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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 22, 2024 and December 9, 2024 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
Twenty-one sheets for formal drawings were filed May 22, 2024 and have been accepted by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 and 5-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5 and 17-25 of copending Application No. 18/671882. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3, 5 and 17-25 of copending Application No. 18/671882 teach or suggest all of the limitations of claims 1 and 5-13 of the present application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 1, “the fused fiber combiner” in the last line of the claim does not have sufficient antecedent basis because no fused fiber combiner was previously cited. For the purposes of examination, “the fused fiber combiner” will be changed to “a fused fiber combiner”.
Regarding claim 13, “a non-circular core fiber, an offset splice a coil, one or more macro-bends, or one or more micro-bends” should be changed to “a non-circular core fiber, an offset splice, a coil, or one or more micro-bends” for grammatical purposes.
Appropriate change is required.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keen et al. (GB 2582331 A from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement) in view of Gross et al. (10,877,220 B2 from Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding claim 1, Keen discloses a method (Fig. 1; abstract) of generating adjustable composite beam shapes (21, 22) in response to controllable perturbation (53), the method comprising: receiving, via inputs of multiple input fibers (3), different laser beams (1, 2) so as to provide at each output a corresponding intermediate beam; combining the outputs from the multiple input fibers into a divergence-preserving fiber (7) that preserves a combined divergence distribution of the intermediate beams at a fused fiber combiner (23); and converting at an output lens (17) the combined divergence distribution to an output transverse spatial intensity distribution defining a composite beam shape of an output beam, the output transverse spatial intensity distribution including a superposition of individual channel output beams corresponding to the multiple input fibers, and at least one of the multiple input fibers having a tunable fiber assembly (53).
Still regarding claim 1, Keen teaches the claimed invention except for a tunable fiber assembly having first to third portions. Gross discloses a tunable fiber assembly (Fig. 29; column 27, line 38 to column 28, line 19) having a series of first, second, and third portions, the first portion configured to adjust an input transverse spatial intensity distribution in response to a controllable perturbation (2904), the second portion configured to convert the input transverse spatial intensity distribution to an intermediate divergence distribution (2906), and the third portion configured to preserve the intermediate divergence distribution that is delivered to a fused fiber combiner (2910, 2912). Since both of the inventions relate to optical devices, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to use a tunable fiber assembly as disclosed by Gross in the device of Keen for the purpose of controlling the beam characteristics.
Regarding claim 2, Gross, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses modulating the output transverse spatial intensity distribution based on an amount of perturbation applied according to a predetermined frequency in column 24, lines 53-60.
Regarding claim 3 and 4, Gross, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses applying time-dependent power to different sets of the multiple input fibers so as to change the composite shape as a function of time in column 10, lines 4-15
Regarding claims 5-7, the proposed combination of Keen and Gross teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the divergence-preserving fiber or the tunable fiber assembly includes a splice. However, Gross discloses the first and second portions are lengths of GRIN fiber (see column 16, lines 27-34 and column 20, lines 18-29) and more than two fibers used (see column 16, lines 48-49). As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use first and second portions which are lengths of GRIN fiber spliced to the third portion for the purpose of enhanced tuning of the beam profile while maintaining a robust optical device. Further, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art for the splice steps up or down a diameter of one or both a core and a cladding in order to control the beam diameter.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the proposed combination of Keen and Gross teaches the claimed invention except for specifically stating the claimed an FFC or an FFS. However, Gross further discloses an FFC or an FFS in column 9, line 65 to column 10, line 3 column 23, lines 38-45. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use an FFC or an FFS in the divergence-preserving fiber, thereby establishing an input divergence-preserving fiber, an output divergence-preserving fiber, and the FFC or the FFS therebetween and in which one or both of a core and a cladding of the input divergence-preserving fiber to the FFC or the FFS is smaller or larger than one or both of a core and a cladding of the output divergence-preserving fiber from the FFC or the FFS, for the purpose of further adjustment of the beam.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Gross, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses cladding light strippers (CLSs) in column 16, lines 54-60.
Regarding claim 12, Gross, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses the divergence-preserving fiber is a step-index fiber and includes a mode-distribution homogenization portion with a mode-scrambling portion in column 15, lines 65 to column 16, line 60.
Regarding claim 13, Gross, in view of the rejection of claim 1 above, further discloses a non-circular core fiber, an offset splice, a coil, or one or more micro-bends provides the mode-distribution homogenization portion in column 10, lines 9-21 and column 15, line 65 to column 16, line 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS H CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-8655. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 571-272-239797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general or clerical nature should be directed to the Technology Center 2800 receptionist at telephone number (571) 272-1562.
Chris H. Chu
/CHRIS H CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 July 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights