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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-13, filed 8/20/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Logan et al. (US 2017/0090119 A1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gregg et al. (US 2020/0081187 A1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregg et al. (US 2020/0081187 A1).
Re. Claims 1, 9-10, and 20, Gregg et al. discloses a fiber laser system, comprising:
a first optical fiber 120/250 that includes a first core 251 with a first diameter (Figs. 1-2; [0018], [0021], and [0030]); and
a second optical fiber 130/280 that includes a second core 281 with a second diameter that is greater than the first diameter (Figs. 1-2; [0018], [0023], and [0031]), wherein:
an end of the first optical fiber is connected to an end of the second optical fiber at a spliced point 160 (e.g., target splice point; Figs. 1-2; [0023]),
a center axis of the first core is not aligned with a center axis of the second core at the spliced point (Fig. 2; [0031]).
However, while Gregg et al. discloses the position of the splice point is adjustable to achieve a desired offset distance between the center axis of the first core and the center axis of the second core ([0023]), Gregg et al. fails to explicitly disclose an offset distance of greater than 2 micrometers.
Gregg et al. additionally discloses the offset distance between spliced cores results in the particular modal excitation and resultant beam shapes produced by the spliced fibers ([0017]). Accordingly, the claimed range of an offset distance exceeding 2 micrometers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the current invention was effectively filed, 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).
Re. Claims 2 and 12, Gregg et al. renders obvious the fiber laser system as discussed above, specifically comprising a first optical fiber 120/250 that includes a first core 251 with a first diameter (Figs. 1-2; [0018], [0021], and [0030]), and a second optical fiber 130/280 that includes a second core 281 with a second diameter that is greater than the first diameter (Figs. 1-2; [0018], [0023], and [0031]).
However, Gregg et al. does not disclose an arrangement wherein the first core is a single-mode core or a reduced-mode core, and the second core is a multi-mode core.
Multimode, single-mode, and reduced-mode optical fibers are all well known in the art, and it is commonly known that the core size of multi-mode optical fibers exceeds that of both single-mode optical fibers and reduced-mode optical fibers. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed arrangement obvious for the purpose of providing optical fibers having differing sized cores as required by Gregg et al. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 3, Gregg et al. renders obvious the fiber laser system as discussed above.
However, Gregg et al. does not disclose the fiber laser system is a master oscillator power amplifier (MOPA) system; the first optical fiber is an oscillator optical fiber; and the second optical fiber is an amplifier optical fiber.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of creating a well-known laser system using the fiber laser of Gregg et al. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claims 4 and 13, Gregg et al. renders obvious the fiber laser system as discussed above. Gregg et al. also discloses the fiber laser system is configured to allow laser light to propagate from the first optical fiber to the second optical fiber at the spliced point ([0004]-[0005]). The claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 5, Gregg et al. renders obvious the fiber laser system as discussed above.
As discussed above, while Gregg et al. discloses the position of the splice point is adjustable to achieve a desired offset distance between the center axis of the first core and the center axis of the second core ([0023]), Gregg et al. fails to explicitly disclose an arrangement wherein an entirety of a cross-sectional area of the first core contacts a portion of a cross-sectional area of the second core at the spliced point.
Gregg et al. discloses the offset distance between spliced cores results in the particular modal excitation and resultant beam shapes produced by the spliced fibers ([0017]). Accordingly, the claimed arrangement wherein an entirety of a cross-sectional area of the first core contacts a portion of a cross-sectional area of the second core at the spliced point would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the current invention was effectively filed, 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).
Re. Claims 6-7, Gregg et al. renders obvious the fiber laser system as discussed above. Gregg et al. does not disclose numerical values for the offset distance R or the diameter of the second core 281 (Fig. 2), and therefore does not directly disclose arrangements wherein either (a) the portion of the cross-sectional area of the second core does not include a point associated with the center axis of the second core, or (b) the portion of the cross-sectional area of the second core includes a point associated with the center axis of the second core.
Gregg et al. discloses the offset distance between spliced cores results in the particular modal excitation and resultant beam shapes produced by the spliced fibers ([0017]). Accordingly, the claimed arrangements wherein either (a) the portion of the cross-sectional area of the second core does not include a point associated with the center axis of the second core, or (b) the portion of the cross-sectional area of the second core includes a point associated with the center axis of the second core would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the current invention was effectively filed, 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).
Re. Claims 8 and 17, Gregg et al. renders obvious the fiber laser system as discussed above. Gregg et al. discloses the fiber laser splice point is adjustable along the tapered length to allow for the desired characteristics of optical coupling between the first and second optical fibers ([0017]).
However, Gregg et al. does not directly disclose an arrangement which results in
a stimulated Raman scattering (SRS) content of an output of the fiber laser system is less than or equal to 1%.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of minimizing Raman scattering across the splice point. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 11, Gregg et al. renders obvious the fiber laser system as discussed above, specifically comprising a first optical fiber 120/250 that includes a first core 251 with a first diameter (Figs. 1-2; [0018], [0021], and [0030]), and a second optical fiber 130/280 that includes a second core 281 with a second diameter that is greater than the first diameter (Figs. 1-2; [0018], [0023], and [0031]).
However, Gregg et al. does not disclose an arrangement wherein the second diameter is greater than or equal to three times the first diameter at the spliced point.
The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re. Claim 14, Gregg et al. renders obvious the fiber laser system as discussed above. It is noted with respect to the limitation “the fiber laser system is configured to enable kilowatt-class material processing,” it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Re. Claims 15-16, 18, and 19, Gregg et al. renders obvious the fiber laser system as discussed above. Gregg et al. does not disclose numerical values for the offset distance R or the diameter of the second core 281 (Fig. 2), and therefore does not directly disclose arrangements wherein either (a) an entirety of a cross-sectional area of the first core contacts, at the spliced point, a portion of a cross-sectional area of the second core that does not include a point associated with the center axis of the second core, or (b) an entirety of a cross-sectional area of the first core contacts, at the spliced point, a portion of a cross-sectional area of the second core that includes a point associated with the center axis of the second core.
Gregg et al. discloses the offset distance between spliced cores results in the particular modal excitation and resultant beam shapes produced by the spliced fibers ([0017]). Accordingly, the claimed arrangements wherein either (a) an entirety of a cross-sectional area of the first core contacts, at the spliced point, a portion of a cross-sectional area of the second core that does not include a point associated with the center axis of the second core, or (b) an entirety of a cross-sectional area of the first core contacts, at the spliced point, a portion of a cross-sectional area of the second core that includes a point associated with the center axis of the second core would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the current invention was effectively filed, 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 pm.
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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 9/23/26
Prosecution Insights