidirectional loop would further allow to amplify the signal generated. Regarding claim 5 , Kim’s modified device teaches t he fiber oscillator as claimed in claim 1 . Kim’s modified device fails to teach wherein the unidirectional loop includes a reflecting arm and a reflector element arranged in the reflecting arm. However, Al- Kadry teaches the unidirectional loop includes a reflecting arm (Fig. 3 fiber 19) and a reflector element arranged in the reflecting arm (Fig. 3 chirped fiber Bragg grating 21 arranged in the fiber 19). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s device in the view of Nicholson having the unidirectional loop includes a reflecting arm and a reflector element arranged in the reflecting arm as taught by Al- Kadry because it would control the net dispersion of the cavity and also acts as a spectral bandpass filter (from Al- Kadry [0060]). Regarding claim 6 , Kim’s modified device teaches t he fiber oscillator as claimed in claim 5, wherein the reflector element (from Al- Kadry Fig. 3 chirped fiber Bragg grating 21) is configured as a wavelength fixing element (from Al- Kadry [0060] states “a chirped fiber Bragg grating (CFBG) 21 … acts as a spectral bandpass filter ”) . Regarding claim 7 , Kim’s modified device teaches t he fiber oscillator as claimed in claim 5, wherein the reflector element is configured as a fiber-Bragg grating (from Al- Kadry Fig. 3 chirped fiber Bragg grating 21) . Regarding claim 8 , Kim’s modified device teaches t he fiber oscillator as claimed in claim 5 . Kim’s modified device fails to teach wherein the unidirectional loop further includes a circulator element, the reflecting arm is connected in a light-conducting manner via the circulator element to a ring part of the unidirectional loop. However, Al- Kadry teaches wherein the unidirectional loop (Fig. 3 uni -directional loop 12) further includes a circulator element (Fig. 3 circulator 18) , the reflecting arm (Fig. 3 fiber 19) is connected in a light-conducting manner via the circulator element to a ring part of the unidirectional loop (Fig. 3 fiber 19 is connected in a light-conducting manner via the circulator element 18 to part of the ring of the unidirectional loop 12) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s device in the view of Nicholson where unidirectional loop further includes a circulator element, the reflecting arm is connected in a light-conducting manner via the circulator element to a ring part of the unidirectional loop (e.g. adding the circulator from Al- Kadry to the modified Kim’s device in as per claim 5) as taught by Al- Kadry because having a circulator would allow to manage the flow of the light signal. Regarding claim 10, Kim’s modified device teaches t he fiber oscillator as claimed in claim 1 . Kim’s modified device fails to teach wherein the unidirectional loop includes a reflecting arm, the dispersion compensation element is formed as a reflector element arranged in the reflecting arm, and the reflector element is configured as a chirped fiber-Bragg grating. However, Al- Kadry teaches the unidirectional loop (Fig. 3 uni -directional loop 12) includes a reflecting arm (Fig. 3 fier 19) , the dispersion compensation element is formed as a reflector element arranged in the reflecting arm, and the reflector element is configured as a chirped fiber-Bragg grating (Fig. 3 CFBG 21 is arranged in fiber 19; [0060] states “ A chirped fiber Bragg grating (CFBG) 21 is connected to port 2 of circulator 18 and is used to control the net dispersion of the cavity ”; therefore 19 and 21 form the dispersion compensation element ) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s device in the view of Nicholson having the unidirectional loop includes a reflecting arm and a reflector element arranged in the reflecting arm as taught by Al- Kadry because it would control the net dispersion of the cavity and also acts as a spectral bandpass filter (from Al- Kadry [0060]). Regarding claim 1 6 , Kim’s modified device teaches t he laser device as claimed in claim 15, adjust a pulse duration of the fiber oscillator by selecting a pump power of the pump light source (from Kim Table 1 pulse direction is adjusted by the pump power). Kim’s modified device fails to teach a control device, wherein the control device is operationally connected to the pump light source. However, Al- Kadry teaches a control device (Fig. 29 controller 29 ) , wherein the control device is operationally connected to the pump light source (Fig. 3 pump source 25 is connected to the controller 29, see [0072] ) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s device in the view of Nicholson to have a control device connected to the pump light source as taught by Al- Kadry because the controller would allow to c ontrolling the output power (from Al- Kadry [0072]). Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as being unpatentable by Kim (NPL Optics Letters, March 2019, pp. 1068-1071, Vol. 44, Issue 5; included in the IDS) over the view of Nicholson (US Patent US-20100296527-A1 ), as per claim 1, in further view of Smith (US Patent US-5363386-A ) hereinafter Smith . Regarding claim 12 , Kim’s modified device teaches t he fiber oscillator as claimed in claim 1 . Kim’s modified device fails to teach a bandwidth limiting element arranged in the unidirectional loop. However, Smith teaches a bandwidth limiting (Fig. 1 element 12; column 2 lines 17-18 states “ The mirror 12 could be replaced with a grating to provide a bandwidth restriction an d tunability. ”) arrange in one of the ends of a fibre (Fig. 1 fiber 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s device by adding a bandwith limiting element (e.g. having element 12 from Smith to be a grating to provide a bandwidth restriction arranged in the OL from Kim) as taught by Smith because it would to provide a bandwidth restriction an/r tunability (from Smith column 2 lines 17-18). Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as being unpatentable by Kim (NPL Optics Letters, March 2019, pp. 1068-1071, Vol. 44, Issue 5; included in the IDS) over the view of Nicholson (US Patent US-20100296527-A1 ), and Smith (US Patent US-5363386-A ) hereinafter Smit, as per claim 12, in further view of Gabl ( US Patent US-5572358-A ) , hereinafter Gabl . Regarding claim 1 3 , Kim’s modified device teaches t he fiber oscillator as claimed in claim 12 . Kim’s modified device fails to teach wherein the bandwidth limiting element is configured to be adjustable with respect to a central wavelength. However, Galb teaches the bandwidth limiting element (Fig. 2 Spectral filter 18 ; column 3 lines 1-10“ An additional advantage of incorporating a spectral filter element within the resonant cavity of a regenerative amplifier is that through the judicious choice of the parameters of the spectral filter element so as to limit the bandwidth of the pulse being amplified ” ) is configured to be adjustable with respect to a central wavelength ( column 7 lines 35-40 states “ spectral filter element 18, tunable so that fine adjustment of the central wavelength of oscillation of the output pulse is obtainable within the oscillating bandwidth of the injected seed pulse ”) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s device in the view of Nicholson and Smith so that the bandwidth limiting element is configured to be adjustable with respect to a central wavelength as taught by Galb because it would allow to produce pulses of longer duration that are tunable over a broad range, and at the same time serve to limit the self-oscillation of the amplifier cavity itself (from Galb column 7- lines 35-45) . Claim(s ) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 3 as being unpatentable by Kim (NPL Optics Letters, March 2019, pp. 1068-1071, Vol. 44, Issue 5; included in the IDS) over the view of Nicholson (US Patent US-20100296527-A1 ), as per claim 15, in further view of Gabl (US Patent US-5572358-A ), hereinafter Gabl , and Yoneka (Foreign Patent JP-2017108017-A ) , hereinafter Yoneka . Regarding claim 17 , Kim’s modified device teaches t he laser device as claimed in claim 15 . Kim’s modified device fails to teach a control device operationally connected to a bandwidth limiting element of the fiber oscillator, the bandwidth limiting element configured to be adjustable with respect to a central wavelength, and the control device is configured to set the central wavelength of the bandwidth limiting element . However, Galb teaches the bandwidth limiting element (Fig. 2 Spectral filter 18; column 3 lines 1-10“ An additional advantage of incorporating a spectral filter element within the resonant cavity of a regenerative amplifier is that through the judicious choice of the parameters of the spectral filter element so as to limit the bandwidth of the pulse being amplified ”) is configured to be adjustable with respect to a central wavelength (column 7 lines 35-40 states “ spectral filter element 18, tunable so that fine adjustment of the central wavelength of oscillation of the output pulse is obtainable within the oscillating bandwidth of the injected seed pulse ”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s device in the view of Nicholson to include a bandwidth limiting element that is configured to be adjustable with respect to a central wavelength as taught by Galb because it would allow to produce pulses of longer duration that are tunable over a broad range, and at the same time serve to limit the self-oscillation of the amplifier cavity itself (from Galb column 7- lines 35-45). Kim’s modified device above fails to teach a control device operationally connected to a bandwidth limiting element of the fiber oscillator , and the control device is configured to set the central wavelength of the bandwidth limiting element . However, Yoneka teaches a control device (Fig. 1 processing device 114) connected to the laser device (Fig. 1 processing device 114). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s device in the view of Nicholson and Gabl to include a control device (e.g. connecting the control device to the modified Kim’s device with the spectral filter from Galb ) because it would allow to set the the central wavelength of the bandwidth limiting element (from Galb column 7 lines 59-64 “ selection of the design parameters of the system would provide the additional desirable characteristic of providing single-element, spectrally tunable output pulses whose center wavelength could be controlled to a high degree of resolution within the entire spectral emission band of the seed oscillator ”). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 9 is 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. Regarding claim 9, Kim’s modified device teaches the fiber oscillator as claimed in claim 5 . Kim’s modified device fails to teach wherein the unidirectional loop further includes a second amplification fiber that is doped using a same element as the first amplification fiber, the second amplification fiber is arranged in the reflecting arm. Barre (US Patent US-20160204565-A1 from IDS) teaches wherein the unidirectional loop (Fig. 7 main loop 4 is a unidirectional loop ) further includes a second amplification fiber (Fig. 7 active fiber section 10 in loop 4) that is doped using a same element as the first amplification fiber (Fig. 7 active fiber section 10 in secondary ring 6; [0074] states Rare earths are possible doping elements, in particular ytterbium (Yb), erbium (Er), neodymium (Nd), thulium (Tm), holmium (Ho) or praseodymium ( Pr ) ). Barre fails to teach the second amplification fiber is arranged in the reflecting arm. Sun (NPL 2017 16TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ) teaches wherein the unidirectional loop (Fig. 1 loop for pump 1) further includes a second amplification fiber (Fig. 1 EDF in the loop for pump 1) t hat is doped using a same element as the first amplification fiber (Fig. 1 EDF in the loop for pump 2). Sun fails to teach the second amplification fiber is arranged in the reflecting arm. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT FERNANDA ADRIANA CAMACHO ALANIS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1545 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30pm Friday off . 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 MinSun Harvey can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /FERNANDA ADRIANA CAMACHO ALANIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828