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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 3/31/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by Botheroyd et al. (US 9,897,759 B2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kumkar et al. (US 2011/0123155 A1) or Lin et al. (US 2019/0199055 A1).
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, 3-8, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumkar et al. (US 2011/0123155 A1).
Re. Claim 1, Kumkar et al. discloses an optical system, comprising:
a fiber oscillator or a fiber amplifier ([0001]-[0002]);
an input system comprising a plurality of laser sources 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 ([0003], [0092]);
an output fiber, optically coupled to the fiber oscillator or the fiber amplifier, comprising one or more cores configured to carry the signal light and a cladding, surrounding the one or more cores, configured to carry the pump light ([0003], [0104]); and
an optical fiber combiner 1, arranged between the input system and the output fiber, comprising:
a glass tube 3 (Fig. 1; [0033], [0092], [0194], and [0199]), wherein a stray light stripper is defined at a surface of the glass tube ([0207]); and
a fiber bundle, disposed within the glass tube 3, comprising a plurality of optical fibers SM and PM (Fig. 1; [0092]),
wherein the fiber bundle is configured to be tapered at a location 4/6 where the glass tube 3 is tapered (Fig. 1; [0093]-[0095]).
Re. Claim 3, Kumkar et al. discloses 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 (Fig. 1; [0092]).
Re. Claim 4, Kumkar et al. discloses the plurality of laser sources comprise a plurality of the second laser sources configured to generate pump light (Fig. 1; [0092]).
Re. Claim 5, Kumkar et al. discloses the plurality of laser sources comprise a plurality of the first laser sources configured to generate signal light (Fig. 1; [0092]).
Re. Claim 6, Kumkar et al. 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 ([0207]).
Re. Claim 7, Kumkar et al. discloses the optical system as discussed above. Since the structure recited within the reference is substantially identical to the claimed invention, the properties or characteristics (e.g., “wherein the stray light stripper is configured to strip stray light in the glass tube without stripping pump light in the glass tube”) may be presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.
Re. Claim 8, Kumkar et al. discloses the optical fiber combiner is arranged between the input system and the output fiber in a backward pumping configuration ([0002]).
Re. Claim 18, Kumkar et al. discloses a method, comprising:
forming a stray light stripper on a glass tube ([0199], [0207]);
inserting a fiber bundle into the glass tube, wherein the fiber bundle comprises a plurality of optical fibers (Fig. 34; [0149]-[0151]);
tapering a portion of the glass tube and a portion of the fiber bundle disposed within the glass tubes (Fig. 35; [0151]-[0152]),
wherein the fiber bundle is tapered at a location 6 where the glass tube is tapered (Fig. 35; [0151]);
cleaving the fiber bundle (Fig. 36; [0150]); and
splicing the fiber bundle to an output fiber 9 (Fig. 36; [0150]).
Re. Claim 19, Kumkar et al. discloses forming the stray light stripper comprises: etching a surface of the glass tube using a chemical etching process (Fig. 35; [0149]).
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2019/0199055 A1).
Re. Claim 9, Lin et al. discloses an optical fiber combiner, comprising:
a glass tube (Fig. 1; [0026]-[0027]),
wherein a stray light stripper 31 is defined at a surface of the glass tube (Fig. 1; [0026]),
wherein the stray light stripper 31 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 (Fig. 1; [0026]), and
wherein the perturbations are grooves, notches, or etches (Fig. 1; [0026]); and
a fiber bundle, disposed within the glass tube, comprising a plurality of optical fibers 10 (Fig. 1; [0026]),
wherein the fiber bundle is configured to be tapered at a location 20 where the glass tube is tapered (Fig. 1; [0026]).
Re. Claim 11, Lin et al. discloses wherein the plurality of optical fibers comprise at least one of multiple pump fibers or multiple signal fibers ([0003], [0026]).
Re. Claim 13, Lin et al. discloses the perturbations are chemical etches (Fig. 1; [0026]).
Re. Claim 14, Lin et al. discloses the perturbations are grooves in a zig-zag pattern (e.g., “periodic grating structure”; Fig. 1; [0026]).
Re. Claim 15, Lin et al. discloses the stray light stripper 31 is defined at an untapered portion of the glass tube (Fig. 1).
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 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumkar et al. (US 2011/0123155 A1) and Rivera et al. (US 2018/0059323 A1).
Re. Claim 2, Kumkar et al. 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 high-power laser source (Rivera et al: [0002], [0024]).
Re. Claim 20, Kumkar et al. discloses the method as discussed above, but fails to disclose an arrangement wherein forming the stray light stripper comprises: forming grooves or notches in a surface of the glass tube using laser ablation.
Using a laser ablation to form grooves or notches in a glass surface is well known in the art, and thus the claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. “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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 16, 17, and 21 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.
Re. Claim 10, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the optical fiber combiner as required by the claims, specifically wherein the plurality of optical fibers comprise one or more signal fibers and one or more pump fibers, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
The most applicable prior art, Lin et al. (US 2019/0199055 A1), addressed above, fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Re. Claim 16, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the optical fiber combiner as required by the claims, specifically wherein the stray light stripper is defined at an untapered portion of the glass tube and a tapered portion of the glass tube, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
The most applicable prior art, Lin et al. (US 2019/0199055 A1), addressed above, fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Re. Claim 17, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the optical fiber combiner as required by the claims, specifically wherein 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, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
The most applicable prior art, Lin et al. (US 2019/0199055 A1), addressed above, fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Re. Claim 21, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the optical system as required by the claims, wherein the stray light stripper is configured to be at a location of the optical system where a numerical aperture of the light is below a threshold associated with pump light leaking into the glass tube, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
The most applicable prior art, Kumkar et al. (US 2011/0123155 A1), addressed above, fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention, specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 4/27/26
Prosecution Insights