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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2026, in regards to the limitation, “wherein a period of the periodic refractive index variation is substantially constant along the particular grating vector”, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Glebov nor Smirnov teach wherein, “a period of the periodic refractive index variation is substantially constant along the particular grating vector”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to where Smirnov does teach, a period of the periodic refractive index variation (Fig. 2. (b): alternating black and white bars) is substantially constant along the particular grating vector (Fig. 2 (b) caption: “uniform reflecting grating (Bragg mirror)”, and Smirnov further teaches in relation to Fig. 2(b) “Bragg mirrors recorded in PTR glass with thicknesses…An example of a diffraction efficiency spectrum for a uniform reflecting grating is shown in Fig. 3”)[Page 051514-2, Par 3].
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the limitation, “the particular non-planar lateral phase profile varies in the plane perpendicular to the particular grating vector” of claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glebov (US 20160116656 A1) in view of Glebov et al (herein referred to as Smirnov for clarity)( Volume-Chirped Bragg gratings: monolithic components for stretching and compression of ultrashort laser pulses, May 2014, Optical Engineering, Vol 53(5), 051514-(1-5)), and Futterer (US 20110122467 A1).
Re claim 1, Glebov discloses, Fig. 1-3, and 5, a device comprising: a solid photosensitive material having a planar input facet (Fig. 5: entrance face of beam 1 and beam 2); and one or more reflective holographic phase masks (Fig. 1: holographic phase mask in bulk PTR glass) [Par 11] within a volume of the solid photosensitive material, wherein a particular one of the one or more RHPMs is formed as a periodic refractive index variation of the solid photosensitive material (volume grating, spatial pattern of refractive index) [Par 11], along a particular grating vector (VBG in one direction) [Par 4] and further with a particular non-planar lateral phase profile in at least one plane perpendicular to the particular grating vector (Fig. 4, shows three different phase distributions and non-planar later phase profiles from incident beams) [Par 32], wherein at least one of a period of the refractive index variation along the particular grating vector or an orientation of the particular grating vector are arranged to reflect via Bragg diffraction light incident on the input facet that satisfies a Bragg condition (different beams multiplexed by the VBG refract at Bragg angles) [Par 32], wherein a phase distribution of the reflected light is modified by the non-planar lateral phase profiles of the one or more RHPMs (multiplexing of different beam transformations to combine different modes, which would include the different non-planar lateral phase profiles).
But Glebov does not explicitly disclose, diffraction light incident on the input facet that satisfies a Bragg condition back through the input facet, wherein a period of the periodic refractive index variation is substantially constant along the particular grating vector and the particular non-planar lateral phase profile varies in the plane perpendicular to the particular grating vector.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Smirnov teaches, on Fig. 2b-2c, that it is desirable in phase gratings to include wherein; diffraction light incident on the input facet that satisfies a Bragg condition back through the input facet (reflection Bragg grating in Fig. 2b-2c that reflects all three wavelength back through input facet, wherein there are gradually changing phase planes) [Page 051514-2, Par 4], a period of the periodic refractive index variation (Fig. 2. (b): alternating black and white bars) is substantially constant along the particular grating vector (Fig. 2 (b) caption: “uniform reflecting grating (Bragg mirror)”, and Smirnov further teaches in relation to Fig. 2(b) “Bragg mirrors recorded in PTR glass with thicknesses…An example of a diffraction efficiency spectrum for a uniform reflecting grating is shown in Fig. 3”)[Page 051514-2, Par 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Glebov with Smirnov in order to provide, a wide band filter, as taught by Smirnov [Page 051514-2, Par 5-6].
But Glebov in view of Smirnov does not explicitly teach wherein, the particular non-planar lateral phase profile varies in the plane perpendicular to the particular grating vector.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Futterer teaches, on Fig. 2, that it is desirable in spatial light modulation for the particular non-planar lateral phase profile (Fig. 2a-2c, shows four pixels of the transmitted phase profile) varies in the plane perpendicular to the particular grating vector (In Fig. 2c the phase profile of each pixel is different as a result of the taught SLM changing the phase profile both in the longitudinal and lateral directions, “By switching on or off individual pixels of the SLM the result is different complex values as sums over all pixels of the micropixel… FIG. 2C shows a combined macropixel resulting from the phase element of FIG. 2A and the switching state of the SLM of FIG. 2B.… Neighboring values have the same spacing either in the real or in the imaginary direction. For other selections of the phase element pixel values, up to 16 different complex values would be possible.”) [Par 142-143].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Glebov in view of Smirnov with Futterer in order to provide the fast switching times of SLMs and compensation for the usual drawback of a low number of quantization steps [Par 121].
