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 prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on November 09, 2023 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Six sheets of drawings were filed on November 09, 2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A and Sub-Species III (Figure 1 and Figure 4), in the reply filed February 02, 2026 is acknowledged. In the reply, Applicant indicated claim 1-20 correspond to the elected species A (Fig. 1) and sub-species III (Fig. 4). However, claims 4- 5, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 15 do not read on the elected species for the following reasons:
Claim 4 is drawn to FIG. 2 and 3 where the carrier is a separate element from the second optical element.
Claim 5 is drawn to FIG. 3 where the carrier has through openings 14c.
Claims 8 and 15 drawn to FIG. 5 and 6 where the carrier has optical fiber holder 14d.
Claim 10 is drawn to FIGs. 7-9 where the transverse carrier 14b positions the first optical elements 11 transversely to the direction of propagation of the signal light beams.
Claim 12 is drawn to FIGs. 7-13 where inlet surface 12a of the second optical 12 elements is directly connected to the outlet surface 11b of the first optical element 11.
Claim 14 is drawn FIGs. 10-12 with the first optical elements 11 arranged and an angle to one another.
Claim 20 is drawn FIG. 2 and 3, different embodiments of a transverse carrier 14b. In applicants reply, Sub-species III (FIG. 4) was elected. The accompanying text for FIG. 4 States that the "transverse carrier 14b is dispensed with" because the second optical elements 12 are designed in one piece (integrally). Effectively the transverse carrier is eliminated, and is interpreted as not being drawn to sub-species III as elected.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 11, 13, and 16-19 appear to read on the elected invention. Claims 4-5, 8,10, 12, 14-15, and 20 have been withdrawn from further consideration, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and/or Species. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become
aware in the specification.
Inventorship
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9,11,13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Goodno et al. (US20210103152A1), hereafter Goodno, in view of Theeg et al (US20220244461A1), hereafter Theeg.
The applied reference has a common Inventor and Assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, Goodno discloses a fiber optical component (FIG. 1, 2, 8, 9, 17, 18. Beam shaper array assembly 40, 70 and 156) comprising: a plurality of optical fibers (optical fiber 26) configured to a guide a light signal radiation; at least one first optical elements(Endcap 42 and 154) made of glass ([Par. [0043] endcap made of optical glass), which is connected at an inlet surface (input surface 46 and 166) to a respective open end of the cores of the optical fibers (T Fig. 2), and to receive the signal light radiations from the open ends (128) of the cores of the optical fibers (26) ( Fig. 15) and to emit them to the outside via at least one outlet surface ( FIG 18. Output surface 168. Par. [0066]); At least one second optical element of glass, per optical fiber (FIG. 2. Beam shapers 48 and 50 includes an array of close-packed tiled cells, one for each beam. Par. [0043] and [0047]), which is arrange at a distance relative to the first optical element(Endcap 42 and 154) along the direction of the propagation of the signal light radiations (FIG. 1 and 17) and configured to receive the signal light radiation of at least one of the optical fibers at an inlet surface(input surface 46 and 166) of the first optical element (Endcap 42 and 154) and to emit it to the outside via at least one outlet surface(Output beam shaper 76 and 160).
Goodno fails to disclose optical fibers each having at least one core of glass configured to guide a signal light radiation, the first optical elements connected to an open end of a cladding of the optical fibers substantially enclosing the core and carrier which positions the second optical elements at least along the direction of propagation of the signal light beams, to the direction of propagation of the signal light beams, relative to the first optical element.
Theeg teaches optical fibers each having at least one core of glass configured to guide a signal light radiation, the first optical elements connected to an open end of a cladding of the optical fibers substantially enclosing the core(Abstract) and a carrier (FIG. 12 housing 16).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the fiber optical component of Goodno, which uses beam shaper arrays on endcaps to handle multiple beam signals, with the specific fiber structure and housing/carrier arrangement of Theeg to maintain the stability and alignment of fiber components.
Goodno /Theeg fails to teach a carrier which positions the second optical elements at least along the direction of propagation of the signal light beams, to the direction of propagation of the signal light beams, relative to the first optical element.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a carrier or housing into the system of Goodno to securely hold the beam shaper array assembly 156 and the fiber endcaps 154. Such a modification would provide the necessary positional alignment. Furthermore, using the cladding-guided fibers disclosed by Theeg to connect with the endcaps in Goodno to form a monolithic array would be a predictable substitution of known high-power fiber components to enhance the stability and alignment of the device.
This combination is suggested by the need to maintain precise, high-precision alignment in a coherent beam combining system, where a person skilled in the art would recognize the need for a structure to secure the end-capped optical fibers to the beam shaper components, as seen in known fiber-optical assembly solutions.
Regarding claim 2, Goodno/Theeg discloses the device of claim 1. Goodno/Theeg fails to disclose, the carrier has a longitudinal carrier which positions the second optical elements relative to the first optical elements along the direction of propagation of the signal light beams.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to art to incorporate a carrier or housing to securely hold the beam shaper array assembly 156 and fiber endcaps 154. Such a modification is necessary to position optical components and provide the necessary longitudinal alignment to ensure stable operation.
Regarding claim 3, Goodno/Theeg discloses the device of claim 1. Goodno/Theeg fails to disclose the material of the carrier, is welded to the material of the second optical elements with an additional amount of glass. The examiner notes that Applicant is claiming the product including the process of making the fiber optical component and therefore are of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to weld glass components together with additional amount of glass to create a secure connection as a matter of routine optimization and a standard technique well within the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art to improve strength or stability.
Regarding claim 7, Goodno/Theeg disclose the device of claim 1. Goodno fails to disclose at least one of the outlet surfaces of the first optical element, the inlet surface of the second optical element, the outlet surface of the second optical element and the carrier has an anti-reflection coating.
Theeg teaches at least one of the outlet surfaces(exit face 14b) of the first optical element(Optical window 14) has an anti-reflection coating (anti-reflective coating 15).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply an anti-reflection coating to the outlet surface of the first optical element (e.g., optical window) in the device disclosed by Goodno in order to influence the transition of radiation, improve transmission efficiency, and reduce stray radiation within the optical system(Theeg: Par. [0040]). A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to optimize the performance of the Goodno device would apply such standard coatings to optical surfaces to reduce reflection losses and increase transmission, as is standard practice in optical design.
Regarding claim 9, Goodno discloses a fiber optical component (FIG. 1, 2, 8, 9, 17, 18. Beam shaper array assembly 40, 70 and 156) comprising: a plurality of optical fibers (optical fiber 26) configured to a guide a light signal radiation; At least one first optical elements(Endcap 42 and 154) made of glass ([Par. [0043] endcap made of optical glass), per optical fiber(FIG.2. Par. [0043]: one for each beam), which is connected at an inlet surface (input surface 46 and 166) to a respective open end of the cores of the optical fibers (T Fig. 2), and to receive the signal light radiations from the open ends (128) of the cores of the optical fibers (26) ( Fig. 15) and to emit them to the outside via at least one outlet surface ( FIG 18. Output surface 168. Par. [0066]); At least one second optical element of glass, per optical fiber (FIG. 2. Beam shapers 48 and 50 includes an array of close-packed tiled cells, one for each beam. Par. [0043] and [0047]),, which is arrange at a distance relative to the first optical element(Endcap 42 and 154) along the direction of the propagation of the signal light radiations (FIG. 1 and 17) and configured to receive the signal light radiation of at least one of the optical fibers at an inlet surface(input surface 46 and 166) of the first optical element (Endcap 42 and 154) and to emit it to the outside via at least one outlet surface(Output beam shaper 76 and 160).
Goodno fails to disclose optical fibers each having at least one core of glass configured to guide a signal light radiation, the first optical elements connected to an open end of a cladding of the optical fibers substantially enclosing the core and carrier which positions the second optical elements at least along the direction of propagation of the signal light beams, to the direction of propagation of the signal light beams, relative to the first optical element.
Theeg teaches optical fibers each having at least one core of glass configured to guide a signal light radiation, the first optical elements connected to an open end of a cladding of the optical fibers substantially enclosing the core(Abstract) and a carrier (FIG. 12 housing 16).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the fiber optical component of Goodno, which uses beam shaper arrays on endcaps to handle multiple beam signals, with the specific fiber structure and housing/carrier arrangement of Theeg to maintain the stability and alignment of fiber components.
Goodno /Theeg fails to teach a carrier which positions the second optical elements at least along the direction of propagation of the signal light beams, to the direction of propagation of the signal light beams, relative to the first optical element.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a carrier or housing into the system of Goodno to securely hold the beam shaper array assembly 156 and the fiber endcaps 154. Such a modification would provide the necessary positional alignment. Furthermore, using the cladding-guided fibers disclosed by Theeg to connect with the endcaps in Goodno to form a monolithic array would be a predictable substitution of known high-power fiber components to enhance the stability and alignment of the device.
This combination is suggested by the need to maintain precise, high-precision alignment in a coherent beam combining system, where a person skilled in the art would recognize the need for a structure to secure the end-capped optical fibers to the beam shaper components, as seen in known fiber-optical assembly solutions.
Regarding claim 11, Goodno/Theeg disclose the device of claim 9. Goodno/Theeg fails to disclose the material of the carrier, is welded to the material of the first optical elements, with an additional amount of glass. The examiner notes that Applicant is claiming the product including the process of making the fiber optical component and therefore are of "product-by-process" nature. The courts have been holding for quite some time that: the determination of the patentability of product-by-process claim is based on the product itself rather than on the process by which the product is made. In re Thrope, 777 F. 2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to weld glass components together with additional amount of glass to create a secure connection as a matter of routine optimization and a standard technique well within the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art to improve strength or stability.
Regarding claim 13, Goodno/Theeg disclose the device of claim 9. Goodno further discloses the inlet surface of the respective second optical element(FIG. 9. Input beam shaper array 74) is spaced along the direction of propagation of the signal light beams (FIG. 1 and 17), in each case with respect to the outlet surface (output side 166) of the respective first optical element (Endcap 42 and 154). Goodno fails to disclose a first optical element and a second optical element in a longitudinal carrier.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to art to incorporate a carrier or housing to securely hold the beam shaper array assembly 156 and fiber endcaps 154. Such a modification is necessary to position optical components and provide the necessary longitudinal alignment to ensure stable operation.
Regarding claim 16, Goodno/Theeg disclose the device of claim 1. Goodno further discloses the second optical elements each comprise microlenses(Goodno. FIG. 16. Beam shaper array 136.) A beam shaper array is considered a type of microlens array (MLA) when it consists of a 1D or 2D grid of small refractive lenses designed specifically for beam homogenization and shaping.
Regarding claim 17, Goodno/Theeg disclose the device of claim 1. Goodno further discloses a collimator (optical system 196) arranged along the direction of propagation of the signal light radiations relative to the outlet surfaces(Output beam shaper array 76) of the respective second optical elements(Optical block 72) configured to receive the signal light radiation at an inlet surface(Input beam shaper array 74) of the respective second optical element and to emit them to the outside via an outlet surface(Output beam shaper 76 and 160).
Regarding claim 18, Goodno/Theeg disclose the device of claim 9. Goodno further discloses the second optical elements each comprise microlenses(Goodno. FIG. 16. Beam shaper array 136. )A beam shaper array is considered a type of microlens array (MLA) when it consists of a 1D or 2D grid of small refractive lenses designed specifically for beam homogenization and shaping.
Regarding claim 19, Goodno/Theeg disclose the device of claim 9. Goodno further discloses a collimator (optical system 196) arranged along the direction of propagation of the signal light radiations relative to the outlet surfaces of the respective second optical elements(Beam shaper array 158) configured to receive the signal light radiation at an inlet surface of the respective second optical element and to emit them to the outside via an outlet surface (Output beam shaper 76 and 160).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Goodno et al. (US20210103152A1), hereafter Goodno, in view of Theeg et al (US20220244461A1), hereafter Theeg, and in further view of Popp et al.(US20110268383A1).
Regarding claim 6, Goodno/Theeg disclose the device of claim 1. Goodno/Theeg fails to disclose the second optical elements are designed in one piece and the signal light radiations penetrate the material of the one-piece second optical elements directly.
Popp teaches the second optical elements(Collimator with microlens 1) are designed in one piece (FIG.1 ) and the signal light radiations penetrate the material of the one-piece second optical elements directly(Par. [0020]: individual light beams assigned to a collimator lens (1)).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Popp’s second optical element into the device of Goodno/Theeg , as this modification represents a predictable design choice to reduce manufacturing complexity, enhance optical efficiency, and minimize component interfaces, which is a common goal in designing optical elements and systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
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.
/TAJANAE NICOLE GREEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874