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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8 recites the limitation "welding tool" in both preambles. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what structure associated with the claim limitations that define the recited welding tool.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0333995 to Seurin et al.
Seurin discloses in figure 7, a device for converting a single beam of a single mode to a multi single beam of a multi single mode, the device comprising:
An input fiber (834; paragraphs 75-76) configured to input the single beam of the single mode;
A collimating lens (715) within a housing connected to the input fiber and configured to convert the single beam of the single mode to the multi single beam of the multi single mode to be directed in parallel while passing the single beam of the single mode input to an inlet of the housing (paragraph 70);
A focusing lens (716) within the housing and configured to collect the multi single beam of the multi single mode via the collimating lens to be directed to an outlet of the housing (paragraph 71); and
An output fiber (pigtail 719 to limiter 729) connected to the outlet of the housing and configured to output the multi single beam of the multi single mode (paragraph 69).
As to claim 6, phase matched reflectors are disclosed (paragraph 50).
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.
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) 2-5, and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seurin.
Seurin discloses the general claim limitations, however, the following claims have language not specifically recited:
Claims 2-5 add lens arrangements and refractive index materials which may be selected from known structure. The claims do not specifically recite any ranges or characteristics.
Claims 9-10 recite methods of using the above disclosed structure with very broad providing and steps. Should more details be claimed, a future restriction requirement may be proper.
Claims 11-16 recite a “rechargeable battery” with no specifics as to what structure defines the battery. Further, it appears these claims recite structure derived from certain method steps which are not a positive limitation in an apparatus claim. Still further, should more detail be added, a Species Restriction and a possible Product by Process may be proper.
While Seurin fails to explicitly disclose the above, the general and broadly claimed features are disclosed. Rearrangement of lenses, sizing the lenses, selecting known materials and using the above would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to optimize a laser output for an intended use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,211,599.
English Translation of PCT/KR2024/003656.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric K Wong whose telephone number is (571)272-2363. The examiner can normally be reached M-Tu, Th-F 8A-6P.
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached on 571-270-1739. 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.
ERIC K. WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2874
/Eric Wong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights