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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/15/2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed 1/15/2026 was not approved. See the terminal Disclaimer review decision 2/5/2026 for additional details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-23, 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,411,428 (Lee) in view of US 2011/0091155 (Yilmaz).
For claim 21, Lee teaches a fiber tip coupler (fig. 2A, prism 230 and elements left of 230)comprising:
a laser delivery fiber comprising a fiber tip and an input tip configured to couple with a laser light source(fig. 2, 201);
a tap fiber comprising a fiber tip and an output tip (fig. 2, 228); and
an endcap comprising a transmissive body, the transmissive body (fig. 2A, 230) comprising;
an upstream end that is optically coupled to both the fiber tip of the laser delivery fiber and the fiber tip of the tap fiber, the upstream end being configured to receive laser light from the fiber tip of the laser delivery fiber(fig. 2A, left side is “upstream end” that receives light from 201 and is coupled to both 201 and 228); and
a downstream end that opposes the upstream end and that is configured to receive the laser light from the upstream end that is transmitted through the transmissive body (fig. 2A, 210/231 and partially reflective coating, col. 2, l.55-56), wherein
the transmissive body is configured, such that when the transmissive body receives the laser light from the upstream end, to output a first portion of the laser light from the endcap (fig. 2A, light transmitted to 216) and reflect a second portion of the laser light that propagates through the transmissive body directly back to the upstream end (fig. 2A, reflected beam 233).
Lee does not teach an optical power of the second (reflected) portion of the laser light that is reflected back to the upstream end is less than an optical power of the first (transmitted/output) portion of the laser light that is outputted from the endcap. Rather, Lee teaches the second portion is greater than the first portion which is used as a tapped monitor signal (col. 2, l. 55-62).
However, Yilmaz teaches a similar device with a beam splitter (fig. 2A, 236) where a small forward tap is reflected and a larger transmitted output signal is obtained from the beam splitter’s surface (fig. 2A, 231, 0.5% reflectivity at 1064 nm) in order to provide a monitor signal (fig. 2A, reflected light 282 on fiber 227, [0060]) for the propagating beam (fig. 2A, transmitted light 283 on fiber 223).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use reflectivity of the beam splitter surface taught by Yilmaz to produce a transmitted output signal and a reflected monitor signal as taught by Yilmaz as an alternative simple substitution for the reflectivity of the partially reflective coating which produces a transmitted monitor signal and reflected output signal. The substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative configuration in order to provide an output signal and a monitor signal. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
For claim 22, Lee teaches the upstream end comprises a planar face and a longitudinal axis of the endcap extends normal to the planar face (fig. 2A, left side of 230 and an axis perpendicular to 230).
For claim 23, Lee teaches the downstream end comprises a planar face that is angled with respect to the planar face of the upstream end (fig. 2A, 210).
For claim 25, Lee teaches the fiber tip coupler where the downstream end is coated with a coating (col. 2, l.55-56). The combination with Yilmaz teaches the coating is antireflective(fig. 2A, 0.5% reflectivity at 1064 nm).
For claim 26, the combination does not teach the second portion of the laser light is less than 0.1% of the laser light received at the upstream end. However, the percentage of light reflected is a results effective variable as it influences the available output light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the second portion of the laser light to less than 0.1% of the laser light received at the upstream end in order to maximize the output signal, 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).
For claim 27-28, Lee inherently teaches the second portion of the laser light has a characteristic associated with a corresponding characteristic of the laser light transmitted through the transmissive body from the upstream end to the downstream end and the characteristic comprises at least one of a power of a main beam of the laser light transmitted through the transmissive body from the upstream end to the downstream end, a polarization phase of the main beam, a differential phase of the main beam, a power of a cladding light of the laser light transmitted through the transmissive body from the upstream end to the downstream end, or a presence and contribution of high-order modes coming from a fiber core of the laser delivery fiber or a cladding of the laser delivery fiber (among other things, the second portion has a power which correspond to the power of laser light transmitted through the transmissive body).
For claim 29, Lee teaches the downstream end defines an interface (fig. 2A, 210) between the endcap (particularly, fig. 2A, prism 230) and an environment external to the endcap (fig. 2A, 211).
For claim 30, Lee strongly suggests (fig. 2A) but does not explicitly state a shell that holds: the fiber tip of the laser delivery fiber in optical communication with the upstream end; and the fiber tip of the tap fiber in optical communication with the upstream end. However, Yilmaz teaches fiber coupling with a shell (fig. 2A, 220) that holds: the fiber tip of the laser delivery fiber (fig. 2A, 221) in optical communication with the upstream end (fig. 2A, 231); and the fiber tip of the tap fiber (fig. 2A, 227) in optical communication with the upstream end (fig. 2A, 231). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the shell of Yilmaz with the device of Lee in order to maintain the position of the fibers with respect to the transmissive body.
For claim 31, Lee teaches the fiber tip of the tap fiber (fig. 2, 228) is configured to receive at least some of the second portion of the laser light from the upstream end (fig. 2A, reflected beam 233).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,411,428 (Lee) in view of US 2011/0091155 (Yilmaz) and US 2009/0274180 (Nicholson).
For claim 42, the previous combination does not teach the delivery fiber is fused to the upstream end of the transmissive body. However, Nicholson teaches an optical fiber device which uses fusion bonding in order to provide automatic alignment ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine fusion bonding taught by Nicholson with the device of the previous combination between the optical delivery fiber and the transmissive body in order to provide automatic alignment .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 27-28, 30, 32 and 34-37, 39-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,630,043 in view of US 2011/0091155 (Yilmaz).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21, 32 and 34 are obvious over claim 1 of 10,630,043 in view of Yilmaz; claims 30 and 36 are obvious over claim 3 of 10,630,043 in view of Yilmaz; claims 27-28 and 35 are obvious over claim 4 of 10,630,043 in view of Yilmaz; claims 37 and 39-40 are obvious over claim 5 of 10,630,043 in view of Yilmaz.
Claims 1 and 3-5 of 10,630,043 does not teach an optical power of the second (reflected) portion of the laser light that is reflected back to the upstream end is less than an optical power of the first (transmitted/output) portion of the laser light that is outputted from the endcap.
However, Yilmaz teaches a similar device with a beam splitter (fig. 2A, 236) where a small forward tap is reflected and a larger transmitted output signal is obtained from the beam splitter’s surface (fig. 2A, 231, 0.5% reflectivity at 1064 nm) in order to provide a monitor signal (fig. 2A, reflected light 282 on fiber 227, [0060]) for the propagating beam (fig. 2A, transmitted light 283 on fiber 223).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use reflectivity of the beam splitter surface taught by Yilmaz to produce a transmitted output signal and a reflected monitor signal as taught by Yilmaz in order to provide an output signal and a monitor signal. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
Claims 21, 32, 35, 37 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,804,689 in view of US 2011/0091155 (Yilmaz).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 are obvious over claim 8 of 11,804,689 in view of Yilmaz; claims 32, and 37-39 are obvious over claim 13 of 11,804,689 in view of Yilmaz; claim 35 is obvious over by claim 12 of 11,804,689 in view of Yilmaz.
Claims 8, 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,804,689 does not teach an optical power of the second (reflected) portion of the laser light that is reflected back to the upstream end is less than an optical power of the first (transmitted/output) portion of the laser light that is outputted from the endcap.
However, Yilmaz teaches a similar device with a beam splitter (fig. 2A, 236) where a small forward tap is reflected and a larger transmitted output signal is obtained from the beam splitter’s surface (fig. 2A, 231, 0.5% reflectivity at 1064 nm) in order to provide a monitor signal (fig. 2A, reflected light 282 on fiber 227, [0060]) for the propagating beam (fig. 2A, transmitted light 283 on fiber 223).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use reflectivity of the beam splitter surface taught by Yilmaz to produce a transmitted output signal and a reflected monitor signal as taught by Yilmaz in order to provide an output signal and a monitor signal. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
Claims 21, 35, 37 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 10, 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,387,621 in view of US 2011/0091155 (Yilmaz).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 is obvious over claims 8, 10, 13 and 12 of 11,387,621 in view of Yilmaz; claim 35 is obvious over claim 12 of 11,387,621 in view of Yilmaz; claims 37-39 are obvious over claim 13 of 11,387,621 in view of Yilmaz.
Claims 8, 10, 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,387,621 does not teach an optical power of the second (reflected) portion of the laser light that is reflected back to the upstream end is less than an optical power of the first (transmitted/output) portion of the laser light that is outputted from the endcap.
However, Yilmaz teaches a similar device with a beam splitter (fig. 2A, 236) where a small forward tap is reflected and a larger transmitted output signal is obtained from the beam splitter’s surface (fig. 2A, 231, 0.5% reflectivity at 1064 nm) in order to provide a monitor signal (fig. 2A, reflected light 282 on fiber 227, [0060]) for the propagating beam (fig. 2A, transmitted light 283 on fiber 223).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use reflectivity of the beam splitter surface taught by Yilmaz to produce a transmitted output signal and a reflected monitor signal as taught by Yilmaz in order to provide an output signal and a monitor signal. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
Claim 42 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,630,043 in view of US 2011/0091155 (Yilmaz) and US 2009/0274180 (Nicholson).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 42 is obvious over claim 1 of 10,630,043 in view of Yilmaz and Nicholson.
For claim 42, the previous combination of 10,630,043 in view of Yilmaz used in the rejection of claim 21 does not teach the delivery fiber is fused to the upstream end of the transmissive body. However, Nicholson teaches an optical fiber device which uses fusion bonding in order to provide automatic alignment ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine fusion bonding taught by Nicholson with the device of the previous combination between the optical delivery fiber and the transmissive body in order to provide automatic alignment .
Claim 42 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,804,689 in view of US 2011/0091155 (Yilmaz) and US 2009/0274180 (Nicholson).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 42 is obvious over claim 8 of 11,804,689 in view of Yilmaz and Nicholson.
For claim 42, the previous combination of 11,804,689 in view of Yilmaz used in the rejection of claim 21 does not teach the delivery fiber is fused to the upstream end of the transmissive body. However, Nicholson teaches an optical fiber device which uses fusion bonding in order to provide automatic alignment ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine fusion bonding taught by Nicholson with the device of the previous combination between the optical delivery fiber and the transmissive body in order to provide automatic alignment .
Claim 42 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 10, 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,387,621 in view of US 2011/0091155 (Yilmaz) and US 2009/0274180 (Nicholson).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 42 is obvious over claims 8, 10, 13 and 12 of 11,387,621 in view of Yilmaz and Nicholson.
For claim 42, the previous combination of 11,387,621 in view of Yilmaz used in the rejection of claim 21 does not teach the delivery fiber is fused to the upstream end of the transmissive body. However, Nicholson teaches an optical fiber device which uses fusion bonding in order to provide automatic alignment ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine fusion bonding taught by Nicholson with the device of the previous combination between the optical delivery fiber and the transmissive body in order to provide automatic alignment .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 33 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: For claim 24, the closest prior art cited in the rejection above does not teach the planar face defined by the downstream end is angled between 4 and 8 degrees with respect to the planar face defined by the upstream end, and there is no suggestion or motivation to meet the claimed limitation. For claim 33, the closest prior art cited in the rejection above does not teach between 4 and 13 tap fibers, and there is no suggestion or motivation to meet the claimed limitation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 41 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: For claim 41, the closest prior art cited in the rejection above does not teach the light is reflected directly back, and there is no suggestion or motivation to meet the claimed limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8-9, section a of the remarks, the applicant describes the device of Lee (fig. 2A) which splits an input signal (201) into two output signals on separate fibers (216 and 228) where one is used as a monitor signal (216) and a reflective coating (210) is partially reflective.
On page 9-10, section b of the remarks, the applicant correctly states that most of the radiation is reflected by the interface. This distinction is noted in the rejection of claim 21 above. Applicant further notes that there is an advantage to the particular configuration in that it allows for a compact system in which the input and output are parallel. This is not, strictly speaking, teaching away from a different reflectivity where a small percentage is reflected rather than transmitting a small amount of the beam. Specifically, Lee does not say the reflected portion must be the larger portion, but rather there is a possible advantage to reflecting the majority of radiation.
On page 10-12, section c, the applicant describes the device of Yilmaz (fig. 2A) which splits an input signal (281) into two output signals on separate fibers (227 and 223) where one is used as a monitor signal ([0069]) and the splitter has a reflective surface has low reflectivity (.5%).
On pages 12-14, section d, the applicant argues that there would have been no reason to modify the system of Lee because doing so would impermissibly change the requirements of Lee and change the principle of operation thereof. However, the examiner disagrees that the modification changes the principle of operation analogous to Ratti which would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign. Both Lee and Yilmaz teach splitting an input signal to provide a monitor signal. Lee as modified by Yilmaz results in a reflected monitor beam as opposed to a transmitted monitor beam and any redesign is minimal and substantially a rearrangement of parts rather than a substantial reconstruction and redesign. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments at page 14-15 regarding the double patenting; the terminal claimer was not approved. However, if the terminal disclaimer is corrected and subsequently approver, then the double patenting rejections would be rendered moot.
Regarding new claim 42, the additional limitations have been addressed in the rejections above. Claim 42 cannot be deemed allowable based on its dependency as claim 21 is not deemed allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2002/0071470 teaches a coating with .5% reflectivity at 1060 nm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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 contact the examiner at the above number.
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.
/Michael Carter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828