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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/8/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/8/2024 are approved by the examiner.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Figures 5A and 5B of the specification of the present application do not show the two pump beams co-propagating on the optical path including the two amplifying fibers.
Therefore, appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of USPN 12,132,290. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 1, the claims of USPN 12,132,290 teach or suggest:
A fiber amplifier operable with at least one electric drive signal for amplifying signal light on an optical path, the signal light having a signal wavelength, the fiber amplifier [ taught by lines 1-3 of claim 12 of USPN 12,132,290 ] comprising: a laser diode having an active section positioned between first and second end facets, the active section being configured to generate first and second pump light that propagates respectively toward the first and second end facets in response to injection of the electrical drive signal into the active section, the first and second pump light having at least one pump wavelength different from the signal wavelength [ taught by lines 5-12 of claim 12 of USPN 12,132,290 ]; and at least two doped fibers disposed on the optical path, a first of the at least two doped fibers disposed on the optical path and being doped with a first active dopant, and a second of the at least two doped fibers disposed on the optical path and being doped with a second active dopant [ taught by lines 22-31 of claim 12 of USPN 12,132,290 ]; at least one combiner configured to combine the first and second pump lights onto the optical path such that the first pump light propagates through the first doped fiber and such that the second pump light propagates through the second doped fiber [ taught by claims 13 and 14 of USPN 12,132,290 ].
Claim 2 is taught by claim 2 of USPN 12,132,290.
Claim 3 is taught by lines 21-31 of claim 6 of USPN 12,132,290.
Claim 4 is taught by lines 22-26 of claim 1 of USPN 12,132,290.
Claim 5 is taught by lines 21-27 of claim 7 of USPN 12,132,290.
Claim 6 is taught by claim 3 of USPN 12,132,290.
Claim 7 is taught by claim 4 of USPN 12,132,290.
Claim 8 is taught by claim 5 of USPN 12,132,290.
Claim 9 is taught by lines 25-31 of claim 9 of USPN 12,132,290.
Claims 10 is taught by claim 13 of USPN 12,132,290.
Claim 11, as presently understood under 35 USC 112, is taught by claim 13 of USPN 12,132,290.
Claims 12-16 are taught by the subject matter of the claims of USPN 12,132,290; as applied to claims 1-11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Upon filing of a terminal disclaimer, claims 1-10 and 12-16 would be allowed.
Claim 11 would be allowable, upon filing of a terminal disclaimer; and, if rewritten or argued to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Jabr (WO 93/18561) discloses using a laser diode (1) outputting pumping light from both end facets wherein the pumping light is introduced to an amplification fiber (2).
However, Jabr (WO 93/18561), taken alone or in combination with the other cited prior art, does not teach or suggest two doped fibers with first and second active dopants in combination with one combiner combining the output of the laser diode, as these elements are set forth in the context of claims 1-16.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights