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 .
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 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11982834 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each pending claim listed above is anticipated by at least one patented claim listed above. More specifically pending claims 1-22 are anticipated at least by same-numbered claims of '834 respectively. For pending claim 21 it is noted that '834 claim 21 includes all the limitations of its base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Base claim 1 (see the last three lines) already establishes that the control unit modulates the output from the pump light source without direct dependency from the pump light.
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 1-3, 8, 12, 15-17, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0329292 A1.
Claim 1: '292 discloses a supercontinuum light source comprising (see mainly fig. 1):
a microstructured optical fiber 15 ([0043]) configured to generate supercontinuum light from seed light having a seed wavelength, λ1,
wherein the microstructured optical fiber comprises ([0003]):
i. a core region configured to guide light along a longitudinal axis of the microstructured optical fiber, and
ii. a first cladding region that surrounds the core region,
wherein the microstructured optical fiber has a length and the longitudinal axis is along the length;
a pump light source (elements 11-14 and 20-21) arranged to generate seed light at the seed wavelength, λ1 (1064 nm in the example of [0033]), and to feed the seed light into the core region at an input end of the microstructured optical fiber, whereby the supercontinuum light is generated in the microstructured optical fiber;
wherein the pump light source comprises at least two units in optical communication with each other, wherein the at least two units comprises a first unit and a second unit, which in combination are configured to generate the seed light, and wherein the first unit is a pump unit 20 configured to generate pump light and transmit the pump light into the second unit, wherein the second unit is a seed unit 11 configured to generate the seed light dependent on the pump light ([0042]);
a detector 23 (or 24) in optical communication with the seed unit; and
a control unit (elements 12, 14, and 22) configured to receive an active feedback signal from the detector and modulate output from the pump light source without direct dependency from the pump light (for example, the detectors 23 and 24 do not directly receive pump light).
Claim 2: The control unit directly modulates the pump light source (represented by dotted lines to 20, 12, 21, and 14 in fig. 1, [0041]).
Claim 3: The microstructured optical fiber 15 is a holey fiber.
Claim 8: The microstructured optical fiber 15 is a non-tapered fiber.
Claim 12: The seed unit 11 is a laser (11 is a master oscillator, which can include a laser as described in [0046]).
Claim 15: The control unit modulates the output from the pump light source dependent on the seed light ([0053]).
Claim 16: The control unit modulates the output from the pump light source without direct dependency from the pump light (for example, the detectors 23 and 24 do not directly receive pump light).
Claim 17: The detector is a photodiode ([0044]).
Claims 21-22: Since these claims recite intended uses without any additional structure beyond what is set forth in claim 1, the system of '292 fig. 1 is regarded as satisfying all their structural requirements.
Contact Information
Examiner: 571-272-2360
Examiner's direct supervisor: 571-272-2397
Official correspondence by fax: 571-273-8300
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Should you have questions about Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Michael Stahl/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874