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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on May 24, 2023 and July 01, 2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 24, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hosokawa (US Patent 5,408,354, hereinafter referred to as “Hosokawa”). Hosokawa anticipates claims:
1. An optical isolator core (see figure 2, first birefringent element 3, Faraday rotator 4, second birefringent element 5, birefringent crystal plane plate 6 are together interpreted as the optical isolator core) for non-collimating beam (the define being for non-collimating beam is an intended use of the structures), the optical isolator core for non-collimating beam being configured to isolate backward light (see figure 2) for the non-collimating beam, the non-collimating beam being convergent beam or divergent beam (the light used with the device is an intended use of the device), the optical isolator core for non-collimating beam comprising:
a first birefringent crystal (3), a Faraday rotator (4), a second birefringent crystal (5), and a third birefringent crystal (6) that are successively arranged (see figure 2) along a forward optical path, the first birefringent crystal, the Faraday rotator, the second birefringent crystal, and the third birefringent crystal being all parallel plate structures (see figure 2, compare with the instant application figure 1; the structures of Hosokawa disclose the same relative optical axes).
The remaining limitations of claim 1 follow the language “wherein in the case that…” which is interpreted as an optional requirement of the claim. For example, in the second paragraph the claim requires “wherein in the case that forward light is incident on the first birefringent crystal” and the fourth paragraph begins “wherein in the case that backward light entering backward along the forward optical path is incident on the third birefringent crystal” are conditional. If the forward light is incident on the third birefringent crystal instead of the first, or the backward light is incident on the first instead of third, none of these remaining limitations further limit the claim. Therefore, claim 1 is anticipated by Hosokawa.
Additionally, if the limitations following the optional limitation were required instead of being optional - these limitations are interpreted as being functional and performance limitations of the already claimed structures; The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. Hosokawa teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the Hosokawa device does not possess, and is not capable of, these functional characteristics. See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to claims 2-5, Hosokawa anticipates the projection angle, included angle, and relationships required (see figure 2). The remaining limitations are interpreted as being functional and performance limitations of the already claimed structures; The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. Hosokawa teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the Hosokawa device does not possess, and is not capable of, these functional characteristics. See MPEP 2112.01.
6. An optical isolator core (see figure 2, first birefringent element 3, Faraday rotator 4, second birefringent element 5, birefringent crystal plane plate 6 are together interpreted as the optical isolator core) for non-collimating beam, the optical isolator core for non-collimating beam being configured to isolate backward light for the non-collimating beam, the non-collimating beam being convergent beam or divergent beam, the optical isolator core for non-collimating beam comprising:
a first birefringent crystal (6), a second birefringent crystal (5), a Faraday rotator (4), and a third birefringent crystal (3) that are successively arranged along a forward optical path, the first birefringent crystal, the second birefringent crystal, the Faraday rotator, and the third birefringent crystal being all parallel plate structures (see figure 2, compare with the instant application figure 1; the structures of Hosokawa disclose the same relative optical axes).
The remaining limitations of claim 6 follow the language “wherein in the case that…” which is interpreted as an optional requirement of the claim. For example, in the second paragraph the claim requires “wherein in the case that forward light is incident on the first birefringent crystal” and the fourth paragraph begins “wherein in the case that backward light entering backward along the forward optical path is incident on the third birefringent crystal” are conditional. If the forward light is incident on the third birefringent crystal instead of the first, or the backward light is incident on the first instead of third, none of these remaining limitations further limit the claim. Therefore, claim 6 is anticipated by Hosokawa.
Additionally, if the limitations following the optional limitation were required instead of being optional - these limitations are interpreted as being functional and performance limitations of the already claimed structures; The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. Hosokawa teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the Hosokawa device does not possess, and is not capable of, these functional characteristics. See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to claims 7-10, Hosokawa anticipates the projection angle, included angle, and relationships required (see figure 2). The remaining limitations are interpreted as being functional and performance limitations of the already claimed structures; The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. Hosokawa teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the Hosokawa device does not possess, and is not capable of, these functional characteristics. See MPEP 2112.01.
11. An optical isolator (see figure 2, the shown structures are interpreted as the optical isolator), the optical isolator adopting a design of non-collimating beam to achieve isolating backward light (this is an intended use of the claimed structures), the optical isolator comprising:
an input waveguide (optical fiber 1 is interpreted as the input waveguide), a lens unit (the lens 2 is interpreted as the lens unit), an optical isolator core (see figure 2, first birefringent element 3, Faraday rotator 4, second birefringent element 5, birefringent crystal plane plate 6 are together interpreted as the optical isolator core) for non-collimating beam, and an output waveguide (the optical fiber 8 is interpreted as the output waveguide) that are successively arranged along a forward optical path (see figure 2); wherein the input waveguide is configured to guide in forward light, the forward light being output from the input waveguide as divergent beam; the lens unit being configured to converge the divergent beam to form forward convergent beam: the optical isolator core for non-collimating beam being configured to forward couple the forward convergent beam and isolate the backward light: the output waveguide being configured to guide out the forward convergent beam traveling through the optical isolator core for non-collimating beam (these are intended uses of the claimed structures);
the optical isolator core for non-collimating beam comprising:
a first birefringent crystal (3), a Faraday rotator (4), a second birefringent crystal (5), and a third birefringent crystal (6) that are successively arranged (see figure 2) along a forward optical path, the first birefringent crystal, the Faraday rotator, the second birefringent crystal, and the third birefringent crystal being all parallel plate structures (see figure 2, compare with the instant application figure 1; the structures of Hosokawa disclose the same relative optical axes).
The remaining limitations of claim 11 follow the language “wherein in the case that…” which is interpreted as an optional requirement of the claim. For example, in the second paragraph the claim requires “wherein in the case that forward light is incident on the first birefringent crystal” and the fourth paragraph begins “wherein in the case that backward light entering backward along the forward optical path is incident on the third birefringent crystal” are conditional. If the forward light is incident on the third birefringent crystal instead of the first, or the backward light is incident on the first instead of third, none of these remaining limitations further limit the claim. Therefore, claim 11 is anticipated by Hosokawa.
Additionally, if the limitations following the optional limitation were required instead of being optional - these limitations are interpreted as being functional and performance limitations of the already claimed structures; The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. Hosokawa teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the Hosokawa device does not possess, and is not capable of, these functional characteristics. See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to claims 17-20, Hosokawa anticipates the projection angle, included angle, and relationships required (see figure 2). The remaining limitations are interpreted as being functional and performance limitations of the already claimed structures; The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. Hosokawa teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the Hosokawa device does not possess, and is not capable of, these functional characteristics. See MPEP 2112.01.
12. An optical isolator (see figure 2, the shown structures are interpreted as the optical isolator), the optical isolator adopting a design of non-collimating beam to achieve isolating backward light (this is an intended use of the claimed structures), the optical isolator comprising:
an input waveguide (optical fiber 8 is interpreted as the input waveguide), an optical isolator core for non-collimating beam (see figure 2, first birefringent element 3, Faraday rotator 4, second birefringent element 5, birefringent crystal plane plate 6 are together interpreted as the optical isolator core), a lens unit (lens 2 is interpreted as the lens unit), and an output waveguide (optical fiber 1 is interpreted as the output waveguide) that are successively arranged along a forward optical path (see figure 2); wherein the input waveguide is configured to guide in forward light; the forward light being output from the input waveguide as forward divergent beam; the optical isolator core for non-collimating beam being configured to couple the forward divergent beam and isolate backward light; the lens unit being configured to converge the forward light traveling through the optical isolator core for non-collimating beam to form a forward convergent beam; the output waveguide being configured to guide out the forward convergent beam (these are intended uses of the claimed structures);
wherein the optical isolator core for non-collimating beam comprises: a first birefringent crystal (6), a second birefringent crystal (5), a Faraday rotator (4), and a third birefringent crystal (3) that are successively arranged along a forward optical path (see figure 2), the first birefringent crystal, the second birefringent crystal, the Faraday rotator, and the third birefringent crystal being all parallel plate structures (see figure 2, compare with the instant application figure 1; the structures of Hosokawa disclose the same relative optical axes).
The remaining limitations of claim 12 follow the language “wherein in the case that…” which is interpreted as an optional requirement of the claim. For example, in the second paragraph the claim requires “wherein in the case that forward light is incident on the first birefringent crystal” and the fourth paragraph begins “wherein in the case that backward light entering backward along the forward optical path is incident on the third birefringent crystal” are conditional. If the forward light is incident on the third birefringent crystal instead of the first, or the backward light is incident on the first instead of third, none of these remaining limitations further limit the claim. Therefore, claim 12 is anticipated by Hosokawa.
Additionally, if the limitations following the optional limitation were required instead of being optional - these limitations are interpreted as being functional and performance limitations of the already claimed structures; The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. Hosokawa teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the Hosokawa device does not possess, and is not capable of, these functional characteristics. See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to claims 13-16, Hosokawa anticipates the projection angle, included angle, and relationships required (see figure 2). The remaining limitations are interpreted as being functional and performance limitations of the already claimed structures; The patentability of an apparatus depends only on the claimed structural limitations. Hosokawa teaches a structure that is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, therefore the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The burden is on the applicant to show that the Hosokawa device does not possess, and is not capable of, these functional characteristics. See MPEP 2112.01.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M BEDTELYON whose telephone number is (571)270-1290. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at 571-272-2397. 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.
/John Bedtelyon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874