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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species of fig. 8 and 5 in the reply filed on 12/24/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1, 3-8, and 15 are 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.
Claim 1 and 3-8 and 15 due to their dependency recites the limitation "the polarizer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of claim interpretation it is assumed to be “a polarizer of the several polarizers.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the number of the polarizers is one" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the number of polarizers in the several polarizers or the total number of polarizers in the device. In either case, several polarizers require multiple polarizers and a device cannot logically include a single polarizer and “several” polarizers. Further, it is unclear whether the applicant is intending to claim a particular number of polarizers or is providing a label for the polarizers. For purposes of claim interpretation, it is assumed that the applicant is claiming multiple (several) polarizers while also claiming that the multiple polarizers include one and only one polarizer. The claim is logically inconsistent and must be amended to overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 6-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Enhancement of photoinduced polarization rotation in azobenzene polymer films” (Yelleswarapu).
For claim 1, Yelleswarapu teaches a nonlinear polarization filter device (fig. 1), comprising a pump source (fig. 1, Ar-Kr Laser), a coupler (fig. 1, the configuration of both NDF, P1, PR, and Mirror may be considered a coupler as the configuration couples light from the two Lasers into the film), a birefringent medium (fig. 1, film, page 2261, 3rd paragraph, photoinduced birefringence), and several polarizers (fig. 1, P1 and P2); wherein the pump source is applied to output a pump laser (fig. 1, output of Ar-Kr Laser), so as to make a photo-induced birefringence effect occur at the birefringent medium (page 2260, section 2, 1st paragraph and page 2261, 3rd paragraph); the polarizer is applied to polarize a signal light according to a preset polarizing angle (fig. 1, P1 polarizes Ar Laser signal); and the coupler is applied to couple the pump laser and the signal light into the birefringent medium (fig. 1, coupler couples light from the two lasers to the film), wherein an angle except 0º exists between the birefringent medium and the preset polarizing angle of the polarizer, wherein the angle between the birefringent medium and the preset polarizing angle of the polarizer is less than or equal to 45° (section 2, 3rd paragraph, 45º).
For claim 6, Yelleswarapu does not explicitly state the Jones matrix of claim 6. However, the Jones matrix is a mathematical representation of the filter device. The structure of Yelleswarapu is substantially similar to the claimed invention and will, therefore, have the same Jones matrix.
For claim 7, Yelleswarapu does not explicitly state the transmission curve expression of the filter device. However, the transmission curve is a mathematical representation of the filter device. The structure of Yelleswarapu is substantially similar to the claimed invention and will, therefore, have the claimed transmission curve.
For claim 8, Yelleswarapu does not explicitly state the nonlinear birefringence coefficient recited in claim 8. However, the structure of Yelleswarapu is substantially similar to the claimed invention and will, therefore, have the claimed nonlinear birefringence coefficient.
For claim 9, Yelleswarapu teaches a nonlinear polarization filtering method (fig. 1), comprising the following steps:
S1, outputting a pump laser (fig. 1, Ar-Kr Laser);
S2, polarizing a signal light according to a preset polarizing angle (fig. 1, P1), wherein an angle except 0º exists between a birefringent medium and the preset polarizing angle (section 2, 3rd paragraph, 45º);
S3, coupling the pump laser and the signal light into the birefringent medium (fig. 1, the configuration of both NDF, P1, PR, and Mirror may be considered a coupler that couples light from the two Lasers into the film); and
S4, polarizing the signal light output by the birefringent medium again according to the preset polarizing angle and outputting the signal light; or returning the signal light output by the birefringent medium back by retracing an original path (fig. 1, P2),
wherein the step S1 further comprises adjusting an intensity of the pump laser according to setting requirements of a passband width and a center position (p 2261, 1st line); and
the step S2 further comprises adjusting the angle between the birefringent medium and the preset polarizing angle according to a setting requirement of a modulation depth, wherein the angle between the birefringent medium and the preset polarizing angle of a polarizer is less than or equal to 45° (fig. 1, polarization rotator: PR adjusts the angle to 45; section 2, 3rd paragraph, 45º).
For claim 11, Yelleswarapu teaches the pump source outputs the pump laser (fig. 1, Ar-Kr Laser output), and an ordinary light optical axis and an extraordinary light optical axis of the birefringent medium are nondifferentiated pumped so that the ordinary light optical axis and the extraordinary light optical axis present unbalanced nonlinear birefringence changes; or the ordinary light optical axis and the extraordinary light optical axis of the birefringent medium are differentially pumped to trigger the nonlinear birefringence changes based on the imbalance of gain coefficients of the ordinary light optical axis and the extraordinary light optical axis (section 2, 1st paragraph describes this situation with longitudinal axis not perpendicular absorbing light).
For claim 12, Yelleswarapu does not explicitly state the Jones matrix of claim 6. However, the Jones matrix is a mathematical representation of the filter device. The structure of Yelleswarapu is substantially similar to the claimed invention and will, therefore, have the same Jones matrix.
For claim 13, Yelleswarapu does not explicitly state the transmission curve expression of the filter device. However, the transmission curve is a mathematical representation of the filter device. The structure of Yelleswarapu is substantially similar to the claimed invention and will, therefore, have the claimed transmission curve.
For claim 14, Yelleswarapu does not explicitly state the nonlinear birefringence coefficient recited in claim 8. However, the structure of Yelleswarapu is substantially similar to the claimed invention and will, therefore, have the claimed nonlinear birefringence coefficient.
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yelleswarapu.
For claim 4, Yelleswarapu teaches the polarized signal light is a linearly polarized light (page 2261, col. 1, final line);
the birefringent medium is a passive birefringent crystal, an active birefringent crystal, an active birefringent fiber or a passive birefringent fiber (page 2260, section 2, 2nd paragraph, liquid crystal molecules and page 2261, 3rd paragraph photoinduced birefringence);
the pump source is a continuous laser light source or a pulse laser light source, and the pump source is applied to output the pump laser once or in real time (the limitations encompass all possibilities for the pump source); and
the coupler is a spatial beam splitter, an optical fiber wavelength division multiplexer, an optical fiber coupler or a beam combiner (page 2260, section 2, 3rd paragraph, the coupler produces spatially overlapped beams and may therefore be considered a beam combiner as the beams are combined at the spatial overlap).
Yelleswarapu does not teach the polarizer is a polaroid, an isolator, a polarization beam splitter, or a single-axis operating unit coupled by an optical fiber.
However, the particular polarizer of Yelleswarapu is not critical to the device and the examiner takes official notice that the list includes polarizers that were well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one of the well-known polarizers as a simple substitution for the generic polarizer of Yelleswarapu as the substituted components and their functions were known in the art and the substitution would have yielded predictable results. In the present case, the substituted component provides an alternative polarizing device for the generic polarizer of Yelleswarapu. See MPEP 2143 I.B.
For claim 5, Yelleswarapu teaches the pump source is applied to output the pump laser (fig. 1, Ar-Kr Laser output), and an ordinary light optical axis and an extraordinary light optical axis of the birefringent medium are nondifferentiated pumped so that the ordinary light optical axis and the extraordinary light optical axis present unbalanced nonlinear birefringence changes; or the ordinary light optical axis and the extraordinary light optical axis of the birefringent medium are differentially pumped to trigger the nonlinear birefringence changes based on the imbalance of gain coefficients of the ordinary light optical axis and the extraordinary light optical axis (section 2, 1st paragraph describes this situation with longitudinal axis not perpendicular absorbing light).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/Michael Carter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828