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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Botheroyd (US 9,897,759 B2).
Re. Claim 1, Botheroyd discloses an optical system, comprising:
a fiber oscillator or a fiber amplifier (col. 1 lines 10-12);
an input system 1 comprising a plurality of laser sources 1003 that comprise at least one of:
one or more first laser sources configured to generate signal light, or
one or more second laser sources configured to generate pump light (Figs. 1 and 4; col. 5 lines 45-49; col. 9 lines 5-17);
an output fiber 3, optically coupled to the fiber oscillator or the fiber amplifier, comprising one or more cores 14 configured to carry the signal light and a cladding, surrounding the one or more cores, configured to carry the pump light (Figs. 1 and 4; co. 6 lines 15-19); and
an optical fiber combiner 2, arranged between the input system 1 and the output fiber 3 (Figs. 1, 4, and 6; col. 6 lines 4-5), comprising:
a glass tube 2/41/64, wherein a stray light stripper is defined at a surface of the glass tube 2/41/64 (Figs. 1, 4, and 6; col. 9 lines 31-46); and
a fiber bundle, disposed within the glass tube 2/41/64, comprising a plurality of optical fibers 1001/61/62 (Figs. 1, 4, and 6; col. 9 lines 31-46).
Re. Claim 4, Botheroyd discloses the plurality of laser sources 1003 comprise a plurality of the second laser sources configured to generate pump light (Fig. 1; col. 9 lines 8-12).
Re. Claim 6, Botheroyd discloses the stray light stripper is defined by chemical etches in the surface of the glass tube or by grooves in the surface of the glass tube (Fig. 8; col. 9 lines 63-67; col. 10 lines 1-16).
Re. Claim 8, Botheroyd discloses the optical fiber combiner is arranged between the input system and the output fiber in a backward pumping configuration (col. 13 lines 36-45).
Re. Claim 9, Botheroyd discloses an optical fiber combiner 2, comprising:
a glass tube 2/41/64, wherein a stray light stripper is defined at a surface of the glass tube, wherein the stray light stripper is defined by perturbations in the surface of the glass tube or a layer of a material, on the glass tube, having a different refractive index than a refractive index of the glass tube, and wherein the perturbations are grooves, notches, or etches (Figs. 1, 4, 6, and 8; col. 9 lines 31-46 and 63-67; col. 10 lines 1-16); and
a fiber bundle, disposed within the glass tube 2/41/64, comprising a plurality of optical fibers 1001/61/62 (Figs. 1, 4, and 6; col. 9 lines 31-46).
Re. Claim 11, Botheroyd discloses the plurality of optical fibers comprise multiple pump fibers (Fig. 1; col. 9 lines 8-12).
Re. Claim 13, Botheroyd discloses the perturbations are chemical etches (Fig. 8; col. 9 lines 65-67; col. 10 lines 1-3).
Re. Claim 14, Botheroyd discloses the perturbations are grooves in a zig-zag pattern (Fig. 8; lines 65-67).
Re. Claim 15, Botheroyd discloses the stray light stripper is defined at an untapered portion of the glass tube (Fig. 11; col. 10 lines 54-61).
Re. Claim 17, Botheroyd discloses the perturbations comprise: a first line of grooves in a zig-zag pattern centered at a 0° position with respect to a circumference of the glass tube; a second line of grooves in a zig-zag pattern centered at a 90° position with respect to the circumference of the glass tube; a third line of grooves in a zig-zag pattern centered at a 180° position with respect to the circumference of the glass tube; and a fourth line of grooves in a zig-zag pattern centered at a 270° position with respect to the circumference of the glass tube (Fig. 8; col. 9 lines 63-67; col. 10 lines 1-16). It is noted Botheroyd discloses the zig-zag pattern extends around the circumference of the glass tube, and the same is sufficient to meet the limitations of the claim according the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Re. Claim 18, Botheroyd discloses a method, comprising:
forming a stray light stripper on a glass tube (Figs. 8-11, 13, and 14; col. 5 lines 29-37; col. 9 lines 63-64; col. 10 lines 17-18, 32-34, and 54-57; col. 12 lines 59-64);
inserting a fiber bundle into the glass tube, wherein the fiber bundle comprises a plurality of optical fibers (Fig. 15; col. 12 lines 63-67);
tapering a portion of the glass tube and a portion of the fiber bundle disposed within the glass tube (Figs. 16-18; col. 11 lines 45-47; col. 12 lines 1-2);
cleaving the fiber bundle (Fig. 19; col. 13 lines 25-27); and
splicing the fiber bundle to an output fiber (Fig. 20; col. 13 lines 27-30).
Re. Claim 19, Botheroyd discloses forming the stray light stripper comprises: etching a surface of the glass tube using a chemical etching process (col. 9 lines 65-67; col. 10 lines 1-5).
Re. Claim 20, Botheroyd discloses forming the stray light stripper comprises: forming grooves or notches in a surface of the glass tube using laser ablation (col. 9 lines 65-67; col. 10 lines 1-5).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botheroyd (US 9,897,759 B2) and Rivera et al. (US 2018/0059323 A1).
Re. Claim 2, Botheroyd discloses the optical system as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein the optical system comprises the fiber oscillator and the fiber amplifier, wherein the optical fiber combiner is a first optical fiber combiner optically coupled to the fiber oscillator, and wherein the optical system further comprises a second optical fiber combiner optically coupled to the fiber amplifier.
Rivera et al. discloses a high-power laser system 200 comprising a fiber oscillator with a plurality of light sources 210 coupled to a first optical fiber combiner 211, a fiber amplifier 214, wherein the system 200 comprises a second optical fiber combiner 206 optically coupled to the fiber amplifier 214 (Fig. 2; [0024]).
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of creating a high0power laser source (Rivera et al: [0002], [0024]).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botheroyd (US 9,897,759 B2).
Re. Claims 3 and 10, Botheroyd discloses the optical system as discussed above, but does not disclose an arrangement wherein the plurality of laser sources comprise at least one of the first laser sources configured to generate signal light and at least one of the second laser sources configured to generate pump light.
Lasers are known to utilize both signal light and pump light, and the claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of creating a high-power laser configuration. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claims 5 and 12, Botheroyd discloses the optical system as discussed above, but does not disclose an arrangement wherein the plurality of laser sources comprise a plurality of the first laser sources configured to generate signal light.
Lasers are known to utilize both signal light and pump light, and the claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of creating a high-power laser configuration. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 7, Botheroyd discloses the optical system as discussed above, but does not disclose an arrangement wherein the stray light stripper is configured to strip stray light in the glass tube without stripping pump light in the glass tube.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of removing harmful stray light while leaving the pump light undisturbed so as not to interfere with the operation of the laser.
Re. Claim 16, Botheroyd discloses the optical system as discussed above, but does not disclose an arrangement wherein the stray light stripper is both defined at an untapered portion of the glass tube and a tapered portion of the glass tube.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as the same amounts to a combination of the arrangements disclosed by Botheroyd (Figs. 8-11). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 12/5/25