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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (i.e., claims 1-9, 12-14, 17-18) in the reply filed on 12/31/25 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 8-9, 14, 18 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “the at least one active optical element includes a dispersion compensator” in claims 8, 14, 18 is used by the claim to mean “active dispersion compensator,” while the accepted meaning is “passive dispersion compensator”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term at least since a dispersion compensator is typically known to be a passive device, especially since there is no further disclosure.
Also, claims 9, 14, and 18 recite “the at least one active optical element includes a phase plate corrector” which is used by the claim to mean “active phase plate corrector,” while the accepted meaning is “passive phase plate corrector”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term at least since a phase plate corrector is typically known to be a passive device, especially since there is no further disclosure.
So, for the purpose of the rejection(s) below, any phase plate in the prior art applied is a phase plate corrector and is an “active optical element” and any dispersion compensating optical fiber (DCOF) or other dispersion compensation optical device in the prior art applied is an “active optical element” because there is no disclosure to properly understand how the respective element is “active”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noonan (US 20040005113) with obviousness evidenced by Lee (US 5453827) and/or Tselikov et al. (US 6574015; “Tselikov”) and/or Le et al. (US 20130331689; “Le”) and/or Sugiyama et al. (US 20140355086; “Sugiyama”).
Regarding claim 1, Noonan teaches an optical device, comprising: a fiber 114 to provide a beam (e.g., fig. 8); a collimation lens 112 (e.g., fig. 8); and an optical transformation element 116 to transform the beam after the beam is coupled by the collimation lens 112, wherein an input facet of the optical transformation element 116 is coupled to the collimation lens 112, and wherein the optical transformation element 116 comprises at least one active optical element 116 (e.g., state selecting SLM 116 is active at least in that it selects a state; ¶s 0052-0053).
Noonan does not explicitly state: collimation lens 112 can be a graded-index element to expand or magnify the beam wherein an input facet of the graded-index element is adhered to an output facet of the fiber; input facet of the optical transformation element 116 is adhered to an output facet of the graded-index element.
However, it was well-known to use a ¼ pitch GRIN lens to expand and collimate light from an optical fiber [OF] abutted to an end of the GRIN lens as evidenced by Lee (e.g., Lee fig. 4 col. 8, lines 5-11).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a ¼ pitch GRIN lens for the collimation lens 112 in Noonan fig. 8 [MPEP §2144.06 Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose [R-6] II. < SUBSTITUTING EQUIVALENTS KNOWN FOR THE SAME PURPOSE and/or MPEP §2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose].
Moreover, Tselikov indicates it is well-known to use index matching epoxy between GRIN lenses and the ends of fibers (e.g., Tselikov col. 6 line 60 to col. 7 line 10; additionally, it is noted that it is extremely well known that index matching epoxy “adheres” once cured).
Also Le indicates it is well-known for a GRIN lens and a fiber to be fusion spliced (e.g., Le ¶ 0006; additionally, it is noted that items fused/spliced together are “adhered” following the plain meaning of “adhered”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhere/bond the ¼ pitch GRIN lens, that was substituted for the collimation lens 112 in Noonan fig. 8 (as mentioned above), to the end of input OF 114.
Additionally, Sugiyama indicates the well-known nature of fixing the side of a lens facing the SLM to the SLM via adhesive (e.g., Sugiyama ¶ 0080, fig. 2). Thus, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the side of SLM 116 (that faces the substituted GRIN lens) to be fixed to the substituted GRIN lens via adhesive at least for the purpose of securing components of the device in fixed positions for optimal coupling.
Therefore, based on the above reasoning it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for collimation lens 112 to be a graded-index element to expand or magnify the beam wherein an input facet of the graded-index element is adhered to an output facet of the fiber; input facet of the optical transformation element 116 is adhered to an output facet of the graded-index element.
Thus claim 1 is rejected.
Regarding claim 4, Noonan renders as obvious the optical device of claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1 based on well-known principles above), wherein the at least one active optical element includes a spatial light modulator {SLM} 116 [see above rejection of claim 1 that includes an SLM 116].
Thus claim 4 is rejected.
Claim(s) 1, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US 20120140302; “Xie”) with obviousness evidenced by Lee (US 5453827) and/or Tselikov et al. (US 6574015; “Tselikov”) and/or Le et al. (US 20130331689; “Le”) and/or Carter (US 4732452).
Regarding claim 1, Xie teaches an optical device, comprising: a fiber 21 to provide a beam (e.g., figs. 2,8); a graded-index {GRIN} element 22 collimate the beam (e.g., ¶ 0046), wherein an input facet of the graded-index element 22 is abutted to an output facet of the fiber 21 (e.g., fig. 2); and an optical transformation element 11/12/13 [however using the platform 12 of the embodiment of fig. 8 such the platform 12 has a solid single crystalline Si substrate which allows for the passage of light; see paragraph 0063 and fig. 8] to transform (e.g., ¶ 0046: the beam is focused by the microlens 11 onto an object) the beam after the beam is collimated by the graded-index element 22 (e.g., ¶ 0046), wherein an input facet (e.g., figs. 2, 8; the side of platform/substrate 12 abutted with GRIN lens 22 in fig. 2 is the input facet of substrate/platform 12) of the optical transformation element 11/12/13 (e.g., figs. 2, 8) is abutted with an output facet of the graded-index element 22 (e.g., fig. 2), and wherein the optical transformation element 11/12/13 comprises at least one active optical element (e.g., figs. 2, 8; movable lens 11; ¶s 0042-0046, 0063).
Xie does not explicitly state: the GRIN element 22 also expands/magnifies the beam, the GRIN 22 is adhered to the fiber 21, and optical transformation element 11/12/13 adhered to an output facet of the graded-index element 22 (e.g., fig. 2).
However, it was well-known to use a ¼ pitch GRIN lens to expand and collimate light from an optical fiber [OF] abutted to an end of the GRIN lens as evidenced by Lee (e.g., Lee fig. 4 col. 8, lines 5-11). So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for GRIN lens 22 to be a ¼ pitch GRIN lens in order to maximize the beam waist of the collimated light as it enters plate/substrate/platform 12 so the collimated beam will more closely match the diameter of the lens 11 to maximize coupling.
Moreover, Tselikov indicates it is well-known to use index matching epoxy between GRIN lenses and the ends of fibers (e.g., Tselikov col. 6 line 60 to col. 7 line 10; additionally, it is noted that it is extremely well known that index matching epoxy “adheres” once cured).
Also Le indicates it is well-known for a GRIN lens and a fiber to be fusion spliced (e.g., Le ¶ 0006; additionally, it is noted that items fused/spliced together are “adhered” following the plain meaning of “adhered”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhere/bond the ¼ pitch GRIN lens to the end of input OF 21.
Additionally, Carter teaches it is well known to abut and bond a SELFOC/GRIN lens to a glass plate which indicates the well-known nature of bonding/adhering in general a GRIN lens to virtually any plate or flat surface (e.g., Carter col. 2 line 50 to col. 3 line 10). So, bonding GRIN lens 22 to plate/substrate/platform 12 (e.g., Xie fig. 2) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention better fixing the objects/components together and/or maintain the proper relative position of components to maximize coupling.
Thus claim 1 is rejected.
Regarding claim 5, Xie renders as obvious the optical device of claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1 based on well-known principles above), wherein the at least one active optical element includes a focus tunable lens 11/12/13 (e.g., figs. 2, 8; movable lens 11; ¶s 0042-0046, 0063).
Thus claim 5 is rejected.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (US 20030103713; “Pan”) with obviousness evidenced by Lee (US 5453827) and/or Tselikov et al. (US 6574015; “Tselikov”) and/or Le et al. (US 20130331689; “Le”) and/or Carter (US 4732452).
Regarding claim 1, Pan teaches an optical device, comprising: a fiber 23 to provide a beam (e.g., fig. 4A); a graded-index element 27 (e.g., ¶ 0030: ¼ pitch GRIN lens 27) to couple the beam, wherein an input facet of the graded-index element 27 is in close proximity an output facet of the fiber 24 (e.g., fig. 4A; ¶ 0030); and an optical transformation element 29 to transform the beam (e.g., the beam is either transformed by a being reflected or being transmitted depending on a state of the liquid crystal switch/cell; ¶ 0031) after the beam is coupled by the graded-index element 27, wherein an input facet of the optical transformation element 29 is closely adjacent to an output facet of the graded-index element 27 (e.g., fig. 4A), and wherein the optical transformation element 29 comprises at least one active optical element 29 (e.g., fig. 4A; ¶ 0031).
Pan does not explicitly state: ¼ pitch GRIN lens 27 expands or magnifies the beam, GRIN element 27 is adhered to the facet of fiber 24, input facet of the optical transformation element 29 is adhered to an output facet of the graded-index element 27.
However, it was well-known that a ¼ pitch GRIN lens expands and collimates light from an optical fiber [OF] abutted to an end of the GRIN lens as evidenced by Lee (e.g., Lee fig. 4 col. 8, lines 5-11). So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for ¼ pitch GRIN lens to expand and collimate light from an optical fiber [OF] in order to maximize the beam waist of the collimated light as it enters cholesteric liquid crystal optical transformation element 29 so the collimated beam will more closely match the diameter of cholesteric liquid crystal optical transformation element 29 to maximize coupling.
Moreover, Tselikov indicates it is well-known to use index matching epoxy between GRIN lenses and the ends of fibers (e.g., Tselikov col. 6 line 60 to col. 7 line 10; additionally, it is noted that it is extremely well known that index matching epoxy “adheres” once cured).
Also Le indicates it is well-known for a GRIN lens and a fiber to be fusion spliced (e.g., Le ¶ 0006; additionally, it is noted that items fused/spliced together are “adhered” following the plain meaning of “adhered”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhere/bond the ¼ pitch GRIN lens 27 to the end of input OF 23 (e.g., fig. 4A).
Additionally, Carter teaches it is well known to abut and bond a SELFOC/GRIN lens to a glass plate which indicates the well-known nature of bonding/adhering in general a GRIN lens to virtually any plate or flat surface (e.g., Carter col. 2 line 50 to col. 3 line 10). So, bonding GRIN lens 27 to plate/cell 29 (e.g., Pan fig. 4A) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention better fixing the objects/components together and/or maintain the proper relative position of components to maximize coupling through index matching material/adhesive.
Thus claim 1 is rejected.
Regarding claim 6, Pan renders as obvious he optical device of claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1), wherein the at least one active optical element includes a liquid crystal element 29 (e.g., fig. 4A; ¶s 0030-0031).
Regarding claim 7, Pan renders as obvious he optical device of claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1), wherein the at least one active optical element 29 includes an optical switch (e.g., ¶ 0031).
Claim(s) 1, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US 6584249; “Gu”) with obviousness evidenced by Lee (US 5453827) and/or Tselikov et al. (US 6574015; “Tselikov”) and/or Le et al. (US 20130331689; “Le”) and/or Carter (US 4732452).
Regarding claim 1, Gu teaches an optical device, comprising: a fiber 231 to provide a beam (e.g., fig. 2); a graded-index element 240 to expand or magnify the beam, wherein an input facet of the graded-index element is coupled to an output facet of the fiber 230; and an optical transformation element 210 to transform the beam after the beam is collimated by the graded-index (GRIN) element 240 (e.g., fig. 2; col. 5 line 55 to col. 6 line 26), wherein an input facet of the optical transformation element is coupled to an output facet of the graded-index element 240 (e.g., fig. 2), and wherein the optical transformation element 210 comprises at least one active optical element (e.g., fig. 2; etalon 210; col. 5 line 55 to col. 9 line 6; the etalon at least acts to reflect the light and is thus an active optical element).
Gu does not explicitly state: the GRIN lens/element 240 expands or magnifies the beam, GRIN element 240 is adhered to the facet of fiber 231, input facet of the optical transformation element 210 is adhered to an output facet of the graded-index element 240.
However, it was well-known that a GRIN lens expands and collimates light from an optical fiber [OF] abutted to an end of the GRIN lens as evidenced by Lee (e.g., Lee fig. 4 col. 8, lines 5-11). So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the GRIN lens 240 to expand and collimate light from an optical fiber [OF] in order to maximize the path and create a proper entry angle of the collimated light as it enters the etalon 210 optical transformation element 210.
Moreover, Tselikov indicates it is well-known to use index matching epoxy between GRIN lenses and the ends of fibers (e.g., Tselikov col. 6 line 60 to col. 7 line 10; additionally, it is noted that it is extremely well known that index matching epoxy “adheres” once cured).
Also Le indicates it is well-known for a GRIN lens and a fiber to be fusion spliced (e.g., Le ¶ 0006; additionally, it is noted that items fused/spliced together are “adhered” following the plain meaning of “adhered”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhere/bond the GRIN lens 240 to the end of input OF 231 (e.g., fig. 2).
Additionally, Carter teaches it is well known to abut and bond a SELFOC/GRIN lens to a glass plate which indicates the well-known nature of bonding/adhering in general a GRIN lens to virtually any plate or flat surface (e.g., Carter col. 2 line 50 to col. 3 line 10). So, bonding GRIN lens 240 to plate/etalon 210 (e.g., Gu fig. 2) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for better fixing the objects/components together and/or maintaining the proper relative position of components to maximize coupling through index matching material/adhesive.
Thus claim 1 is rejected.
Regarding claim 8, Gu renders as obvious the optical device of claim 1 (see above 103 rejection based on well-known principles), wherein the at least one active optical element 210 includes a dispersion compensator 210/200 (e.g., Gu fig. 2; col. 5 line 60 to col. 6 line 47).
Claim(s) 1, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindlein et al. (US 20080219620; “Lindlein”) with obviousness evidenced by Lee (US 5453827) and/or Tselikov et al. (US 6574015; “Tselikov”) and/or Le et al. (US 20130331689; “Le”) and/or Carter (US 4732452).
Regarding claim 1, Lindlein teaches an optical device, comprising: a fiber 1501 to provide a beam (e.g., fig. 15; ¶ 0069); quarter pitch graded-index element(s) 1502/1503 to expand (e.g., ¶ 0069: beam expander) or magnify the beam (e.g., fig. 15; ¶ 0069), wherein an input facet of the graded-index element 1502 is coupled/optically connected to an output facet of the fiber 1501 (e.g., fig. 15); and an optical transformation element 1504 (e.g., fig. 15; ¶ 0069) to transform the beam after the beam is expanded or magnified by the graded-index element(s) 1502/1503, wherein an input facet of the optical transformation element 1504 is abutted/mechanically coupled to an output facet of the graded-index element 1502/1503 (e.g., fig. 15), and wherein the optical transformation element 1504 comprises at least one active optical element (e.g., fig. 15; phase plate 1504 acts to modify/correct the phase and thus is a phase plate corrector; since a phase plate acts to modify/correct the phase, it is an active optical element and may be termed a “phase plate corrector”).
Moreover, Tselikov indicates it is well-known to use index matching epoxy between GRIN lenses and the ends of fibers (e.g., Tselikov col. 6 line 60 to col. 7 line 10; additionally, it is noted that it is extremely well known that index matching epoxy “adheres” once cured).
Also Le indicates it is well-known for a GRIN lens and a fiber to be fusion spliced (e.g., Le ¶ 0006; additionally, it is noted that items fused/spliced together are “adhered” following the plain meaning of “adhered”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhere/bond the GRIN lens 1502/1503 to the end of input OF 1501 (e.g., fig. 15).
Additionally, Carter teaches it is well known to abut and bond a SELFOC/GRIN lens to a glass plate which indicates the well-known nature of bonding/adhering in general a GRIN lens to virtually any plate or flat surface (e.g., Carter col. 2 line 50 to col. 3 line 10). So, bonding GRIN lens 1502/1503 to phase plate 1504 (e.g., Lindlein fig. 15; for similar reasons, bonding element 1502 to element 1503 would also have been obvious) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an input facet of the optical transformation element 1504 to be adhered to an output facet of graded-index fiber 1503 at least for the purpose of better fixing the objects/components together and/or maintaining the proper relative position of components to maximize coupling through index matching material/adhesive for better fixing the objects/components together and/or maintaining the proper relative position of components to maximize coupling through index matching material/adhesive.
Thus claim 1 is rejected.
Regarding claim 9, Lindlein renders as obvious the optical device of claim 1 (see above 103 rejection based on well-known principles),, wherein the at least one active optical element includes a phase plate 1504 corrector (e.g., since a phase plate acts to modify/correct the phase, it is an active optical element and may be termed a “phase plate corrector”).
Claim(s) 12-14, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindlein et al. (US 20080219620; “Lindlein”) with obviousness evidenced by Lee (US 5453827) and/or Tselikov et al. (US 6574015; “Tselikov”) and/or Le et al. (US 20130331689; “Le”) and/or Carter (US 4732452) and/or Chang (US 20030161578) .
Regarding claim 12, Lindlein teaches an optical system, comprising: an optical fiber device, including: a set of graded-index fibers 1502 1503 (e.g., fig. 15; ¶ 0069) associated with expanding (e.g., ¶ 0069: beam expander) or magnifying a beam provided by an input fiber 1501 (e.g., fig. 15), wherein an input facet of a first graded-index (GRIN) fiber 1502, of the set of graded- index fibers 1502 1503, is abutted to an output facet of the input fiber (e.g., fig. 15); and an optical transformation element 1504 associated with transforming the beam after expanding (e.g., ¶ 0069: beam expander) or magnifying by the first graded-index fiber 1502 (e.g., ¶ 0069: beam expander), wherein an input facet of the optical transformation element is abutted to an output facet of a particular graded-index fiber 1503 of the set of graded-index fibers 1502 1503 (e.g., fig. 15).
Lindlein does not explicitly state GRIN fiber 1502 is adhered to an output facet of the input fiber, an input facet of the optical transformation element is adhered to an output facet of a particular graded-index fiber 1503, and the optical transformation element 1504 is non-birefringent such that orthogonal polarizations of the beam do not experience distinct phase transformations.
Moreover, Tselikov indicates it is well-known to use index matching epoxy between GRIN lenses and the ends of fibers (e.g., Tselikov col. 6 line 60 to col. 7 line 10; additionally, it is noted that it is extremely well known that index matching epoxy “adheres” once cured).
Also Le indicates it is well-known for a GRIN lens and a fiber to be fusion spliced (e.g., Le ¶ 0006; additionally, it is noted that items fused/spliced together are “adhered” following the plain meaning of “adhered”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhere/bond the GRIN lens 1502/1503 to the end of input OF 1501 (e.g., fig. 15).
Additionally, Carter teaches it is well known to abut and bond a SELFOC/GRIN lens to a glass plate which indicates the well-known nature of bonding/adhering in general a GRIN lens to virtually any plate or flat surface (e.g., Carter col. 2 line 50 to col. 3 line 10). So, bonding GRIN lens 1502/1503 to phase plate 1504 (e.g., Lindlein fig. 15; for similar reasons, bonding element 1502 to element 1503 would also have been obvious) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an input facet of the optical transformation element 1504 to be adhered to an output facet of a particular graded-index fiber 1503 at least for the purpose of better fixing the objects/components together and/or maintaining the proper relative position of components to maximize coupling through index matching material/adhesive.
Furthermore, Lindlein teaches the optical transformation element 1504 is a phase plate 1504 (e.g., fig. 15; ¶ 0069). Lindlein also teaches it is at least obvious to make phase plates of fused silica (e.g., Lindlein ¶s 0007, 0029). Chang teaches it well-known to refer to fused silica as a non-birefringent material (e.g., Chang ¶ 0040). Thus, since it would have at least been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Lindlein’s phase plate (i.e., phase plate corrector 1504) 1504 out of fused silica, it would also be obvious to refer to Lindlein’s phase plate 1504 made out of fused silica as non-birefringent. Since it clearly would have been at least obvious for Lindlein’s phase plate 1504 to be made of fused silica, which is non-birefringent, it is reasonable to assert that orthogonal polarizations of the beam do not experience distinct phase transformations in Lindlein’s phase plate 1504 (i.e., phase plate corrector 1504).
Thus claim 12 is rejected.
Regarding claim 13, Lindlein renders as obvious the optical system of claim 12 (see above rejection based on well-known principles in the art), wherein the optical transformation element comprises at least one active optical element (e.g., since the phase plate 1504 acts to modify/correct the phase, it is an active optical element and may be termed a “phase plate corrector”).
Thus claim 13 is rejected.
Regarding claim 14, Lindlein renders as obvious the optical system of claim 13 wherein the at least one active optical element includes at least one of an acousto-optic modulator, an electro-optic modulator, a spatial light modulator, a focus tunable lens, a liquid crystal element, an optical switch, a dispersion compensator, or a phase plate corrector (e.g., since the phase plate 1504 acts to modify/correct the phase, it is an active optical element and may be termed a “phase plate corrector”).
Thus claim 14 is rejected.
Regarding claim 17, Lindlein teaches a method comprising: providing a beam to be transformed (e.g., ¶ 0069: beam expander; fig. 15), the beam being provided by a fiber 1501 included in an optical device (e.g., ¶ 0069: beam expander), expanding or magnifying the beam (e.g., ¶ 0069: beam expander), the beam being expanded or magnified by a graded- index element 1502/1503 included in the optical device (e.g., ¶ 0069: beam expander), wherein an input facet of the graded-index element 1502/1503 is abutted with an output facet of the fiber 1501 (e.g., fig. 15); and transforming the beam after the expanding or magnifying of the beam , the beam being transformed by an optical transformation element 1504 included in the optical device (e.g., ¶ 0069; fig. 15), wherein an input facet of the optical transformation element 1504 is abutted with an output facet of the graded-index element 1502/1503 (e.g., fig. 15), and wherein the optical transformation element 1504 comprises at least one active optical element (e.g., since the phase plate 1504 acts to modify/correct the phase, it is an active optical element and may be termed a “phase plate corrector”).
Lindlein does not explicitly state GRIN fiber 1502 is adhered to an output facet of the input fiber, an input facet of the optical transformation element is adhered to an output facet of a graded-index fiber 1503 (of graded index element 1502/1503), and the optical transformation element 1504 is non-birefringent such that orthogonal polarizations of the beam do not experience distinct phase transformations.
Moreover, Tselikov indicates it is well-known to use index matching epoxy between GRIN lenses and the ends of fibers (e.g., Tselikov col. 6 line 60 to col. 7 line 10; additionally, it is noted that it is extremely well known that index matching epoxy “adheres” once cured).
Also Le indicates it is well-known for a GRIN lens and a fiber to be fusion spliced (e.g., Le ¶ 0006; additionally, it is noted that items fused/spliced together are “adhered” following the plain meaning of “adhered”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adhere/bond the GRIN lens 1502/1503 to the end of input OF 1501 (e.g., fig. 15).
Additionally, Carter teaches it is well known to abut and bond a SELFOC/GRIN lens to a glass plate which indicates the well-known nature of bonding/adhering in general a GRIN lens to virtually any plate or flat surface (e.g., Carter col. 2 line 50 to col. 3 line 10). So, bonding GRIN lens 1502/1503 to phase plate 1504 (e.g., Lindlein fig. 15; for similar reasons, bonding element 1502 to element 1503 would also have been obvious) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an input facet of the optical transformation element 1504 to be adhered to an output facet of graded-index fiber 1503 at least for the purpose of better fixing the objects/components together and/or maintaining the proper relative position of components to maximize coupling through index matching material/adhesive.
Furthermore, Lindlein teaches the optical transformation element 1504 is a phase plate 1504 (e.g., fig. 15; ¶ 0069). Lindlein also teaches it is at least obvious to make phase plates of fused silica (e.g., Lindlein ¶s 0007, 0029). Chang teaches it well-known to refer to fused silica as a non-birefringent material (e.g., Chang ¶ 0040). Thus, since it would have at least been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Lindlein’s phase plate (i.e., phase plate corrector 1504) 1504 out of fused silica, it would also be obvious to refer to Lindlein’s phase plate 1504 made out of fused silica as non-birefringent. Since it clearly would have been at least obvious for Lindlein’s phase plate 1504 to be made of fused silica, which is non-birefringent, it is reasonable to assert that orthogonal polarizations of the beam do not experience distinct phase transformations in Lindlein’s phase plate 1504 (i.e., phase plate corrector 1504).
Thus claim 17 is rejected.
Regarding claim 18, Lindlein renders as obvious the method of claim 17 (see above), wherein the at least one active optical element includes at least one of an acousto-optic modulator, an electro-optic modulator, a spatial light modulator, a focus tunable lens, a liquid crystal element, an optical switch, a dispersion compensator, or a phase plate corrector (e.g., since the phase plate 1504 acts to modify/correct the phase, it is an active optical element and may be termed a “phase plate corrector”).
Thus claim 18 is rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art for the modulators (acousto-optic and electro-optic) of respective claims 2, 3 is Farries et al. (US 20030194237; “Farries”). However, Farries, although teaching GRIN lenses 50a interfacing with a modulator (e.g., Farries fig. 8), it does not have the optical fiber at the other facet of the GRIN lens/element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ooi et al. (US 20050226122; “Ooi”) teaches a substrate 6 with a flat surface having phase plates, as a non-limiting example of a phase plate structure that has a flat surface that would be obvious to bond to a flat-surfaces lens or other optical coupling structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mr. Michael Mooney whose telephone number is 571-272-2422. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays, M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For checking the filing status of an application, please refer to <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/checking-application-status/check-filing-status-your-patent-application>.
/MICHAEL P MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874