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
The 35 USC § 112 rejection of claims 10 and 11 have not been addressed, and are therefore being maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to include third and fourth lenses. Neither the Specification nor the figures support these amended limitations. The figures show no more than two lenses, and the Specification only references “lenses” (para [0054]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand “lenses” to include two lenses in the isolator core, a third lens interacting with the first optical fiber, and a fourth lens interacting with the second optical fiber. The amendment is not supported by the Specification.
Claims 2-20 depend upon claim 1 and therefore carry the same deficiencies.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the isolator" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation "the optically directional filter" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, claims 10 and 11 both depend upon claim 1, which requires a first optical filter and a second optical filter. It is unclear which filter “the optically directional filter” is referring to, or if this is a third additional filter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 8-16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,824519 B1 Seurin et al. (herein “Seurin”, cited on the attached PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Seurin discloses in Fig. 8, an apparatus comprising:
a first lens (not shown, see discussion below);
wherein the first lens is enabled to be optically connected to an optical fiber (834);
an isolator core (848) optically coupled to the first lens;
a second lens (838) optically coupled to the isolator core (848);
wherein the second lens (838) is enabled to be optically connected to another optical fiber (839);
wherein the isolator core (848) is enabled to allow optical power from the first lens to propagate through the isolator core (848);
wherein the isolator core (848) is enabled to block optical power from the second lens (838) from propagating through the isolator core (848);
a first optical filter (reflector 840, which is a grating, thus functioning as a filter) optically coupled to the first lens; and
a second optical filter (reflector 846, which is a grating, thus functioning as a filter) optically coupled to the second lens (838);
wherein the second optical filter (846) is enabled to reflect a first frequency (col. 13, line 41 – col. 14, line 13);
wherein the isolator core (848) is enabled to absorb a remaining portion of the first frequency (col. 13, line 41 – col. 14, line 13).
Regarding claim 1, the embodiment shown in Fig. 8 does not show a first lens. However, Seurin discusses using a first lens at the input fiber of the apparatus for beam shaping and focusing (col. 3, line 49 – col. 4, line 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to include a first lens in the embodiment of Fig. 8, so as to effectively couple light into the isolator.
Furthermore, regarding the amendments to the claim, “a third optical fiber and a fourth optical fiber; an isolator core optically coupled to the first lens and the second lens, the isolator including a third lens configured to redirect a first optical signal traveling on the first fiber to the fourth optical fiber, the isolator core further comprising a fourth lens configured to redirect a second optical signal traveling on the second fiber to the third fiber,” Seurin discloses using multiple lenses as needed, to collimate the beams (col. 6, lines 15-32).
Regarding claim 2, Seurin discloses in Fig. 8, the first optical filter and the second optical filter have different transmission and reflection spectra (col. 13, lines 41-53).
Regarding claim 8, Seurin discloses in Fig. 8, both the first optical filter (840) and the second optical filter (846) are optical gratings (col. 6, lines 15-33, 58-61; col. 13, line 41 – col. 14, line 13).
Regarding claim 9, Seurin discloses in Fig. 8, both the first optical filter (840) and the second optical filter (846) are dielectric filters (col. 6, lines 15-33, 58-61; col. 13, line 41 – col. 14, line 13).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Seurin discloses the optically directional filter is tuned to directionally permit a specific wavelength and reject a specific wavelength (col. 13, line 41 – col. 14, line 26).
Regarding claim 12, Seurin discloses in Fig. 8, optical power (optical beam indicated by arrows shown in Fig. 8) is enabled to flow (outlined arrow towards left of figure) into the first lens from at least one optical fiber (819); wherein optical power is enabled to flow out of the second lens (838) to at least one other optical fiber (836) (col. 13, lines 41-53).
Regarding claim 13, Seurin discloses in Fig. 8, optical power (optical beam indicated by arrows shown in Fig. 8) is enabled to flow into at least one optical fiber (shown at 842) from the first lens (not shown, see discussion in regards to claim 1); wherein optical power is enabled to flow out of at least one other optical fiber (836) to the second lens (838).
Regarding claim 14, Seurin discloses in Fig. 8, optical power (optical beam indicated by arrows shown in Fig. 8) of a first wavelength is enabled to flow into the first lens (see rejection of claim 1) from at least one optical fiber (834); wherein optical power of a second wavelength is enabled to simultaneously flow out of the first lens into the at least one optical fiber (836) (excited state, col. 13, lines 25-40).
Regarding claim 15, Seurin discloses in Fig. 8, optical power (optical beam indicated by arrows shown in Fig. 8) of a first wavelength is enabled to flow out of the second lens (838) into at least one optical fiber (836); wherein optical power of a second wavelength is enabled to simultaneously flow into the second lens (838) from the at least one optical fiber (836) (col. 13, lines 25-40).
Regarding claim 16, Seurin discloses the isolator operates in different modes, including WDM (col. 17, lines 17-30), but is silent as to specifically the isolator core being configured to operate in at least four modes: isolator mode, WDM mode; Isolator-WDM mixed mode; and Reverse-WDM mode. However, Seurin demonstrates possession of the knowledge and benefits of different modes. Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to operate the isolator in whatever modes would optimize the device.
Claim(s) 3-7 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,824519 B1 Seurin et al. (herein “Seurin”, cited on the attached PTO-892) in view of US 2016/0276797 A1 Garrett et al. (herein “Garret”, cited on the attached PTO-892).
Regarding claim 3, Seurin discusses EDFAs (col. 1, lines 46-65; col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 14) but is silent as to specifically a second EDFA optically connected to the isolator core opposite a first EDFA. However, Garrett discloses EDFAs connected to an isolator core (paras [0004, 0014, 0048, 0058]). Garrett teaches that this allows for specific wavelengths to be reflected (para [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the EDFAs taught by Garrett in the device of Seurin so as to optimize the wavelengths being transmitted.
Regarding claims 4-7, and 17-19, Seurin discloses a plurality of optical fibers, including at least the first optical fiber, the second optical fiber, the third optical fiber, and the fourth optical fiber (col. 19, lines 23-34 wherein multiple input fibers and an output fiber are discloses), but is silent as to the first lens is enabled to be optically connected to a plurality of optical fibers, e.g. two, four, or six inputs; wherein the second lens is enabled to be optically connected to a plurality of other optical fibers, e.g. two, four, or six outputs. However, 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 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987). Seurin discloses the claimed structure and the lenses are each capable of being optically connected to a plurality of fibers. Furthermore, Garret provides examples of multiple fibers including two inputs and two outputs (dual pigtails and multiple pigtails disclosed in, e.g., paras [0056, 0058]) as well as wherein a first portion of the plurality of optical fibers and other optical fibers are of a first refractive index profile and material composition; wherein a second portion of the plurality of optical fibers and other optical fibers are of a second refractive index profile and material composition (paras [0005, 0013, 0014, 0047]). Garrett teaches that the use of multiple pigtails minimizes the complexity resulting in high yield and low cost (para [0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the multiple inputs taught by Garrett in the device of Seurin so as to optimize the device resulting in high yields at low cost.
Regarding claim 20, Seurin discusses EDFAs (col. 1, lines 46-65; col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 14) but is silent as to specifically a second isolator core connected to a first EDFA. However, Garrett discloses in Fig. 13 EDFAs (26, 80) connected to isolator cores (24, 46) (paras [0004, 0014, 0048, 0058]). Garrett teaches the second isolator prevents reflections from re-entering the input signal path (para [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the second isolator connected to EDFAs taught by Garrett in the device of Seurin so as to prevent unwanted reflected signals.
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 MARY A EL-SHAMMAA whose telephone number is (571)272-2469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-6pm (flexible schedule).
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 at 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.
/MARY A EL-SHAMMAA/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874