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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-14 and 31 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups I and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/17/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 15-30) in the reply filed on 07/17/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 15, 21-22, 27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal et al. (US 20200376600) in view of Muendel et al. (US 2019/0317280).
Regarding claim 15, Aggarwal et al. discloses “An additive manufacturing method” (abstract, additive manufacturing system. [0047] Also, the embodiments described herein may be embodied as a method, of which an example has been provided. The acts performed as part of the method may be ordered in any suitable way. Embodiment fig.2), the method comprising:
“emitting laser energy from a laser energy source” (fig.2, one of 202 which emits laser energy) into “a first optical fiber” (216);
laser energy from 202) 216) to “a second optical fiber” (220),
“directing the laser energy from the second optical fiber onto a build surface of an additive manufacturing system” (fig.2 shows directing the laser energy from the second optical fiber 220 via optical system 204 onto a build surface 210 of an additive manufacturing system).
Aggarwal et al. is silent regarding expanding the emitted laser energy in an adiabatic fiber taper from the first optical fiber to a second optical fiber, wherein a transverse dimension of the first optical fiber is less than a transverse dimension of the second optical fiber.
Muendel et al. teaches “expanding the emitted laser energy in an adiabatic fiber taper from the first optical fiber to a second optical fiber” (fig.5 shows expanding the emitted laser energy in an adiabatic fiber taper (i.e., fig.5, 220 and [0072], i.e., an output of rotator fiber 220 … In order to ensure such high-efficiency beam conversion, all transitions should be smooth and adiabatic) from the first optical fiber (210) to a second optical fiber (230)), wherein “a transverse dimension of the first optical fiber is less than a transverse dimension of the second optical fiber” (fig.5 shows a transverse dimension of the first optical fiber 210 is less than a transverse dimension of the second optical fiber 230). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Aggarwal et al. with Muendel et al., by replacing Aggarwal et al.’s fusion splices connector with Muendel et al.’s rotator fiber connector having adiabatic taper, to ensure such high-efficiency beam conversion (para.0072) as taught by Muendel et al.
Regarding claim 21, modified Aggarwal et al. discloses “compressing the emitted laser energy at a location upstream of the adiabatic fiber taper” (Muendel et al., fig.5 shows compressing the emitted laser energy at a location upstream of the adiabatic fiber taper 220 where upstream of the adiabatic taper has narrower dimension which compressing the emitted laser energy).
Regarding claim 22, modified Aggarwal et al. discloses “transmitting single mode laser energy through the first optical fiber” (Muendel et al., fig.5, 210. [0040], i.e., input fiber 210 may be a single mode optical beam).
Regarding claim 27, modified Aggarwal et al. discloses “the first optical fiber includes a first core, and wherein the first core has a transverse dimension between 10 µm and 25 µm” (216. [0016], i.e., core diameters of the optical fibers used in an additive manufacturing system may be between about 10 μm and about 50 μm. The core diameter of optical fiber can be 15 μm).
Regarding claim 30, modified Aggarwal et al. discloses “fusing precursor material with the laser energy to form one or more parts on the build surface” ([0003], i.e., In metal powder bed fusion processes, one or multiple laser beams are scanned over a thin layer of metal powder. The metal powder is considered as a primary precursor for additive manufacturing).
Claim(s) 16 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal et al. (US 20200376600) in view of Muendel et al. (US 2019/0317280) as applied in claims 15, 21-22, 27 and 30 above, and further in view of Cai et al. (US 20050265653).
Regarding claim 16, modified Aggarwal et al. discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for transmitting laser energy within the first optical fiber as lowest order mode laser energy.
Cai et al. teaches “transmitting laser energy within the first optical fiber as lowest order mode laser energy” ([0039], only the fundamental mode 430 travels completely through the adiabatic coupler 414 from the MMF 404 to the SMF 402. This suggests the lowest order of laser beam from first optical fiber 404). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Aggarwal et al. with Cai et al., by modifying Aggarwal et al.’s laser energy mode according to Cai et al.’s laser energy mode, to provide highest possible focusability and beam brightness for efficient coupling into optical fiber.
Regarding claim 23, modified Aggarwal et al. discloses “expanding the emitted laser energy in the adiabatic fiber taper includes expanding the emitted laser energy” (Muendel et al., fig.5 shows expanding the emitted laser energy in the adiabatic fiber taper 220 includes expanding the emitted laser energy when laser energy transmitted toward output fiber)
Modified Aggarwal et al. is silent regarding while maintain laser energy in a lowest order mode at the second optical fiber.
Cai et al. teaches “transmitting laser energy within the first optical fiber as lowest order mode laser energy” ([0039], only the fundamental mode 430 travels completely through the adiabatic coupler 414 from the MMF 404 to the SMF 402. This suggests the lowest order of laser beam from first optical fiber 404). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Aggarwal et al. with Cai et al., by modifying Aggarwal et al.’s laser energy mode according to Cai et al.’s laser energy mode, to provide highest possible focusability and beam brightness for efficient coupling into optical fiber.
Regarding claim 24, modified Aggarwal et al. discloses “the laser energy is transmitted in the second optical fiber as lowest order mode laser energy from the adiabatic fiber taper to a downstream optics assembly” (Aggarwal et al. shows the laser energy is transmitted in the second optical fiber 120 from the adiabatic fiber taper (at 222 as replaced by an adiabatic fiber taper (i.e., Muendel et al., fig.5, 220) to a downstream optics assembly 204. Cai et al. teaches as lowest order mode laser energy from the adiabatic fiber taper ([0039], only the fundamental mode 430 travels completely through the adiabatic coupler 414 from the MMF 404 to the SMF 402. This suggests the lowest order of laser beam from first optical fiber 404)).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal et al. (US 20200376600) in view of Muendel et al. (US 2019/0317280) as applied in claims 15, 21-22, 27 and 30 above, and further in view of Cai et al. (US 20050265653) and Augst et al. (US 20210006029 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Aggarwal et al. discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for transmitting laser energy through at least the first optical fiber, the second optical fiber, and the adiabatic fiber taper, stripping laser energy transmitted through the cladding with a cladding mode stripper.
Cai et al. teaches “transmitting laser energy through at least the first optical fiber, the second optical fiber, and the adiabatic fiber taper” (Cai et al., fig.4b, the laser energy thought at least the first optical fiber 404, the second optical fiber 402, and the adiabatic fiber taper 414); “transmitting at least a portion of the laser energy into cladding” (abstract, i.e., The adiabatic coupler may comprise a tapered core surrounded by a cladding. [0039], i.e., the present invention transports any such higher order modes to the cladding 415. Subsequently, most of the optical power carried in these higher order modes is either radiated out of the fiber or absorbed by the cladding coating). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Aggarwal et al. with Cai et al., by modifying Aggarwal et al.’s laser energy mode according to Cai et al.’s laser energy mode, to provide highest possible focusability and beam brightness for efficient coupling into optical fiber.
Modified Aggarwal et al. is silent regarding stripping laser energy transmitted through the cladding with a cladding mode stripper.
Augst et al. teaches “stripping laser energy transmitted through the cladding with a cladding mode stripper” ([0007], i.e., a cladding light stripper on the fiber output of the fiber amplifier can remove both pump light and high-angle signal light propagating in the cladding). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Aggarwal et al. with Augst et al., by adding Augst et al.’s cladding mode stripper to modified Aggarwal et al. optical system, to remove unwanted, stray or residual light raveling through cladding layer of optical fiber while letting the core signal pass through safely.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal et al. (US 20200376600) in view of Muendel et al. (US 2019/0317280), Cai et al. (US 20050265653) and Augst et al. (US 20210006029 A1). as applied in claim 17 above, and further in view of Creeden (WO 2012141847 A1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Aggarwal et al. discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for the cladding mode stripper removes at least 50 percent of the portion of laser energy carried by the cladding at the location of the cladding mode stripper.
Creeden teaches “the cladding mode stripper removes at least 50 percent of the portion of laser energy carried by the cladding at the location of the cladding mode stripper” ([0022], i.e., A cladding stripper will generally remove any light in the cladding in all directions. This suggest that the light is removed in the cladding). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Aggarwal et al. with Creeden, by replacing Aggarwal et al.’s cladding mode stripper with Creeden’s cladding mode stripper, to remove any light in the cladding in all direction to allow core signal pass through safely.
Regarding claim 19, modified Aggarwal et al. discloses “the cladding mode stripper removes at least 90 percent of the portion of laser energy carried by the cladding at the location of the cladding mode stripper” (Creeden, [0022], i.e., A cladding stripper will generally remove any light in the cladding in all directions. This suggest that the light is removed in the cladding).
Regarding claim 20, modified Aggarwal et al. discloses “the cladding is associated with at least one selected from the first optical fiber, the second optical fiber” , and the adiabatic fiber taper” (Cai et al., fig.4b, the laser energy thought at least the first optical fiber 404, the second optical fiber 402, and the adiabatic fiber taper 414 has a cladding (i.e., 410, 415, 406)).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal et al. (US 20200376600) in view of Muendel et al. (US 2019/0317280) as applied in claims 15, 21-22, 27 and 30 above, and further in view of Sipes (WO 2022235355 A1).
Regarding claim 25, modified Aggarwal et al. discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for expanding the laser energy in an endcap optically coupled to the downstream end portion of the second optical fiber.
Sipes teaches “expanding the laser energy in an endcap optically coupled to the downstream end portion of the second optical fiber” (fig.14A shows expanding the laser energy in an endcap (labeled “End Cap”) optically coupled to the downstream end portion of the second optical fiber (labeled “Fiber Laser output”)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Aggarwal et al. with Sipes, by adding Sipes endcap coupled to Aggarwal et al.’s second optical fiber, to lower optical power density, protect the fragile fiber tip from damage, and seal microstructure fibers.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal et al. (US 20200376600) in view of Muendel et al. (US 2019/0317280) as applied in claims 15, 21-22, 27 and 30 above, and further in view of Schowengerdt et al. (US 10151875).
Regarding claim 26, modified Aggarwal et al. discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for emitting laser energy into the first optical fiber includes emitting laser energy into a photonic crystal optical fiber.
Schowengerdt et al. teaches “emitting laser energy into the first optical fiber” (one of laser such as red laser 28 emitting laser energy into optical fiber between red laser and RGB combiner) includes “emitting laser energy into a photonic crystal optical fiber” (single mode optical fiber 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Aggarwal et al. with Schowengerdt et al., by adding Schowengerdt et al.’s crystal optical fiber coupled to Aggarwal et al.’s first optical fiber, to provide exceptional light confinement and enable nonlinear frequence conversion for improve performance and thermal management.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal et al. (US 20200376600) in view of Muendel et al. (US 2019/0317280) as applied in claims 15, 21-22, 27 and 30 above, and further in view of Botheroyd (US 2017/0017036).
Regarding claim 28, modified Aggarwal et al. discloses the second optical fiber includes a second core, and wherein the second core has a transverse dimension.
Modified Aggarwal et al. is silent regarding the core has a transverse dimension between 100 µm and 500 µm.
Botheroyd teaches “the optical fiber includes a second core, and wherein the second core has a transverse dimension between 100 µm and 500 µm.
” ([0143] The cleaved bundle of fibres is then spliced to an output fibre, in this case a single-clad fibre with core diameter=250 μm.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Aggarwal et al. with Botheroyd, by modifying Aggarwal et al.’s core diameter with Botheroyd’s core diameter, to allow handling higher power and reducing nonlinear effect and preventing physical damage to the glass because it spreads the laser energy over a wider area and lowering the power density.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal et al. (US 20200376600) in view of Muendel et al. (US 2019/0317280) as applied in claims 15, 21-22, 27 and 30 above, and further in view of Chenard (US 7099533).
Regarding claim 29, modified Aggarwal et al. discloses transmitting laser energy in at least one of the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber within a range b
Chenard teaches “transmitting laser energy in optical fiber in a range between or equal to 0.1 W/µm2 and 3 W/µm2” (col.3 at lines 13-15, i.e., fiber optic laser beam delivery system made for transmission of high power source, exceeding intensity of 10 MW/cm2. Examiner noted that 10 MW/cm² is equal to 0.1 W/μm²). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Aggarwal et al. with Chenard, by modifying Aggarwal et al.’s optical fiber according to Chenard’s optical fiber, to provide high intensity industrial processing, efficient mid-infrared power delivery and robust pulsed signal transmission.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights