DETAILED ACTION
Response to Remarks
1. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 7-11), filed 07/21/2026, regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 over Chen have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to make arguments regarding the Chen reference, that “in each instance where the Office Action asserts correspondence, the reference uses "orthogonal polarization" which assures that the light passing the second beamsplitter does not interfere. In order to interfere, they must become non-orthogonal (share a common polarization component), orthogonal coherent states do not interfere, and incoherent orthogonal states (like those in unpolarized light) also do not produce observable interference patterns…the rejections over the '252 reference mistake correspondence between Applicant's claimed second beam splitter and the cited polarized beam splitter 35 of the '252 reference…as beam splitter 35 is a polarization-type beam splitter, it passes light beams that are orthogonally polarized” (pgs. 7-8 of Remarks). The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
Applicant appears to have misconstrued the beamsplitter 35 as mapping to the instant claimed structure of the second beamsplitter. However, as stated clearly in pg. 5 of Non-Final Office Action (filed 04/22/2026), Chen’s beamsplitter 56 discloses the limitations directed to the claimed second beamsplitter. See ¶0051, 0053 of Chen (italicized for emph.): “The lengths of the splitter 35 which divides and the splitter 56 which combines are precisely matched to ensure that the split beams are recombined into a single spot”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding the issue of orthogonal polarization and light interference are unpersuasive by virtue of Applicant’s misidentification of beam splitter 35 as corresponding to the instant second beamsplitter. Firstly, Chen discloses in ¶0050, 0053 that after the beams are split by the first beam splitter 35, they pass through delay lines 36-37: “after the polarization beam splitter 35, the e beams pass through the left delay line 36 and the o beams pass through the right delay line 37”. Furthermore, ¶0050-51, 0056 and FIGS. 1, 4-5 of Chen discloses that the polarization states of the beams undergo a complex evolution after passing through the first beam splitter 35 and the delay lines discussed above, and are transformed via a series of waveplates 42-25 in combination before being incident on the second beamsplitter 56: “after the input beams have been split by the first beam splitter 35, the beams enter a waveplate combination 40 (comprising elements 42-45) serving as a tuner. The states of polarization of the upper and lower beam pairs are then selectively and separately transformed by the 1/2 waveplates. Separate transformation is necessary because the practical limitations on parallelism dictate that the upper and lower beams be separately tuned. The four beams, two left ordinary (o) and two right extraordinary (e) beams are thereafter combined by a polarization beam splitter 56” Therefore, the manipulation of the beams and the evolution of their polarizations (via the combination of the delay lines and the waveplates after the first beamsplitter 35) before being inputted to the second beamsplitter 56 results in both recombining and interfering of the beams when passing through the second beamsplitter 56.
As stated explicitly within the reference, Chen’s optical system as disclosed within embodiments of FIGS. 1 & 4-5 is an optical interleaver which necessarily utilizes interference of beams to achieve a recombined single beam output via beamsplitters (see ¶0003, 0056, 0112, 0116, and claim 1 of Chen stating that the recombined beams within the second beamsplitter achieves an interleaving system via interferometric operation for final recombined beam output; the Examiner further notes that it is well known in the art of optics that an optical interleaver requires multiple beam interference as an operational principle). Applicant is respectfully reminded that "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). See MPEP § 2123 Section I.
The Examiner has clearly shown with factual findings that Chen’s beam splitter 56 discloses both functional limitations of recombining and interfering the multiple light beams. Therefore, Chen’s beamsplitter 56 satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms “recombining” and “interfering” directed to the functional limitations of the second beamsplitter consistent with the as-filed specification (filed 10/03/2023).
Finally, Chen discloses that the resultant recombined beam also possesses the attribute of mapping between a polarization state and different wavelengths of the incident light (¶0054 of Chen: the two beams each now include both e and o polarization components, as indicated by the adjacent polarization array diagram of FIG. 3. The e polarization contains only the odd wavelength channels, and the o polarization contains only the even wavelength channels. These combinations provide wavelength dependent states of polarization). Thus, the Examiner maintains that Chen discloses and therefore anticipates each and every limitation of claim 1, as explained above.
Applicant additionally argues that “the subject matter of claims 5-6 (read with claim 1) further distinguishes from the '252 reference….according to the '252 reference, this allows the orthogonal polarization channels to remain stable, linear, and well-behaved without severe intersymbol interference or high crosstalk” (pgs. 10-11 of Remarks). However, the Examiner notes that the Chen reference was not relied upon for any teachings/disclosure directed to claims 5-6 (see pgs. 14 and 17-18 of Non-Final Office Action). Instead, the Deisseroth reference was relied upon for the prior art rejection of claims 5-6. Furthermore, regarding the supposed teachings of the Chen reference, the Examiner notes that these arguments unaccompanied by evidentiary support are insufficient to rebut Examiner's evidentiary findings. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
2. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 7-11) regarding the prior art rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 over Deisseroth et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “The '417 reference also relies on processing its different beams via orthogonal polarization…para. 0047 does not specify any details on how such a polarization-selective grating would be implemented, as claimed by Applicant, in connection with combining and interfering” (pgs. 8-9 of Remarks). However, the Examiner notes that Applicant is arguing features that are not positively recited in the claims, namely the implementation of a polarization selective grating and the features directed to orthogonal polarizations of beams. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2145 Section VI, citing In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571-72, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064-1065 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988). As stated previously, Deisseroth discloses the second beamsplitter recombining and interfering with the multiple light beams to provide a recombined light beam (¶0047: a plurality of polarization-selective grating arrangements including at least first and second polarization-selective gratings [first and second beamsplitters]; ¶0110: careful manipulation of the input polarization state can result in output beams multiplexed from the polarization-sensitive grating device; see FIG. 9C showing first and second beamsplitters, wherein the second beamsplitter results in a recombined beam). It is commonly known in the art of optics that multiplexed beams from a polarization-sensitive grating device means that the outgoing beam is combined. Furthermore, polarization-sensitive grating devices fundamentally and necessarily rely on light interference when light beams interact with the gratings of the device. Therefore, Deisseroth’s disclosure satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed terms “recombining” and “interfering” directed to the second beamsplitter consistent with the as-filed specification.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that “If an Office action has issued where the plain meaning of the claim terms was used, applicant may point out that the term has been given a special definition. Since there is a presumption that claim terms are given their plain meaning, and the use of special definitions is an exception, the applicant must point to where the specification as filed provides a clear and intentional use of a special definition for the claim term to be treated as having a special definition.” See MPEP § 2173.01 Section I. Since Applicant has not provided any such indication in the Remarks filed 07/21/2026, The Examiner maintains that Deisseroth discloses the aforementioned limitations directed to the beamsplitters as presently claimed. Deisseroth further discloses that the resultant recombined beam has one of the following attributes: mapping between a polarization state and different wavelengths of the incident light; and a polarization tuning of the incident light as a function of a grating effect provided by at least one of the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter (¶0048, 0072 of Deisseroth: the polarization gratings may have a spatially-variant uniaxial birefringence and may provide non-zero-order diffraction efficiencies of up to 100% [mapping between polarization and different wavelengths]; ¶0057 of Deisseroth: the polarization incident upon each independent polarization-selective grating is indirectly modulated by the voltage across the variable wave-plate retarder and is configured to alternate the incident polarization state upon each independent polarization-selective grating [polarization tuning as a function of grating effect]; ¶0066 of Deisseroth: a voltage is applied (i.e. ON) on: the first polarization-selective grating, the second polarization-selective grating…the output polarization as a result of applying a voltage controller on the first polarization-selective grating, the second polarization-selective grating results in a RHC).
Applicant appears to make arguments regarding the supposed teachings of Deisseroth, that “the '417 reference discusses ways to configure the polarization-selective gratings so that the passing light is not interfering (para. 0047), or with a spatially-variant uniaxial birefringence in which there is no birefringence, so the light is not split into two rays, thereby avoiding the issue of interference altogether (para. 0048)” (pg. 11 of Remarks). However, there appears to be no statements to this effect in ¶0047-48 of Deisseroth. Rather, Deisseroth discusses a myriad of methods of altering polarization states of incoming beams. This does not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or non-preferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123 Section II, citing In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Thus, the Applicant has provided no evidence of a teaching away from the claimed condition and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that “based on the disclosure of the '417 reference, if the different wavelengths or wavelength channels are selected from within a light-spectrum wavelength band that is greater than 50 nanometers, would there be degradation such as in the form of (e.g., likely severe) chromatic dispersion thereby causing temporal pulse spreading, wavelength-dependent polarization-dependent loss (Wd-PDL), differential group delay (PMD accumulation), and/or non-linear interactions like wave mixing and stimulated Raman Scattering (SRS)” (pg. 10 of Remarks). Applicant appears to have misconstrued the claimed range by virtue of arguments directed to wavelengths greater than 50 nm. However, claim 6 recites (italicized for emph.) “wherein the different wavelengths are selected from within a light-spectrum wavelength band that is greater than 50 nanometers and less than or equal to 200 nanometers”. As stated previously, the Examiner notes that Deisseroth discloses different wavelengths of the incident light selected from within a light-spectrum wavelength band encompassing a range between 50 nanometers and 200 nanometers (¶0083-84: light source generates a laser beam that has a wavelength ranging from 10 nm to 380 nm). Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 Section I, citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See also MPEP § 2131.03 Section II, citing ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Applicant is reminded that one can rebut a presumption of obviousness based on a claimed invention that falls within a prior art range by showing “(1) [t]hat the prior art taught away from the claimed invention … or (2) that there are new and unexpected results relative to the prior art.” See MPEP § 2144.05, Section III, citing Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc. 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, the Applicant has not disputed the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of Deisseroth nor has the Applicant provided evidence of new and unexpected results relative to the prior art. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and Examiner maintains that the claimed range would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as detailed previously and below.
3. Applicant’s remarks (see pgs. 11-14) regarding the priority claim have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to have misconstrued the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date with a rejection for lack of written description (pgs. 11-14). Furthermore, Applicant has improperly characterized section MPEP § 211.02 and appears to make assertions that are factually incorrect (see pg. 12 of Remarks stating “See M.P.E.P. § 211.02 (If the cited prior art is wholly irrelevant to the priority date dynamics, examining the earlier application's compliance with Section 112(a) for the sole purpose of dismantling the benefit claim is an improper expenditure of examination resources”). In this instance, there is no such intervening reference and, as such, the issue is rendered as being moot”). As stated before, the disclosure of the prior-filed application fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application, namely the limitations recited in claims 5-7 and 23. The issues regarding priority have been evaluated on a claim by claim basis and not ‘entirely conclusory and with no basis’ as alleged by Applicant (see pgs. 3-4 of Non-Final Office Action on 04/22/2026). Applicant has not provided any evidence that the claims at hand comply with the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120. Therefore, Examiner maintains that the prior-filed Application No. 63/172,548 (filed 04/08/2021) fails to provide adequate support for the claims at hand, as detailed above.
In conclusion, as explained above, none of Applicant’s arguments against the prior art are persuasive, and thus the previously-presented claims 1-7, 10-13, 15-16 and 21-27 remain rejected based upon previously-cited references, as detailed below.
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 1-4, 12, 15-16, 21-22, 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2002/0085252 A1 as cited in the IDS filed 05/10/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses: A method (¶0002) comprising: using a first beamsplitter and a second beamsplitter arranged relative to one another with the first beamsplitter splitting incident light into multiple light beams, along a particular polarization basis, and with the second beamsplitter recombining and interfering with the multiple light beams to provide a recombined light beam characterized as having at least one of the following attributes (see e.g., FIGS. 3 & 23; ¶0048: a second polarization beam splitter 35 [first beamsplitter] separates each of the two upper and lower input beams into additional e and o polarized beams…The beams are thereafter combined by a polarization beam splitter 56 [second beamsplitter]; ¶0121): mapping between a polarization state and different wavelengths of the incident light; and a polarization tuning of the incident light as a function of a grating effect provided by at least one of the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter (¶0054: the two beams each now include both e and o polarization components, as indicated by the adjacent polarization array diagram of FIG. 3. The e polarization contains only the odd wavelength channels, and the o polarization contains only the even wavelength channels. These combinations provide wavelength dependent states of polarization).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein the polarization state is set through polarization tuning of the incident light, and the polarization tuning includes adjusting a displacement of the first beamsplitter relative to the second beamsplitter along a plane that is transverse to a direction of the incident light (¶0010: in stages between polarization beam splitters which are used to establish varying polarization states while the stages separate and combine beams with not only differential retardation, but also frequency period tuning and phase tuning; ¶0099-0100: frequency and phase tuning stages to control polarization; ¶0015: three stage designs are disclosed using different polarization angles and relationships for different ITU grid requirements, including 50 GHz, 25 GHz and 12.5 GHz spacings. In each, waveplate combinations between in the beam paths are configured to provide extremely precise phase tuning, and polarizing beam splitters can be angled to adjust frequency periodicity. Different delay line expedients are utilized to eliminate any non-uniformities due to air path length variations from air gaps and beam displacement devices; ¶0043, 0053: the function of splitting beams to provide different polarizations and beam displacements).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter are constructed to correspond to each other, and the particular polarization basis corresponds to at least one set of orthogonal polarizations at equal and opposite angles; and the polarization state is set through polarization tuning of the incident light (¶0121: linearly polarized light is split by a polarization beam splitter 192 into two orthogonal polarization components, then is propagated in two adjacent paths through non-birefringent optical elements and recombined using a second beam splitter 194 identical in length to the first; ¶0043: input optical beam into two optical beams with orthogonal polarizations at an input polarization beam splitter).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein at least one of the first and second beamsplitters is mounted and/or aligned on a stage for travelling in an optical plane orthogonal to the incident light or a beamline related to the incident light (¶0121: in a single stage 190 shown by way of example, linearly polarized light is split by a polarization beam splitter 192 into two orthogonal polarization components), and wherein as the first and second beamsplitters are displaced relative to each other, and the split beams experience a displacement phase shift (¶0010: in stages between polarization beam splitters which are used to establish varying polarization states while the stages separate and combine beams with not only differential retardation, but also frequency period tuning and phase tuning; ¶0099-0100: frequency and phase tuning stages to control polarization; ¶0015: three stage designs are disclosed using different polarization angles and relationships for different ITU grid requirements, including 50 GHz, 25 GHz and 12.5 GHz spacings. In each, waveplate combinations between in the beam paths are configured to provide extremely precise phase tuning, and polarizing beam splitters can be angled to adjust frequency periodicity. Different delay line expedients are utilized to eliminate any non-uniformities due to air path length variations from air gaps and beam displacement devices; ¶0043, 0053: the function of splitting beams to provide different polarizations and beam displacements).
Regarding Claim 12, Chen discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Chen further discloses: further including using a 0-order or higher order blocker to block light attributes in a light path between the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter (¶0095-96: a 1/2 waveplate 22 oriented at 45.degree. is placed between the two polarizing beam splitters 18, 35 to match the optical path length for the two orthogonal polarizations. This same 90 degree polarization rotation is achieved within the phase tuning subassembly, by using the 1/2 waveplate between 1/4 or 3/4 waveplate pairs with a relative angle of 90 degrees between the 1/4 or 3/4 waveplates to provide a fixed state of polarization exiting the phase tuning subassembly…As a result of these design considerations, the differential group delay is not polarization dependent, so that the PMD [Polarization mode dispersion] is zero).
Regarding Claim 15, Chen discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Chen further discloses: further including using multiple waveplate modules arranged in series to provide manipulation of a beam of the incident light, wherein one of the multiple waveplate module is a tunable waveplate module that includes the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter, and at least one other of the multiple waveplate modules has a polarization basis different from the particular polarization basis of the first beamsplitter (¶0044: After the input beam splitter 18, the vectors of the two polarized components are then reoriented in a first waveplate combination 20, in which the upper beam alone first passes through a half waveplate 22 oriented at 45.degree. to rotate the polarization by 90.degree. The polarization reference frame used here is one in which 0.degree. is defined as vertical and positive angles are defined as clockwise. Then both identically polarized beams pass through a half waveplate 24. To further ensure that these beams are linearly polarized to the necessary extinction level, they may next pass through a polarizing plate 26 also oriented at 45.degree. which establishes a polarization reference angle; ¶0050: the beams enter a waveplate combination 40 serving as a phase shifter or tuner, shown in greater detail in FIGS. 4 and 5, consisting of a 1/4 or 3/4 waveplate 42 oriented at 45.degree., an upper 1/2 waveplate 43 oriented at a variable angle f.sub.1, a lower 1/2 waveplate 44 oriented at a variable angle f.sub.2, and another 1/4 or 3/4 waveplate 45 oriented at -45.degree.. The first 1/4 waveplate 42 converts the linear polarization to a circular state of polarization).
Regarding Claim 16, Chen discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Chen further discloses: further including at least one of the following steps: using multiple waveplate modules arranged in series to provide manipulation of a beam of the incident light for accessing a transformation of a Poincare sphere; and providing polarization modulation by rotating or spinning at least one of the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter (¶0041: transformation of polarization states in non-birefringent differential retardation stages; ¶0044: After the input beam splitter 18, the vectors of the two polarized components are then reoriented in a first waveplate combination 20, in which the upper beam alone first passes through a half waveplate 22 oriented at 45.degree. to rotate the polarization by 90.degree [accessing a transformation of a Poincare sphere]. The polarization reference frame used here is one in which 0.degree. is defined as vertical and positive angles are defined as clockwise. Then both identically polarized beams pass through a half waveplate 24. To further ensure that these beams are linearly polarized to the necessary extinction level, they may next pass through a polarizing plate 26 also oriented at 45.degree. which establishes a polarization reference angle; ¶0050: the beams enter a waveplate combination 40 serving as a phase shifter or tuner, shown in greater detail in FIGS. 4 and 5, consisting of a 1/4 or 3/4 waveplate 42 oriented at 45.degree., an upper 1/2 waveplate 43 oriented at a variable angle f.sub.1, a lower 1/2 waveplate 44 oriented at a variable angle f.sub.2, and another 1/4 or 3/4 waveplate 45 oriented at -45.degree.. The first 1/4 waveplate 42 converts the linear polarization to a circular state of polarization).
Regarding Claim 21, Chen discloses: An apparatus (¶0010-11: optical filter…interleaver) comprising: a first beamsplitter to split incident light into multiple light beams along a particular polarization basis; and a second beamsplitter coupled relative to the first beamsplitter to recombine and interfere with the multiple light beams and to provide a recombined light beam characterized as having at least one of the following attributes: a polarization state which maps to different wavelengths of the incident light (see e.g., FIGS. 3 & 23; ¶0048: a second polarization beam splitter 35 [first beamsplitter] separates each of the two upper and lower input beams into additional e and o polarized beams…The beams are thereafter combined by a polarization beam splitter 56 [second beamsplitter]; ¶0121); and a polarization tuning, of the incident light, that is characterized as being at least one of: a displacement of the first beamsplitter relative to the second beamsplitter along a plane that is transverse to a direction of the incident light, and a function of a grating effect provided by at least one of the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter (¶0054: the two beams each now include both e and o polarization components, as indicated by the adjacent polarization array diagram of FIG. 3. The e polarization contains only the odd wavelength channels, and the o polarization contains only the even wavelength channels. These combinations provide wavelength dependent states of polarization).
Regarding Claim 22, Chen discloses the apparatus according to Claim 21, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter are configured for tuning the polarization state of the incident light achromatically (¶0043, 0048, 0051, 0053, 0121: polarization beam splitters with function of splitting beams to provide different polarizations and beam displacements).
Regarding Claim 24, Chen discloses the apparatus according to Claim 21, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein the polarization tuning is characterized as being: a displacement of the first beamsplitter relative to the second beamsplitter along a plane that is transverse to a direction of the incident light, and a function of a grating effect provided by at least one of the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter (¶0010: in stages between polarization beam splitters which are used to establish varying polarization states while the stages separate and combine beams with not only differential retardation, but also frequency period tuning and phase tuning; ¶0099-0100: frequency and phase tuning stages to control polarization; ¶0015: three stage designs are disclosed using different polarization angles and relationships for different ITU grid requirements, including 50 GHz, 25 GHz and 12.5 GHz spacings. In each, waveplate combinations between in the beam paths are configured to provide extremely precise phase tuning, and polarizing beam splitters can be angled to adjust frequency periodicity. Different delay line expedients are utilized to eliminate any non-uniformities due to air path length variations from air gaps and beam displacement devices; ¶0043, 0053: the function of splitting beams to provide different polarizations and beam displacements).
Regarding Claim 25, Chen discloses the apparatus according to Claim 21, as above. Chen further discloses: wherein at least one of the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter includes a grating characterized by one or more of the following: materials of an irregular shape; one or more metals materials; one or more dielectric materials; and a liquid crystal material (¶0007, 0043: birefringent crystals of YVO4 [one or more metal materials] are employed in this instance for the polarization beam splitters; ¶0085: frequency period of interleaving filters are to be configured to the precise ITU standard wavelength spacings of 25, 50, or 100 GHz; ¶0116: The round trip length of one beam pair from a polarization beam splitter 182 through the closed loop mirror 180 is precisely adjusted to give the desired periodic response in frequency).
Regarding Claim 26, Chen discloses the apparatus according to Claim 21, as above. Chen further discloses: further including using a 0-order or higher order blocker to block light attributes in a light path between the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter (¶0095-96: a 1/2 waveplate 22 oriented at 45.degree. is placed between the two polarizing beam splitters 18, 35 to match the optical path length for the two orthogonal polarizations. This same 90 degree polarization rotation is achieved within the phase tuning subassembly, by using the 1/2 waveplate between 1/4 or 3/4 waveplate pairs with a relative angle of 90 degrees between the 1/4 or 3/4 waveplates to provide a fixed state of polarization exiting the phase tuning subassembly…As a result of these design considerations, the differential group delay is not polarization dependent, so that the PMD [Polarization mode dispersion] is zero).
Regarding Claim 27, Chen discloses: An apparatus for use in an optical system having a first beamsplitter to split incident light into multiple light beams along a particular polarization basis to recombine multiple light beams, the apparatus comprising: a second beamsplitter coupled and arranged relative to the first beamsplitter such that one of the first and second beamsplitters is to split incident light into multiple light beams along a particular polarization basis and the other of the first and second beamsplitters is to recombine and interfere with the multiple light beams and to provide a recombined light beam characterized as having at least one of the following attributes: a polarization state which maps to different wavelengths of the incident light; and a polarization tuning of the incident light (see rejection of claim 21 supra), wherein the first and second beamsplitters are configured relative to the other of the first and second beamsplitters based on a movement in of at least one of the first and second beamsplitters in an orthogonal direction, relative to a plane along which at least one of the multiple light beams travels, to cause a displacement phase shift to be experienced in the multiple light beams (¶0121: in a single stage 190 shown by way of example, linearly polarized light is split by a polarization beam splitter 192 into two orthogonal polarization components; ¶0010: in stages between polarization beam splitters which are used to establish varying polarization states while the stages separate and combine beams with not only differential retardation, but also frequency period tuning and phase tuning; ¶0099-0100: frequency and phase tuning stages to control polarization; ¶0015: three stage designs are disclosed using different polarization angles and relationships for different ITU grid requirements, including 50 GHz, 25 GHz and 12.5 GHz spacings. In each, waveplate combinations between in the beam paths are configured to provide extremely precise phase tuning, and polarizing beam splitters can be angled to adjust frequency periodicity. Different delay line expedients are utilized to eliminate any non-uniformities due to air path length variations from air gaps and beam displacement devices; ¶0043, 0053: the function of splitting beams to provide different polarizations and beam displacements).
Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deisseroth et al. (US 2018/0284417 A1 as cited in the IDS filed 05/10/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Deisseroth discloses: A method (¶0042: Methods and devices for directing an incident electromagnetic field through a plurality of polarization-selective grating) comprising: using a first beamsplitter and a second beamsplitter arranged relative to one another with the first beamsplitter splitting incident light into multiple light beams, along a particular polarization basis (¶0047: a plurality of polarization-selective grating arrangements including at least first and second polarization-selective gratings [first and second beamsplitters]), and with the second beamsplitter recombining and interfering with the multiple light beams to provide a recombined light beam characterized as having at least one of the following attributes (¶0110: careful manipulation of the input polarization state can result in output beams multiplexed [recombining] from the polarization-sensitive grating device; see FIG. 9C showing first and second beamsplitter with light beams as claimed): mapping between a polarization state and different wavelengths of the incident light; and a polarization tuning of the incident light as a function of a grating effect provided by at least one of the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter (¶0048, 0072: the polarization gratings may have a spatially-variant uniaxial birefringence and may provide non-zero-order diffraction efficiencies of up to 100% [mapping between polarization and different wavelengths]; ¶0057: the polarization incident upon each independent polarization-selective grating is indirectly modulated by the voltage across the variable wave-plate retarder and is configured to alternate the incident polarization state upon each independent polarization-selective grating [polarization tuning as a function of grating effect]; ¶0066: a voltage is applied (i.e. ON) on: the first polarization-selective grating, the second polarization-selective grating…the output polarization as a result of applying a voltage controller on the first polarization-selective grating, the second polarization-selective grating results in a RHC).
Regarding Claim 5, Deisseroth discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Deisseroth further discloses: wherein the different wavelengths are selected from within a light-spectrum wavelength band that is sufficiently wide to overlap wavelengths in each of two immediately-adjacent wavelength regimes of the light spectrum (¶0082-84: light source generates a laser beam that has a wavelength ranging from 10 nm to 380 nm…a broadband LED with continuous spectrum…a non-laser light source is a stabilized fiber-coupled broadband light source).
Regarding Claim 7, Deisseroth discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Deisseroth further discloses: wherein at least one of the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter includes a waveplate including a grating material (¶0055: the plurality of polarization-selective gratings are realized as a plurality of liquid-crystal polarization gratings (LCPGs) which can also include liquid crystal variable waveplates), wherein the waveplate is characterized by or includes one or more of the following: being movable along at least one linear direction, and being rotatable or spinnable, and wherein movement of the grating material is to cause the multiple light beams to experience a displacement phase shift (¶0096: electrically switch the polarization-selective gratings to displace the beam of light in the: a) (+θ.sub.x, +θ.sub.y) direction).
Regarding Claim 10, Deisseroth discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Deisseroth further discloses: wherein at least one of the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter is characterized by or includes a grating that is characterized at least in part by one or more of the following: shaped materials of a free-form design; freeform geometries designed for broadband operation; and a liquid crystal material in one or more liquid crystals designed for broadband operation (¶0055: the plurality of polarization-selective gratings are realized as a plurality of liquid-crystal polarization gratings (LCPGs) which can also include liquid crystal variable waveplates…the LCPGs include a patterned birefringent liquid crystal).
Regarding Claim 21, Deisseroth discloses: An apparatus (¶0042: devices for directing an incident electromagnetic field through a plurality of polarization-selective grating) comprising: a first beamsplitter to split incident light into multiple light beams along a particular polarization basis; and a second beamsplitter coupled relative to the first beamsplitter to recombine and interfere with the multiple light beams and to provide a recombined light beam characterized as having at least one of the following attributes (¶0047: a plurality of polarization-selective grating arrangements including at least first and second polarization-selective gratings [first and second beamsplitters]; ¶0110: careful manipulation of the input polarization state can result in output beams multiplexed [recombining] from the polarization-sensitive grating device; see FIG. 9C showing first and second beamsplitter with light beams as claimed): a polarization state which maps to different wavelengths of the incident light; and a polarization tuning, of the incident light, that is characterized as being at least one of: a displacement of the first beamsplitter relative to the second beamsplitter along a plane that is transverse to a direction of the incident light, and a function of a grating effect provided by at least one of the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter (¶0048, 0072: the polarization gratings may have a spatially-variant uniaxial birefringence and may provide non-zero-order diffraction efficiencies of up to 100% [mapping between polarization and different wavelengths]; ¶0057: the polarization incident upon each independent polarization-selective grating is indirectly modulated by the voltage across the variable wave-plate retarder and is configured to alternate the incident polarization state upon each independent polarization-selective grating [polarization tuning as a function of grating effect]; ¶0066: a voltage is applied (i.e. ON) on: the first polarization-selective grating, the second polarization-selective grating…the output polarization as a result of applying a voltage controller on the first polarization-selective grating, the second polarization-selective grating results in a RHC).
Regarding Claim 25, Deisseroth discloses the apparatus according to Claim 21, as above. Deisseroth further discloses: wherein at least one of the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter includes a grating characterized by one or more of the following: materials of an irregular shape; one or more metals materials; one or more dielectric materials; and a liquid crystal material (¶0055: the plurality of polarization-selective gratings are realized as a plurality of liquid-crystal polarization gratings (LCPGs) which can also include liquid crystal variable waveplates…the LCPGs include a patterned birefringent liquid crystal).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deisseroth et al. (US 2018/0284417 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Deisseroth discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Deisseroth does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the different wavelengths are selected from within a light-spectrum wavelength band that is greater than 50 nanometers and less than or equal to 200 nanometers.
However, it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 Section I, citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See also MPEP § 2131.03 Section II, citing ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In the present case, Deisseroth discloses different wavelengths of the incident light selected from within a light-spectrum wavelength band encompassing a range between 50 nanometers and 200 nanometers (¶0083-84: light source generates a laser beam that has a wavelength ranging from 10 nm to 380 nm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to slightly modify Deisseroth’s method to satisfy the claimed condition, since where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2002/0085252 A1) in view of Marshel et al. (US 20210063964 A1).
Regarding Claims 11 and 13, Chen discloses the method according to Claim 1, as above. Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose: further including imaging the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter onto one another by using a 4F optical system located between the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter, and wherein at least one of the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter includes a patterned grating to set an optical bandwidth in which the recombined light beam is characterized as having said at least one of the attributes (claim 11); further including using a 4F optical system to perform filtering in the Fourier plane to affect a light path between the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter by one or more of the following: blocking undesired diffraction orders; balancing power in desired diffraction orders; operating for selectivity; and obtaining measurements of light in path between the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter (claim 13).
Marshel is related to Chen with respect to an apparatus comprising a first and second beamsplitter to split incident light into multiple light beams along a particular polarization basis and to recombine and interfere with the multiple light beams and to provide a recombined light beam with polarization tuning (¶0005, 0007, 0019, 0031, 0047, 0053, 0083) and Marshel teaches: further including imaging the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter onto one another by using a 4F optical system located between the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter, and wherein at least one of the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter includes a patterned grating to set an optical bandwidth in which the recombined light beam is characterized as having said at least one of the attributes (claim 11) (¶0017-18: the first optical element after the SLM is typically the first lens in a 4f relay…the 4f lens relay system and folds the beam path using folding mirrors; ¶0019: polarization beamsplitter (PBS) determines the subsequent optical path based on polarization of the beam, and therefore either SLM1 or SLM2, for hologram generation…polarization beamsplitter (PBS) combines both SLM-modulated paths together onto a single beam path); further including using a 4F optical system to perform filtering in the Fourier plane to affect a light path between the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter by one or more of the following: blocking undesired diffraction orders; balancing power in desired diffraction orders; operating for selectivity; and obtaining measurements of light in path between the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter (claim 13) (¶0017: This arrangement reduced the diameter of first lens in the 4f system sufficient to capture all diffracted rays from the SLM, as well as important for placing phase modulating elements as close to the SLM plane (fourier plane in the microscope). This design achieves effectively a 90° optical path configuration similar to (FIG. 6A), while maintaining all optical power.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chen in view of Marshel to satisfy the claimed conditions because such a 4f optical system to perform filtering in the Fourier plane is known and would be selected to reduce the overall footprint by folding the beam path and capture all the diffracted rays while maintaining all optical power, as taught in paragraphs ¶0017-18 of Marshel.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2002/0085252 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2006/0027021 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Chen discloses the apparatus according to Claim 21, as above. Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose: further including a micro-electrical mechanical system (MEMS) having metasurfaces or gratings which are integrated to include microscaled structures of one common or multiple shapes to perform transformation of light beam polarization, and wherein the MEMS is configured to control movement or set position of at least one of the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter, and therein provide control over a displacement phase shift to be manifested in the multiple light beams.
Choi is related to Chen with respect to an apparatus comprising a first and second beamsplitter to split incident light into multiple light beams along a particular polarization basis and to recombine and interfere with the multiple light beams and to provide a recombined light beam with polarization tuning (¶0024, 0055, 0075-76, 0083, 0104) and Choi teaches: further including a micro-electrical mechanical system (MEMS) having metasurfaces or gratings which are integrated to include microscaled structures of one common or multiple shapes to perform transformation of light beam polarization, and wherein the MEMS is configured to control movement or set position of at least one of the first beamsplitter and the second beamsplitter, and therein provide control over a displacement phase shift to be manifested in the multiple light beams (¶0055: Pulse shaper 14 may include at least one liquid crystal spatial light modulator (SLM), or a deformable mirror, or a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) device, and electronic control components, configured to produce an excitation waveform 24 from an input waveform 20. Pulse shaper 14 may additionally include other optical elements such as beamsplitters; ¶0058: pulse shaper may be used to individually adjust the polarization of each of the pulses in excitation waveform 24; ¶0080: Lengthening or shortening of the duration of input waveform 20 may include imparting phase and amplitude modulation to the spatially-dispersed frequency components of input waveform 20. The pulse stretcher/compressor may include, for instance, two parallel holographic gratings separated by a distance that is adjustable by means of a delay line, and may also include one or more devices for modulating the frequency components of input waveform 20, such as a MEMS device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Chen in view of Choi to satisfy the claimed condition because such a MEMS system is known and would be selected for light modulation in a reflection geometry optical system, with the beneficial result of providing enhancements in the signal-to-noise ratio, as taught in paragraphs ¶0013, 0080, 0107 of Choi.
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 extension fee 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 SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700 (EST).
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 on 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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights