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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
“to projection an image” in claim 72 should be “configured to project an image”.
Phosphorus is misspelled in claims 74-76 and 78-81.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 73-81, 84-86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Regarding claim 73, applicant’s specification as originally filed supports “the multi-color fiber laser source is selected from the group consisting of a nested Raman oscillator, sequential Raman oscillator”, but does not reasonably enable “the multi-color fiber laser source is selected from the group consisting of …a ring resonator configuration, Fabry Perot resonator and a free space Raman device,” because the prior art does not recognize these structures as “fiber laser” sources, and applicant has not provided any instruction on how to make or use these structures as fiber laser sources.
Regarding claim 74-81, applicant’s specification as originally filed supports the Raman active material containing silica, GeO2, or phoshorus, because these are well known fiber laser materials. Applicant’s specification as originally filed does not support diamond, Ba(NO3)2 KGW YVO4 and Ba(NO3)2, because the art does not recognize these materials for use in optical fibers and applicant has not instructed a person of ordinary skill in the art how to create a fiber laser source using these materials.
Regarding claims 84-86, applicant’s specification as originally filed supports the blue laser diode pump. However, applicant’s specification as originally filed does not enable a fiber laser source with pumping “transverse with an oscillating mode” in a fiber laser source.
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 72-86, 88-90, and 92 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 72 recites “the multi-color laser source.” Applicant does not define “a multi-color laser source.” Accordingly, this language lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what applicant is referencing. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret the language as “the multi-color fiber laser source.”
Claims 73-86, 88-90, and 92 are indefinite at least based on their dependence from claim 72.
Claim 73 is additionally indefinite. Claim 73 recites “the multi-color fiber laser source is selected from the group consisting of a nested Raman oscillator, sequential Raman oscillator, a ring resonator configuration, Fabry Perot resonator and a free space Raman device.” “A ring resonator configuration, Fabry Perot resonator and a free space Raman device” are not understood in the art to be “fiber laser” sources. Accordingly, it is unclear what applicant is attempting to claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret the language as “the multi-color fiber laser source is selected from the group consisting of a nested Raman oscillator or sequential Raman oscillator”
Claims 75, 77, 79, and 81 are indefinite at least based on their dependence from claim 73.
Claim 74 and 75 are additionally indefinite, because its unclear if “Ba(N03)2 KGW YVO4” is one material or multiple materials that are missing commas therebetween. For the purpose of this Office Action, the Office will interpret the language as “Ba(N03)2, KGW, YVO4.”
Claims 76 and 77 are further indefinite. Both claims list the material YVO4 without a shift. Claims 80 and 81 are likewise indefinite, because they list Green 6.42E-05 without any context.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 73-81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
These claims do not appear to contain all the limitations of the claim from which they depend, because they claim materials and structures that are not understood in the art to be “fiber laser” sources.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 72, 74, and 78 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lippey et al. (US20140111847A1), hereafter Lippey.
Regarding claim 72, Lippey discloses a projection system, configured to projection an image on a large surface for viewing by an audience (Fig. 14 element 1420), the system comprising: a. a laser source configured to provide an initial laser beam having a wavelength of less than 500 nm ([0053]); b. the laser source in optical communication with a multicolor fiber laser source ([0053]); and, c. the multi-color fiber laser source configured to provide laser beams having a plurality of wavelengths within the multi-color laser source ([0053]); and configured to transmit an output projection laser beam (Fig. 14 element 1420), wherein the output projection beam laser comprises three primary color laser beams ([0053]); wherein a first primary color laser beam is red; wherein a second primary color laser beam is blue ([0053]); wherein a third primary color laser beam is green ([0053]).
Regarding claim 74, Libbey further discloses the multi-color fiber laser source comprises a Raman active material and the Raman active material contains a material selected from the group consisting of silica, GeO2, phoshorus, diamond, Ba(N03)2 KGW YVO4 and Ba(N03)2 ([0053] discloses at least silica).