Re Claim 2, Glebov in view of Smirnov and Futterer discloses the device of claim 1, and Glebov further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the one or more RHPMs comprise: two or more RHPMs in an overlapping region of the volume of the solid photosensitive material (holographic recording of multiple phase masks in the same volume of a VBG or multiple VBG’s) [Par 26-30].
Re Claim 3, Glebov in view of Smirnov and Futterer, the device of claim 2, and Glebov further discloses on Fig. 4, wherein the non-planar lateral phase profiles of the two or more RHPMs are equal (multiple holograms in the same volume result in different wavelengths with the same phase profile) [Par 27 and 32-33].
Re Claim 4, Glebov in view of Smirnov and Futterer discloses, the device of claim 2, and Glebov further discloses on Fig. 5, wherein the non-planar lateral phase profiles of at least two of the two or more RHPMs are different (different wavelengths and propagation modes from the right would be demultiplexed, and have different non-planar latera phase profiles) [Par 35].
Re Claim 5, Glebov in view of Smirnov and Futterer discloses, the device of claim 2, and Glebov further discloses two or more RHPMs (multiple phase masks in the same volume)[Par 26-30], and Smirnov teaches, on Fig. 6, the RHPM’s (volume chirped Bragg gratings CBGs) to be arranged to retroreflect light having two or more different wavelengths incident on the input facet via Bragg diffraction (three different wavelengths being retroreflected by overlap in multi-sectional CBG) [Page 051514-5].
Re Claim 6, Glebov in view of Smirnov and Futterer discloses, the device of claim 2, and Glebov further discloses on Fig. 4, wherein the two or more RHPMs (multiple phase masks in the same volume) [Par 26-30] are arranged to reflect light having two or more different incidence angles on the input facet with a common reflection angle relative to the input facet (by recording multiple VBG’s with degenerate Bragg angles, different incident beams with different Bragg angles will diffract from the multiplexed gratings such that they propagate collinearly from a common point, allowing for beam combining as in Fig. 4)[Par 32].
Re Claim 7, Glebov in view of Smirnov and Futterer discloses, the device of claim 6, and Glebov further discloses on Fig. 4, wherein the light having the two or more different incidence angles on the input facet have different wavelengths (by recording multiple VBG’s with degenerate Bragg angles, different incident beams with different Bragg angles will diffract from the multiplexed gratings such that they propagate collinearly from a common point, allowing for beam combining as in Fig. 4)[Par 32].
Re Claim 8, Glebov in view of Smirnov and Futterer discloses, the device of claim 6, and Glebov further discloses on Fig. 4, wherein the light having the two or more different incidence angles on the input facet have equal wavelengths (“Each phase mask would work at a particular wavelength only if the VBG is illuminated at the corresponding incident angle to provide diffraction. It is possible to record multiple VBGs with degenerate Bragg angles when several VBGs have a common Bragg angle. In this case, different beams incident at the different Bragg angles will diffract from these multiplexed gratings such that they propagate collinearly from a common point, allowing for beam combining as illustrated in FIG. 4. In this case, different beam transformers could be multiplexed, e.g., to provide conversion of several different modes in a single optical beam.”) [Par 32].
Re Claim 9, Glebov in view of Smirnov and Futterer discloses, the device of claim 2, and Glebov further discloses on Fig. 3, wherein the two or more RHPMs (holographic recording of multiple phase masks in the same volume of a VBG or multiple VBG’s) [Par 26-30], are arranged to reflect light having two or more different wavelengths incident on the input facet at a common incidence angle along different reflection angles with respect to the input facet (“demultiplexing optical beams with different wavelengths and modes of propagation. FIG. 5 shows that if two different VBGs are recorded in such manner that they have collinear one of the Bragg angles, this device would be a multiplexer or a beam combiner if illuminated by two beams approaching the VBG from the left side…This device illuminated from the right side would operate as demultiplexer or a beam analyzer that simultaneously can produce mode conversion.”) [Par 35].
Re Claim 10, Glebov in view of Smirnov and Futterer discloses, the device of claim 2, and Glebov further discloses on Fig. 4, wherein the two or more RHPMs (holographic recording of multiple phase masks in the same volume of a VBG or multiple VBG’s) [Par 26-30] are arranged to reflect light with a common wavelength at different reflection angles with respect to the input facet (without degenerate Bragg angles, the different Bragg angles of similar wavelengths of light would result in different refraction angles, “Each phase mask would work at a particular wavelength only if the VBG is illuminated at the corresponding incident angle to provide diffraction”) [Par 32].
Re Claim 11, Glebov in view of Smirnov and Futterer discloses, the device of claim 1, and Smirnov teaches on Fig. 1, wherein the grating vector of at least one of the one or more RHPMs is oriented normal to the input facet (Fig. 1: uniform (a) and chirped (b) gratings of Fig. 1 are normal to the incident facet of the gratings).
Re Claim 12, Glebov in view of Smirnov and Futterer discloses, the device of claim 1, and Glebov further discloses on Fig. 5, wherein the grating vector of at least one of the one or more RHPMs is oriented at a non-normal angle with respect to the input facet (Fig. 5 shows grating vectors of the phase masks in the Bulk PTR glass are not orthogonal to the incident surface of the glass).
Re Claim 13, Glebov in view of Smirnov and Futterer discloses, the device of claim 1, and Glebov further discloses on Fig. 5, wherein the solid photosensitive material comprises photo-thermo-refractive glass (volume holographic phase involves a bulk piece of PTR glass) [Par 28]
Claim(s) 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaffee (US 20160277109 A1) in view of Glebov and Smirnov.
Re Claim 21, Chaffee discloses, on Fig. 16, a system comprising: two or more transmitters (signals 1601-1604 inherently would be emitted from a transmitter) configured to generate modulated light beams at two or more wavelengths (pulse train of each signal can be moduleated and 10 gigE is not a limiting factor) [Par 98-99]; a multiplexer (multiplexer 1610) configured to receive the modulated light beams and direct the modulated beams along a transmission pathway (transmitting element 1160); two or more detectors (Routers 1601’1604’) [Par 100]; and a demultiplexer (demultiplexing module 1675) configured to receive the modulated light beams from the transmission pathway and direct the modulated light beams along separate paths to the two or more detectors [Par 100], one or more phase transformation devices ( multiplexer 1610 and demultiplexer 1675 would inherently phase transform inputs) [Par 100].
But Chaffee does not explicitly disclose, one or more phase transformation devices comprising: a solid photosensitive material having a planar input facet; and two or more reflective holographic phase masks (RHPMs) within a volume of the solid photosensitive material, wherein a particular one of the two or more RHPMs is formed as a periodic refractive index variation of the solid photosensitive material along a particular grating vector and further with a particular non-planar lateral phase profile in at least one plane perpendicular to the particular grating vector, wherein at least one of a period of the refractive index variation along the grating vector or an orientation of the grating vector for each of the two or more RHPMs are arranged to reflect light incident on the input facet that satisfies a Bragg condition, wherein a phase distribution of the reflected light is modified by the non-planar lateral phase profiles of the associated one or more RHPMs; wherein at least one of the one or more phase transformation devices is configured to operate as at least one of the multiplexer or the demultiplexer, diffraction light incident on the input facet that satisfies a Bragg condition back through the input facet, and the particular non-planar lateral phase profile varies in the plane perpendicular to the particular grating vector.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Glebov teaches, on Fig. 1-5, that it is desirable in phase transformation devices to include, a solid photosensitive material having a planar input facet (Fig. 5: entrance face of beam 1 and beam 2); and one or more reflective holographic phase masks (Fig. 1: holographic phase mask in bulk PTR glass) [Par 11] within a volume of the solid photosensitive material, wherein a particular one of the one or more RHPMs is formed as a periodic refractive index variation of the solid photosensitive material (volume grating, spatial pattern of refractive index) [Par 11], along a particular grating vector (VBG in one direction) [Par 4] and further with a particular non-planar lateral phase profile in at least one plane perpendicular to the particular grating vector (Fig. 4, shows three different phase distributions and non-planar later phase profiles from incident beams) [Par 32], wherein at least one of a period of the refractive index variation along the grating vector or an orientation of the grating vector for each of the one or more RHPMs are arranged to reflect via Bragg diffraction light incident on the input facet that satisfies a Bragg condition (different beams multiplexed by the VBG refract at Bragg angles) [Par 32], wherein a phase distribution of the reflected light is modified by the non-planar lateral phase profiles of the one or more RHPMs (multiplexing of different beam transformations to combine different modes, which would include the different non-planar lateral phase profiles), wherein at least one of the one or more phase transformation devices is configured to operate as at least one of the multiplexer or the demultiplexer (Fig. 5 where holographic phase mask can either be a multiplexer or demultiplexer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chaffee with Glebov, in order to provide, the combination or separation of different beams, as taught by Glebov [Par 32].
But Chafee in view of Glebov, does not explicitly disclose, diffraction light incident on the input facet that satisfies a Bragg condition back through the input facet, and the particular non-planar lateral phase profile varies in the plane perpendicular to the particular grating vector.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Smirnov teaches, on Fig. 2b-2c, that it is desirable in phase gratings to include wherein; diffraction light incident on the input facet that satisfies a Bragg condition back through the input facet (reflection Bragg grating in Fig. 2b-2c that reflects all three wavelength back through input facet, wherein there are gradually changing phase planes) [Page 051514-2, Par 4], a period of the periodic refractive index variation (Fig. 2. (b): alternating black and white bars) is substantially constant along the particular grating vector (Fig. 2 (b) caption: “uniform reflecting grating (Bragg mirror)”, and Smirnov further teaches in relation to Fig. 2(b) “Bragg mirrors recorded in PTR glass with thicknesses…An example of a diffraction efficiency spectrum for a uniform reflecting grating is shown in Fig. 3”)[Page 051514-2, Par 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chaffe in view of Glebov with Smirnov in order to provide, a wide band filter, as taught by Smirnov [Page 051514-2, Par 5-6]
But Chaffee in view of Glebov and Smirnov does not explicitly teach wherein, the particular non-planar lateral phase profile varies in the plane perpendicular to the particular grating vector.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Futterer teaches, on Fig. 2, that it is desirable in spatial light modulation for the particular non-planar lateral phase profile (Fig. 2a-2c, shows four pixels of the transmitted phase profile) varies in the plane perpendicular to the particular grating vector (In Fig. 2c the phase profile of each pixel is different as a result of the taught SLM changing the phase profile both in the longitudinal and lateral directions, “By switching on or off individual pixels of the SLM the result is different complex values as sums over all pixels of the micropixel… FIG. 2C shows a combined macropixel resulting from the phase element of FIG. 2A and the switching state of the SLM of FIG. 2B.… Neighboring values have the same spacing either in the real or in the imaginary direction. For other selections of the phase element pixel values, up to 16 different complex values would be possible.”) [Par 142-143].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chaffee in view of Glebov and Smirnov with Futterer in order to provide the fast switching times of SLMs and compensation for the usual drawback of a low number of quantization steps [Par 121].
Re Claim 22, Chaffee in view of Glebov, Smirnov, and Futterer discloses, the system of claim 21, and Glebov further discloses on Fig. 4, wherein the two or more RHPMs (multiple phase masks in the same volume) [Par 26-30] are arranged to reflect light having two or more different incidence angles on the input facet with a common reflection angle relative to the input facet (by recording multiple VBG’s with degenerate Bragg angles, different incident beams with different Bragg angles will diffract from the multiplexed gratings such that they propagate collinearly from a common point, allowing for beam combining as in Fig. 4)[Par 32].
Re Claim 23, Chaffee in view of Glebov, Smirnov, and Futterer discloses, the system of claim 21, and Glebov further discloses on Fig. 5, wherein at least one of the one or more phase transformation devices is configured to operate as the demultiplexer (VBG and phase mask can be a demultiplexer) [Par 35], wherein the two or more RHPMs of the multiplexer are arranged to reflect the modulated beams from the transmission pathway along different reflection angles relative to the input facet (when coming from the right would demultiplex light into different reflection angles) [Par 35].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Futterer (US 10234821 B2) teaches a spatial light modulator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights