DETAILED ACTION
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
The Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I directed to claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashrafi et al (US Pub 20160043794) in view of Lightman et al (Exploring for New Insights in the Performance of a 3D Orbital Angular Momentum Mode-Sorter).
Regarding Claim 1. Ashrafi discloses an optical arrangement comprising:
a focal plane (Fig 28, where an optical arrangement comprises a focal plane (i.e. f));
an angular momentum splitter (Fig 28, where the optical arrangement comprises an angular momentum splitter (i.e. an OAM mode sorter)) configured to:
split an incident electromagnetic wave along optical states, the optical states including a plurality of angular momentum states, focus the split electromagnetic wave onto target areas corresponding to the plurality of angular momentum states, the target areas being on the focal plane (Fig 28, where the angular momentum splitter (i.e. an OAM mode sorter) is configured to split an incident electromagnetic wave along optical states (e.g. OAM states), the optical states (e.g. OAM states) includes a plurality of angular momentum states (e.g. ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3, ℓ4), focus the split electromagnetic wave onto target areas (e.g. spots) corresponding to the plurality of angular momentum states (e.g. ℓ1, ℓ2, ℓ3, ℓ4), the target areas (e.g. spots) being on the focal plane (i.e. f)).
Ashrafi fails to explicitly disclose the OAM mode sorter being three-dimensional (3D).
However, Lightman discloses
an OAM mode sorter being 3D (Fig 2, where an OAM mode-sorter is 3D (as also shown in Fig 1)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the OAM mode sorter as described in Ashrafi, with the teachings of OAM mode-sorter as described in Lightman. The motivation being is that as shown an OAM mode-sorter can be 3D and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the OAM mode sorter as described in Ashrafi and have the OAM mode sorter be 3D i.e. as an alternative so as to have the OAM mode sorter with a known technique of a known OAM mode-sorter for the purpose of optimally de-multiplexing OAM signals with improved performance and which technique implements the benefits of using a 3D OAM mode-sorter into the system which includes for example being small scale, 3D and high quality and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. OAM mode sorters) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known OAM mode-sorter into another similar OAM mode sorter, namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 15. Ashrafi as modified by Lightman also discloses a fiber communication system including one or more of the optical arrangement of claim 1 disposed on a transmitter or a receiver side (Ashrafi Fig 28, where a fiber communication system (e.g. as shown in Fig 7 and Fig 8) includes the optical arrangement of claim 1 disposed on a receiver side (e.g. as shown in Fig 8)).
Regarding Claim 16. Ashrafi as modified by Lightman also discloses a camera comprising the optical arrangement of claim 1 (Lightman Fig 2, where a camera (i.e. Camera) comprises the optical arrangement of claim 1).
Claims 6-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashrafi et al (US Pub 20160043794) in view of Lightman et al (Exploring for New Insights in the Performance of a 3D Orbital Angular Momentum Mode-Sorter) in further view of Milione et al (Orbital-Angular-Momentum Mode (De)Multiplexer: A Single Optical Element for MIMO-based and non-MIMO based Multimode Fiber Systems).
Regarding Claim 6. Ashrafi as modified by Lightman fails to explicitly disclose the optical arrangement, wherein the optical states further include two additional polarization states that are orthogonal to each other.
However, Milione discloses
optical states include two additional polarization states that are orthogonal to each other (Fig 1, section “Experimental Demonstration” para [2] where optical states (i.e. OAM-states) include two additional polarization states (i.e. x-pol, y-pol) that are orthogonal to each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical states (e.g. OAM states) as described in Ashrafi as modified by Lightman, with the teachings of the optical states (i.e. OAM-states) as described in Milione. The motivation being is that as shown optical states (i.e. OAM-states) can include two additional polarization states (i.e. x-pol, y-pol) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the optical states (e.g. OAM states) as described in Ashrafi as modified by Lightman and have the optical states (e.g. OAM states) include two additional polarization states (i.e. x-pol, y-pol) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the optical states (e.g. OAM states) with a known technique of known optical states (i.e. OAM-states) for the purpose of optimally transmitting information by using two optical polarizations (i.e. x-pol, y-pol) and which technique increases the amount of information that is being transmitted in the system and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. OAM states) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of known optical states (i.e. OAM-states) into other similar optical states (e.g. OAM states), namely, for their improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 7. Ashrafi as modified by Lightman and Milione also discloses the optical arrangement, wherein the two additional polarization states include either a circular polarization or a linear polarization (Milione Fig 1, section “Experimental Demonstration” para [2] where the two additional polarization states (i.e. x-pol, y-pol) include linear polarization).
Claims 8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashrafi et al (US Pub 20160043794) in view of Lightman et al (Exploring for New Insights in the Performance of a 3D Orbital Angular Momentum Mode-Sorter) in further view of Buck (US Pat 11057116).
Regarding Claim 8. Ashrafi as modified by Lightman also discloses the optical arrangement, further comprising a receiver, the receiver aligned with the focal plane in correspondence with the target areas (Ashrafi Fig 28, where the optical arrangement further comprises a receiver and the receiver is aligned with the focal plane (i.e. f) in correspondence with the target areas (e.g. spots)).
Ashrafi as modified by Lightman fails to explicitly disclose the receiver being a sensor array and the sensor array including a plurality of pixels.
However, Buck discloses
a receiver being a sensor array and the sensor array including a plurality of pixels (Fig 2A, where a receiver (206) is a sensor array (Detector Array) and the sensor array (Detector Array) includes a plurality of pixels (individual light detecting elements)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the receiver as described in Ashrafi as modified by Lightman, with the teachings of the receiver (206) as described in Buck. The motivation being is that as shown a receiver (206) can be a sensor array (Detector Array) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the receiver as described in Ashrafi as modified by Lightman and have the receiver be a sensor array (Detector Array) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the receiver with a known technique of a known receiver (206) for the purpose of optimally converting received optical signals into electrical signals and which technique facilitates detection and recovery of information that is being transmitted in the system and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. OAM receivers) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known receiver (206) into another similar receiver, namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 9. Ashrafi as modified by Lightman and Buck also discloses the optical arrangement, further comprising a processing unit connected with the sensor array to process information from the split electromagnetic wave received from the sensor array pixels (Buck Fig 2A, where an optical arrangement comprises a processing unit (208) connected with the sensor array (Detector Array) to process information from an split electromagnetic wave received from the sensor array (Detector Array) pixels (individual light detecting elements)).
Regarding Claim 10. Ashrafi as modified by Lightman and Buck also discloses an imaging system comprising the optical arrangement of claim 9, wherein the incident electromagnetic wave is generated from an input light hitting an object and undergoing a reflection (Buck Fig 2A, Fig 3A, where an imaging system (300A) comprises the optical arrangement of claim 9 (i.e. at Receiver 303) and where an incident electromagnetic wave is generated from an input light hitting an object (Target 308) and undergoing a reflection).
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashrafi et al (US Pub 20160043794) in view of Lightman et al (Exploring for New Insights in the Performance of a 3D Orbital Angular Momentum Mode-Sorter) in further view of Buck (US Pat 11057116) in further view of Zhu (US Pub 20140078514).
Regarding Claim 11. Ashrafi as modified by Lightman and Buck fails to explicitly disclose the imaging system, further comprising an optical block including a beamsplitter and lenses, the optical block being configured to guide the input light to the object and the incident electromagnetic wave to the 3D angular momentum splitter.
However, Zhu discloses
an optical block including a beamsplitter and lenses, the optical block being configured to guide input light to an object and incident electromagnetic wave to a receiver (Fig 1, where a receiver (7) comprises an optical block (e.g. 3, 4, 6) that includes a beamsplitter (4) and lenses (3, 6), the optical block (e.g. 3, 4, 6) is configured to guide input light to an object (10) and incident electromagnetic wave to the receiver (7)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the 3D OAM mode-sorter (i.e. at Receiver 303) as described in Ashrafi as modified by Lightman and Buck, with the teachings of the receiver (7) as described in Zhu. The motivation being is that as shown a receiver (7) can comprise an optical block (e.g. 3, 4, 6) configured to guide input light to an object (10) and incident electromagnetic wave to the receiver (7) and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the 3D OAM mode-sorter (i.e. at Receiver 303) as described in Ashrafi as modified by Lightman and Buck and have the 3D OAM mode-sorter (i.e. at Receiver 303) comprise an optical block (e.g. 3, 4, 6) configured to guide input light to an object (Target 308) and incident electromagnetic wave to the 3D OAM mode-sorter (i.e. at Receiver 303) i.e. as an alternative so as to have the 3D OAM mode-sorter (i.e. at Receiver 303) with a known technique of a known receiver (7) for the purpose of optimally guiding and directing optical signals from a transmitter to an object and from the object to a receiver and which technique increases efficiency in the system because optical signals are being better guided and directed and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. transmitters, objects, receivers) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known receiver (7) into another similar 3D OAM mode-sorter (i.e. at Receiver 303), namely, for its improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 12-14 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.
Conclusion
The prior art considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure and not relied upon is the following:
Romanato et al (US Pub 20190215069) and more specifically Fig 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634