Regarding claim 78, Lippey further discloses the system is configured to provide the second primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency shift/material selected from the group consisting of 1st Stokes/Silica Blue, 1st Stokes/Phosphorus, 1st Stokes/Diamond, 1st Stokes/KGW Blue, 1st Stokes/YVO4, and 1st Stokes/Ba(NO3)2 ([0053] discloses the 1st stokes shift in silica for blue).
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.
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.
Claims 73, 75, 77, 79, and 81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippey in view of Po et al. (US20040179797A1), hereafter Po.
Regarding claim 73, Lippey does not explicitly disclose the multi-color fiber laser source is selected from the group consisting of a nested Raman oscillator, sequential Raman oscillator, a ring resonator configuration, Fabry Perot resonator and a free space Raman device. However, Po discloses the multi-color fiber laser source is selected from the group consisting of a nested Raman oscillator, sequential Raman oscillator, a ring resonator configuration, Fabry Perot resonator and a free space Raman device (Fig. 12 shows sequential and nested oscillators; Title). An advantage, as is known in the art, is to achieve the desired wavelength shift with higher power and lower linewidth. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey with the multi-color fiber laser source is selected from the group consisting of a nested Raman oscillator, sequential Raman oscillator, a ring resonator configuration, Fabry Perot resonator and a free space Raman device as disclosed by Po in order to achieve the desired wavelength shift with higher power and lower linewidth.
Regarding claim 75, Libbey further discloses the multi-color fiber laser source comprises a Raman active material and the Raman active material contains a material selected from the group consisting of silica, GeO2, phoshorus, diamond, Ba(N03)2 KGW YVO4 and Ba(N03)2 ([0053] discloses at least silica).
Regarding claim 77, Lippey in view of Po does not explicitly disclose the system is configured to provide the first primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency shift/material by selected from the group consisting of 5th Stokes/Diamond, 6th Stokes/Ba(NO3)2, 7th Stokes/KGW, YVO4, and 14th Stokes/Silica. However, Lippey discloses the system is configured to provide the first primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency material of silica ([0053]) and optimizing the frequency shift to select the emission wavelength ([0053]; Figs. 1-2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey in view of Po with the system is configured to provide the first primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency shift/material by selected from the group consisting of 5th Stokes/Diamond, 6th Stokes/Ba(NO3)2, 7th Stokes/KGW, YVO4, and 14th Stokes/Silica, since Lippey discloses the system is configured to provide the first primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency material of silica and optimizing the frequency shift to select the emission wavelength and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 79, Lippey further discloses the system is configured to provide the second primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency shift/material selected from the group consisting of 1st Stokes/Silica Blue, 1st Stokes/Phosphorus, 1st Stokes/Diamond, 1st Stokes/KGW Blue, 1st Stokes/YVO4, and 1st Stokes/Ba(NO3)2 ([0053] discloses the 1st stokes shift in silica for blue).
Regarding claim 81, Lippey in view of Po do not explicitly the system is configured to provide the third primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency shift/material selected from the group consisting of 3rd Stokes/Diamond, 3rd Stokes/ Ba(NO3)2, 4th Stokes/KGW, 4th Stokes/YVO4; 3rd Stokes/Phosphorus, 5th Stokes/Phophorus Green 6.42E-05, 7thStokes/Silica. However, Lippey discloses the system is configured to provide the first primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency material of silica ([0053]) and optimizing the frequency shift to select the emission wavelength ([0053]; Figs. 1-2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey in view of Po with the system is configured to provide the third primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency shift/material selected from the group consisting of 3rd Stokes/Diamond, 3rd Stokes/ Ba(NO3)2, 4th Stokes/KGW, 4th Stokes/YVO4; 3rd Stokes/Phosphorus, 5th Stokes/Phophorus Green 6.42E-05, 7thStokes/Silica, since Lippey discloses the system is configured to provide the third primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency material of silica and optimizing the frequency shift to select the emission wavelength and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 76 and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippey.
Regarding claim 76, Lippey does not explicitly disclose the system is configured to provide the first primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency shift/material by selected from the group consisting of 5th Stokes/Diamond, 6th Stokes/Ba(NO3)2, 7th Stokes/KGW, YVO4, and 14th Stokes/Silica. However, Lippey discloses the system is configured to provide the first primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency material of silica ([0053]) and optimizing the frequency shift to select the emission wavelength ([0053]; Figs. 1-2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey with the system is configured to provide the first primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency shift/material by selected from the group consisting of 5th Stokes/Diamond, 6th Stokes/Ba(NO3)2, 7th Stokes/KGW, YVO4, and 14th Stokes/Silica, since Lippey discloses the system is configured to provide the first primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency material of silica and optimizing the frequency shift to select the emission wavelength and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 80, Lippey does not explicitly the system is configured to provide the third primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency shift/material selected from the group consisting of 3rd Stokes/Diamond, 3rd Stokes/ Ba(NO3)2, 4th Stokes/KGW, 4th Stokes/YVO4; 3rd Stokes/Phosphorus, 5th Stokes/Phophorus Green 6.42E-05, 7thStokes/Silica. However, Lippey discloses the system is configured to provide the first primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency material of silica ([0053]) and optimizing the frequency shift to select the emission wavelength ([0053]; Figs. 1-2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey with the system is configured to provide the third primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency shift/material selected from the group consisting of 3rd Stokes/Diamond, 3rd Stokes/ Ba(NO3)2, 4th Stokes/KGW, 4th Stokes/YVO4; 3rd Stokes/Phosphorus, 5th Stokes/Phophorus Green 6.42E-05, 7thStokes/Silica, since Lippey discloses the system is configured to provide the third primary color laser beam by a Raman frequency material of silica and optimizing the frequency shift to select the emission wavelength and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 82-86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lippey in view of Zediker (US20160067827A1), hereafter Zediker.
Regarding claim 82, Lippey does not explicitly disclose the laser source comprises a blue laser diode pump, and wherein the blue laser diode pump is colinear with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source. However, Zediker discloses the laser source comprises a blue laser diode pump ([0091]), and wherein the blue laser diode pump is colinear with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source ([0091]). An advantage is to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm ([0089]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey with the laser source comprises a blue laser diode pump, and wherein the blue laser diode pump is colinear with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source as disclosed by Zediker in order to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm.
Regarding claim 83, Lippey does not explicitly disclose the laser source comprises a plurality of blue laser diode pumps, and wherein the plurality of blue laser diode pumps is colinear with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source. Zediker disclose the laser source comprises a plurality of blue laser diode pumps ([0091]), and wherein the plurality of blue laser diode pumps is colinear with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source ([0091]). An advantage is to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm ([0089]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey with the laser source comprises a blue laser diode pump, and wherein the blue laser diode pump is colinear with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source as disclosed by Zediker in order to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm.
Regarding claim 84, Lippey does not explicitly disclose the laser source comprises a blue laser diode pump, and wherein the blue laser diode pump is transverse with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source. Zediker disclose the laser source comprises a plurality of blue laser diode pumps ([0091]). An advantage is to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm ([0089]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey with the laser source comprises a blue laser diode pump as disclosed by Zediker in order to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm. Lippey in view of Zediker do not explicitly disclose pumping is transverse with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source. However, the Office takes Official Notice that pumping transverse to an oscillating mode is a well known alternative to pumping colinear to an oscillating mode. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey in view of Zediker with pumping is transverse with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source, since pumping transverse to an oscillating mode is a well known alternative to pumping colinear to an oscillating mode and it has been held simply substituting one known element for another requires only ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 85, Lippey does not explicitly disclose the laser source comprises a plurality of blue laser diode pumps, and wherein the plurality of blue laser diode pumps is transverse with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source. Zediker disclose the laser source comprises a plurality of blue laser diode pumps ([0091]). An advantage is to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm ([0089]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey with the laser source comprises a blue laser diode pump as disclosed by Zediker in order to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm. Lippey in view of Zediker do not explicitly disclose pumping is transverse with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source. However, the Office takes Official Notice that pumping transverse to an oscillating mode is a well known alternative to pumping colinear to an oscillating mode. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey in view of Zediker with pumping is transverse with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source, since pumping transverse to an oscillating mode is a well known alternative to pumping colinear to an oscillating mode and it has been held simply substituting one known element for another requires only ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 86, Lippey does not explicitly disclose the laser source comprises a blue laser diode pump, and wherein the blue laser diode pump is both transverse and colinear with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source. Zediker disclose the laser source comprises a plurality of blue laser diode pumps ([0091]). An advantage is to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm ([0089]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey with the laser source comprises a blue laser diode pump as disclosed by Zediker in order to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm. Lippey in view of Zediker do not explicitly disclose pumping is transverse and colinearly with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source. However, the Office takes Official Notice that pumping transverse and colinearly to an oscillating mode is a well known alternative to pumping colinear to an oscillating mode. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey in view of Zediker with pumping is transverse and colinear with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source, since pumping transverse and colinear to an oscillating mode is a well known alternative to pumping colinear to an oscillating mode and it has been held simply substituting one known element for another requires only ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 88, Lippey does not explicitly disclose the laser source comprises a blue laser diode pump, and wherein the blue laser diode pump is colinear and forward pumping with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source. Zediker disclose the laser source comprises a plurality of blue laser diode pumps ([0091]), and wherein the plurality of blue laser diode pumps is colinear and forward pumping with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source ([0091]; [0116]). An advantage is to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm ([0089]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey with the laser source comprises a blue laser diode pump, and wherein the blue laser diode pump is colinear and forward pumping with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source as disclosed by Zediker in order to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm.
Regarding claim 89, Lippey does not explicitly disclose the laser source comprises a plurality of blue laser diode pump, and wherein the plurality of blue laser diode pumps is colinear and forward pumping with an oscillating mode of the multi- color fiber laser source. Zediker disclose the laser source comprises a plurality of blue laser diode pumps ([0091]), and wherein the plurality of blue laser diode pumps is colinear and forward pumping with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source ([0091]; [0116]). An advantage is to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm ([0089]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey with the laser source comprises a plurality of blue laser diode pump, and wherein the plurality of blue laser diode pump is colinear and forward pumping with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source as disclosed by Zediker in order to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm.
Regarding claim 90, Lippey does not explicitly disclose the laser source comprises a blue laser diode pump, and wherein the blue laser diode pump is colinear and backward pumping with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source. Zediker disclose the laser source comprises a plurality of blue laser diode pumps ([0091]), and wherein the plurality of blue laser diode pumps is colinear and backward pumping with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source ([0091]; [0121]). An advantage is to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm ([0089]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey with the laser source comprises a blue laser diode pump, and wherein the blue laser diode pump is colinear and backward pumping with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source as disclosed by Zediker in order to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm.
Regarding claim 92, Lippey does not explicitly disclose the laser source comprises a blue laser diode pump, and wherein the blue laser diode pump is simultaneously pumping forward and backward with an oscillating mode of the multi- color fiber laser source. Zediker disclose the laser source comprises a plurality of blue laser diode pumps ([0091]), and wherein the plurality of blue laser diode pumps is colinear and backward pumping with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source ([0091]; [0121]); and in another embodiment the plurality of blue laser diode pumps is colinear and forward pumping with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source ([0091]; [0116]). An advantage is to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm ([0089]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lippey with the laser source comprises a blue laser diode pump, and wherein the blue laser diode pump is colinear with an oscillating mode of the multi-color fiber laser source as disclosed by Zediker in order to provide a pump that can provide Raman output between 410 nm and 800 nm. Lippey in view of Zediker do not disclose in the same embodiment using both forward and backward pumping. However, the Office takes Official Notice that pumping in both the forward and backward direction at the same time (i.e. bidirectional pumping) is well known in the art in order to increase pumping efficiency. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lippey in view of Zediker with pumping in both the forward and backward direction at the same time (i.e. bidirectional pumping) as is well known in the art in order to increase pumping efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10am-5pm MT.
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, Min Sun 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.
/Joshua King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 09/30/2025