Ex Parte Dong et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 24, 2019

14609640 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/609,640 01/30/2015 Hao Dong
57040 7590 05/29/2019
OFS Fltel, LLC
(FORMERLY FURUKAWA ELECTRIC NORTH AMERICA, INC.)
2000 NORTHEAST EXPRESSWAY
NORCROSS, GA 30071
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Dong 2-34-3-3-22 6509
EXAMINER
VAN ROY, TOD THOMAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2828
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Arochester@ofsoptics.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAO DONG, WILLIAM R. HOLLAND, JEROME C. PORQUE,
SEAN SULLIVAN, and THIERRYF. TAUNAY
Appeal2018-003007
Application 14/609,640
Technology Center 2800
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, A VEL YN M. ROSS, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 In this Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed January 30, 2015
("Spec."), the Final Office Action entered July 17, 201 7 ("Final Act."), the
Appeal Brief filed September 5, 2017 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer
entered November 30, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed January 25,
2018 ("Reply Br.").
2 Applicant OPS Pitel, LLC is the Appellant and also identified in the Brief
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003007
Application 14/609,640
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to optics, specifically fiber optics. Spec. ,r 2.
According to the Specification, high power fiber lasers are usually pumped
using laser diodes with pigtailed output fiber. Id. ,r 14. Higher pump power
is said to be achieved in the art by, e.g., increasing core diameters of the
fiber pigtails, but the benefit of increasing core diameter reduces brightness
and reduces the amount of pump power than can be coupled into the fiber
laser gain fiber. Id. The Specification discloses a gain fiber optically
coupled to a tapered fiber bundle (TFB) that combines pump power provided
by several pump diode modules where the TFB has a brightness reduction of
between O and approximately 0.65 (or 65%) and the gain fiber has a mode
field diameter (MFD) between approximately 13 and 25 micrometers. Id.
,r 18. Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A system for operating in a single-mode regime, the
system comprising:
a gain-dopant being one selected from the group
consisting of: Ytterbium (Yb); Erbium (Er); Thulium (Tm);
Neodymium (Nd); Holmium (Ho); and combinations thereof;
a gain fiber comprising the gain-dopant, the gain fiber
having a mode field diameter (MFD) between 13 micrometers
and 25 micrometers, the gain fiber being one selected from the
group consisting of:
an amorphous silica fiber; and
a crystalline fiber; and
a combiner optically coupled to the gain fiber, the
combiner comprising an ideal output diameter ( di), di being a
diameter from which a deviation will result in a reduced
brightness, the combiner further comprising an actual output
diameter ( da), the combiner further comprising a brightness
2
Appeal2018-003007
Application 14/609,640
reduction (R), R being defined as l-(d/da)2, R being between 0
and 0.65.
App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTION
The Examiner maintains and Appellant appeals the rejection of
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over the combination
of Botheroyd3 and Alkeskjold4 alone and in further combination with
Gapontsev. 5 Ans. 2; App. Br. 8-15.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the claims as a group and additionally contends that
the size limitations recited in dependent claims 4, 10, 11, and 18 would not
have been obvious over the cited prior art. App. Br. 8-15. We select
claims 1 and 4 as representative for the claim groups argued by Appellant.
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that
Botheroyd's "single circular fibre 8" is a gain fiber. App. Br. 8, 12.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner erred in relying on Alkeskjold for
the modification of Botheroyd because "Alkeskjold expressly acknowledges
the difficulties of changing fiber parameters." Id. at 9. In particular,
Appellant asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not
alter fiber parameters because "altering fiber parameters alters a host of
3 US 2013/0094809 Al, published Apr. 18, 2013.
4 US 2011/0188825 Al, published Aug. 4, 2011.
5 Both Applicant and the Examiner acknowledge that claim 17 is objected to
as being substantially duplicative of claim 5. App. Br. 7-8; Ans. 4. The
Examiner's objection, however, is not within our jurisdiction because, under
35 U.S.C. § I34(a), our review is limited to rejections of claims. Therefore,
we do not address the objection in our analysis.
3
Appeal2018-003007
Application 14/609,640
factors in both predictable and unpredictable ways." Id. at 10. Appellant
also contends that reducing Botheroyd's circular core fiber having a 150 µm
diameter by more than six-fold to about 13 µm to 25 µmas required by
claim 1 would result in a corresponding reduction in Botheroyd's combiner
output making Botheroyd unsuitable for its intended purpose. Id. at 9 ( citing
Botheroyd ,r 61), 11-13. According to Appellant, given Botheroyd's
dimensions, the reference fails to teach single-mode operation which is
"never once" mentioned by Botheroyd. Id. at 13.
We have fully considered Appellant's arguments and find them
unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. The Examiner
does not rely on Botheroyd's fiber 8 as disclosing the laser fiber that is
modified by the combination with Alkeskjold. Ans. 3. Instead, the
Examiner finds that the fiber laser of Botheroyd is the element which
contains a gain fiber including a gain dopant and what is pumped by the
output of the fiber numbered 8 as in Appellant's scheme shown in
Appellant's Figure 1. Id. Because the Examiner does not rely upon
Botheroyd' s circular fiber 8 as disclosing the laser fiber that is modified by
the teachings of Alkeskjold, Appellant's arguments directed to the 150 µm
diameter dimension of fiber 8 are likewise not persuasive of error.
Appellant's assertion in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2) that the
Examiner erred in finding that Figure 1 ofBotheroyd relates to Appellant's
Figure 1 is not persuasive because it is not supported by the record.
Appellant contends that Botheroyd's output fiber 8 corresponds to one of
Appellant's pump ports 110 because Botheroyd teaches that its fiber 8 is
used for pumping a fiber laser. Reply Br. 2-3 ( citing Botheroyd ,r 31 ).
However, Botheroyd's paragraph 31 states that fiber 8 "may be used on its
4
Appeal2018-003007
Application 14/609,640
own or for pumping a fibre laser or for many other purposes." Botheroyd
,r 31. Thus, Botheroyd's fibre 8 does not necessarily use fiber 8 for pumping
a fiber laser as Appellant contends.
The Examiner's combination of Botheroyd and Alkeskjold is
supported by the Examiner's finding that Alkeskjold expressly teaches the
use of its disclosed fiber in "fiber lasers" therefore it would have been
obvious to modify Botheroyd's fiber laser with the teachings of Alkeskjold
such that the combined device has a gain fiber doped with gain dopants.
Ans. 3--4. The combination is also supported by the Examiner's finding that
adapting the device of Botheroyd to use the single mode gain fiber with
about 25 µm MFD taught by Alkeskjold provides the benefit of providing a
fiber capable of suppressing higher order modes, guiding light in a narrow
spectral range, and suppressing non-linear effects. Final Act. 5 ( citing
Alkeskjold Abstr., ,r 12).
Regarding the recitation in claim 1 that the gain fiber has an MFD
"between 13 micrometers and 25 micrometers" and the recitation in
dependent claim 4 that "the MFD further being between 13 micrometers and
18 micrometers," the Examiner additionally finds that MFD values of 13 and
larger are well-known in the art and are result effective variables allowing
for selection of a desired mode profile and guiding specification of the
optical fiber. Ans. 5---6. Appellant does not adequately rebut this finding.
Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence cited in this appeal supports
the Examiner's findings that it would have been obvious to modify
Botheroyd to use the single mode gain fiber of Alkeskjold with an MFD
value of about 25 µm or 13 µm and larger, including the range between
5
Appeal2018-003007
Application 14/609,640
13µm and 18 µmas required by dependent claim 4. Alkeskjold Abstr., ,r,r 5,
12.
For the foregoing reasons as well as the reasons provided in the Final
Office Action and Answer, Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive as to
error in the rejections of claims 1-20.
The rejections are sustained.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6