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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 1/26/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 1/26/2026.
Cancellation of claims 1-10 and 15, filed 1/26/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Amendments to claims 11-12, 14, and 16-20, filed 1/26/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Newly submitted claims 21-29, filed 1/26/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Due to the claim amendments and cancellations, much of the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are now irrelevant and hereby withdrawn. However, the latest amendments have also introduced a host of new 112(b) issues which are now raised below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 with respect to claim 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pgs. 9-11 of the Remarks, Applicant apparently argues (see also Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below) that Garbin does not disclose
“an input adjustment element for maintaining or changing the polarization […] in a controlled manner […so that outcoupled light will] have the specific polarization”
as claimed in the amended claim 11. Examiner disagrees for reasons given as follows.
As stated in the Non-Final Rejection (e.g. ¶s 25.B, 36.B), Garbin directly establishes that varying input parameters, such as power/intensity and wavelength/ frequency, may produce a corresponding change in the polarization state. Such effects clearly illustrate an input adjustment mechanism that maintains or changes the polarization in a controlled manner.
Applicant should also note that Garbin being
“a scientific publication reporting an experimental study of the physical phenomenon of polarization symmetry breaking” – Remarks pg. 10
does nothing to limit their disclosure in any relevant way – certainly not in one which would detract from its applicability towards the claimed features. Instead, Examiner finds that Garbin’s investigation on symmetry breaking, including mapping of the associated phase space (i.e. the polarization effects as a function of inputs sampled across the parameter space), necessarily involves a controlled approach to input adjustment due to its basic scientific nature. Garbin’s disclosure thus encompasses the argued aspects of the claims which, in large part, simply describe a device operating on much of the same underlying physics that is the subject of Garbin’s work.
It is further noted that Applicant’s arguments to the contrary appears to rely on little more than mere assertions of some intended purpose for Garbin’s teachings (“Garbin is merely limited to showing the symmetry breaking”, Remarks pg. 10). These are rather empty and conclusory allegations, however, apparently flowing from an unjustifiably narrow perspective of Garbin’s disclosure – one that disregards the actual functional/operational details taught in the prior art, and that fails to consider how these details may apply towards the material recited in the claims. Thus, with respect Applicant’s statement that
“Instead of using the polarization symmetry breaking for adjusting the polarization of a light wave in a controlled manner, Garbin merely investigates the physical phenomenon of the polarization symmetry breaking” – Remarks pg. 10
Applicant is urged to reconsider how Garbin investigates the phenomenon in the first place – rather than simply rely on some arbitrary notion of use or purpose, for which Applicant has failed to identify any particular features of structural/physical significance that would properly distinguish the invention from the prior art.
The simple fact remains that the relevant physical effects are mutually consistent; broken symmetry and polarization effects occur concurrently. There is no physically valid argument that Garbin’s experiments on symmetry breaking – associated with and accompanied by changes in polarization – is somehow deficient for not “using” the symmetry breaking to produce said polarization changes. The distinction Applicant is attempting to draw here is purely semantic and does not appear to serve any purpose other than to be argumentatively convenient.
Examiner similarly finds Applicant’s repeated emphasis on a “specific” polarization is neither a useful nor meaningful distinction to make. Polarization is a physical observable with some functional dependence on experimental inputs. Specificity is quite implicit.
Examiner lastly notes that the arguments which are ultimately directed only to some intended uses or purported benefits
( “claim 11 provides a technical solution […] which makes use of spontaneous symmetry breaking”, “this allows […] a compact and small configuration allowing miniaturization”, “enables the use of such devices […]”, “may allow […]”, “may facilitate[…]” – Remarks pg. 11)
are largely irrelevant, given the lack of substance presented in the other accompanying arguments addressed above. Note that arguments which amount only to some general allegations that the claims define a patentable invention – without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references – will generally fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b).
Next, on pgs. 11-12 of the Remarks, Applicant appears to argue that amended claims 17 and 18 are not anticipated by the prior art – apparently on the same grounds argued for amended claim 11 addressed above. If this is the case, Examiner naturally disagrees for the same reasons already given.
On pg. 12 of the Remarks, Applicant writes that Garbin fails to anticipate amended claim 14 due to Garbin’s carving of pulses from a continuous wave laser, arguing that
“Garbin explicitly and intentionally uses pulsed radiation instead of coupling cw light waves into the resonator” – Remarks pg. 12
However, Applicant should note that claim 14, as currently written, does not appear to require the continuous beam coupled directly into the resonator itself. The argument is therefore irrelevant to the actual subject matter claimed – though it does become relevant with respect to claim 20 (and to claim 19) as addressed below.
On pg. 13 of the Remarks, Applicant finally argues that Garbin’s carving of pulses fails to anticipate amended claim 20, which now recites
“coupling the light wave as a continuous light wave into the resonator cavity”
While Examiner does agree that this presents a minor distinction, Applicant should recognize that Garbin’s decision to carve pulses from a continuous wave is a mere matter of convenient design choice to suit some particular experimental details (e.g. to avoid the Brillouin scattering, as Applicant noted in their Remarks). Garbin is quite upfront about this fact in sec. III, and provides plain and repeated reminders that the relevant physics remains applicable to continuous wave applications, with associated steady-state assumptions guiding their understanding throughout their investigation (sec II: “assuming continuous-wave (cw) driving […]”, sec. IV: “to identify all the cw stationary solutions of the system […]”). Thus, continuous wave coupling into the resonator cavity remains an obvious design choice in view of Garbin – e.g. in certain (sensing) applications, where steady light signals may be more common or convenient – as noted in the updated rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-14 and 16-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, line 19, “in resonator cavity” should apparently read “in the resonator cavity”
In claim 14, line 15-19’s “a light source […]” and line 20-26’s “a polarization analyzer […]” have hanging indents that are not consistent with line 3-5’s “a polarization alteration device” – despite apparently being on the same level in the list structure (currently reads as subordinate to line 3-5’s “a polarization alteration device […]”, under which line 6-14’s two “exhibit […]” limitations have similar hanging indents)
In claim 17, lines 8-9, “confined the resonator cavity” should apparently read “confined in the resonator cavity”
In claim 18, line 11, “the additional polarization components” should apparently read “the additional polarization component”
In claim 18, lines 14-15, “confined the resonator cavity” should apparently read “confined in the resonator cavity”
In claim 20, lines 10-14 reciting “coupling […] and measuring […] and determining […]” is an ill-formed list and run-on clause. A more proper form may have just one coordinating conjunction prior to the last element, may break each element into its own limitation, etc.
In claim 24, lines 1-3 recite “as a fiber cavity or as a waveguide carrier or as a free space cavity” which an ill-formed list. A more proper form may have just one coordinating conjunction prior to the last element of a comma-separated list, for example: “as a fiber cavity, as a waveguide carrier, or as a free space cavity”
Claims not specifically addressed in the objections above inherit the objections of the claim from which they depend. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-14 and 16-29 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.
Regarding claims 11, 14, 17, 18, and 22, claim 11, lines 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 15-16, 17-18, 19-20, 22; claim 12, lines 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 15-16, 17-18, 20-21, 22-23, 25-26; claim 14, lines 6-7, 8-9, 14-15, 16; claim 17, lines 6-7, 8-9, 9-10, 12, 14-15, 16; claim 18, lines 6-7, 8, 12-13, 14-15, 15-16, 18; and claim 22, lines 2-3 recite “[a/the] light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity” (or some variant; see Claim Objections above or other rejections below).
The claims are unclear and indefinite, first due to the fact that they fail to clearly distinguish between light waves at different stages of operation – namely: (1) light before entering the cavity, (2) light confined within the cavity, and (3) light after exiting the cavity. On its face, the “light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity” label appears to mix stages (1) and (2) together; compare, for example, FIG. 1 and ¶ 47 of the specification:
“the light wave 100 which is coupled into resonator cavity 12 is partially confined within the resonator cavity 12 as a confined light wave 102”
But to add further confusion to the matter, the claims go on to either attribute distinct/ incompatible features associated with different stages to the same label, or they assign attributes in a manner where it is not even clear what stage of light is being referenced.
Claim 11, for example:
first describes the effects of the resonator cavity on the light wave coupled into […] (lines 7-8, 10-11, 13-14), apparently corresponding to stage (2).
then recites “maintaining or changing the polarization of the light wave coupled into […] by adjusting the intensity and/or a central wavelength of the light wave coupled into […]” (lines 15-16, 17-28). However, it is unclear whether we are even in stage (1) or (2) at this point.
Has the light already reached stage (2) and been delivered into and confined within the cavity? If so, does Applicant claim influence over the already-confined waves somehow and subject them to active adjustments of intensities/wavelengths?
Or is it actually the light waves in stage (1) which have not yet reached the cavity that are being adjusted? How can polarization changes even take place in (1), prior to the cavity? Or do polarization changes not occur until the light enters the cavity in stage (2)? This last case appears to be the most plausible and consistent with the specification. However, none of this is particularly clear from the claims as currently written.
further recites “the light wave coupled into […] which is coupled out of the resonator” (lines 19-20), apparently corresponding to stage (3), while reusing the same label in a grossly inconsistent manner that generates further confusion.
Thus, claim 11 scrambles the concepts by mixing and matching distinct stages of light waves without clearly distinguishing between them, and all while labeling each as “the light wave coupled into […]”, as if they all correspond to one another. As a result, it is broadly unclear what the recited “light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity” actually represents in any given instance, rendering the scope of claim 11 – and claims 14 and 17-18, reciting or rephrasing much of the same features – wholly indefinite.
Note the above issues may be further exacerbated by other inconsistencies or deficiencies present throughout the claims; see further rejections set forth below.
Note also that, for examination purposes below, and for each instance of “light wave coupled into […]”, Examiner will apply the broadest reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the specification and with a conventional understanding of the art (the interpretations being generally consistent with those already applied in the last Non-Final Office Action).
Further regarding claim 11, lines 15-22 reciting
“an input adjustment element for maintaining or changing the polarization of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity in a controlled manner by adjusting the intensity and/or a central wavelength of the light wave coupled into and confined in resonator cavity of the polarization alteration device, wherein the input adjustment element is configured to control a polarization of a part of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity which is coupled out of the resonator cavity to have the specific polarization by adjusting a power and/or central wavelength of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity”
is grammatically ambiguous, unclear, and imprecise, with stacked modifiers that strain the grammar of the limitation and add greater confusion to the claim. It is also largely redundant. Note that, from such redundancy, lines 15-16 recite
“an input adjustment element for maintaining or changing the polarization of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity”
only for lines 18-20 to later recite
“the input adjustment element is configured to control a polarization of a part of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity”
which makes it further unclear whether the input adjustment element affects the polarization of the whole light wave or just part of it. For examination purposes below, the limitation is interpreted to mean that the input adjustment element may adjust the wavelength and/or intensity of light prior to being incoupled into the resonator cavity. It is also understood that this is done to influence what polarization changes may occur within the cavity. It is further understood that, by this mechanism, the light that is then outcoupled from the cavity may have a polarization which differs from that of the light prior to incoupling.
Further regarding claim 14, lines 15-19 reciting
“a light source for coupling the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity as a linearly polarized continuous light wave into the polarization alteration device”
is grammatically ambiguous, unclear, and imprecise, with stacked modifiers that strain the grammar of the limitation and add greater confusion to the claim. For examination purposes below, the limitation is interpreted to mean that the light source provides continuous light for the polarization alteration device. It is also understood that the light that is ultimately incoupled into the cavity can be traced back to the light source’s continuous light.
Further regarding claim 14, lines 20-26 reciting
“a polarization analyzer for analyzing the polarization of a part of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity which is coupled out of the polarization alteration device and determining a change of the polarization of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity of the polarization alteration device based on a measured change of the polarization of the part of the light wave coupled into and confined the resonator cavity which is coupled out of the resonator cavity”
is grammatically ambiguous, unclear, and imprecise, with stacked modifiers that strain the grammar of the limitation and add greater confusion to the claim. For examination purposes below, the limitation is interpreted to mean that the polarization analyzer determines polarization changes that occurred in the cavity – i.e. how polarization changes when comparing light prior to entering the cavity and light after exiting the cavity.
Further regarding claim 17, lines 14-15 recite “the light wave coupled into the resonator cavity”, which is inconsistent with other instances of “the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity” discussed above, and adds greater confusion to the claim as it is not clear whether removing the confinement aspect bears any significance.
Further regarding claim 20, the claim is generally unclear for repeatedly introducing and inconsistently referencing what appears to be a single concept. Lines 1-2 recite “a continuous light wave”. Line 5 then introduces a “light wave”. Line 7 again reintroduces “a continuous light wave” (which overloads the phrase and obscures antecedence) and identifies it with the aforementioned “light wave”. Lines 7-8 also recite “coupling the light wave […] into the resonator cavity such that the light wave is confined in the resonator cavity”, but then line 10 only recites “the light wave confined in the resonator cavity” before switching to “the light wave coupled into the resonator cavity or confined within the resonator cavity”.
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejection above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-14, 17-18, 21-22, 24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garbin et al (NPL entitled Asymmetric balance in symmetry breaking, hereinafter “Garbin”).
Regarding claim 11, Garbin discloses (see FIGs. 1-2, sec. II-III) a polarization control device for providing a light wave having a specific polarization, the polarization control device comprising:
a polarization alteration device comprising a resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator” pictured in FIG. 1a) having a resonance mode at a resonance wavelength and a linewidth (FIG. 1c, blue curve), wherein the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) is configured to:
exhibit no intensity-independent birefringence or an intensity-independent birefringence, whose effect on a light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity is smaller than the linewidth of the resonance mode (As discussed in sec. II and shown in FIG. 1b, degenerate states
E
+
and
E
-
are related by a symmetry transformation, and at low intensities (“control parameter”) – i.e. where second order intensity-dependent effects are negligible and the intensity-independent contributions dominate – the two states share a common intensity, implying a shared resonance condition. Thus, in this region below the threshold, these intensity-independent contributions have effects smaller than the linewidth of the resonance mode, as no resonance splitting is evident here); and
exhibit a Kerr nonlinearity, which is adapted to generate an additional polarization component due to symmetry breaking for the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity having a light intensity exceeding a threshold intensity (as shown in FIG. 1(b,c), the symmetry is broken and degeneracy is lifted at high intensities (“control parameter”) above the threshold, allowing the two states to propagate at different speeds (i.e. “phase shift”); this enables the generation of additional polarization components), wherein a polarization direction of the additional polarization component is orthogonal to an initial polarization component of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) (Examiner notes that this relationship between initial/additional polarizations is automatically satisfied by any pair of input/output polarizations that differ by any nonzero amount.); and
an input adjustment element (“piezoelectric actuator”) for maintaining or changing the polarization of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) in a controlled manner by adjusting the intensity (i.e. corresponding to the “driving power”) and/or a central wavelength of the light wave coupled into and confined in resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) of the polarization alteration device, wherein the input adjustment element (“piezoelectric actuator”) is configured to control a polarization of a part of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) which is coupled out of the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) to have the specific polarization by adjusting a power (“driving power”, or
X
in eqns. 1-2) and/or central wavelength (corresponding to “driving laser frequency”) of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”). (Note while FIG. 1’s caption states that “The control parameter can be either the driving power or the “driving laser frequency”, the experiments described in sec. III focus on frequency because it is “simpler to manipulate”)
Regarding claim 12, Garbin discloses the polarization control device according to claim 11.
Garbin also discloses (see FIG. 2, sec. III) the further comprising a light source (from sec. III: “our driving laser, a distributed-feedback cw erbium-doped fiber laser”), wherein the input adjustment element (“piezoelectric actuator”) is configured to control the light source (“driving laser”) for adjusting the intensity (corresponding to “driving power”) and/or central wavelength (corresponding to “driving laser frequency”) of the light wave coupled into the polarization alteration device.
Regarding claim 13, Garbin discloses the polarization control device according to claim 12.
Garbin further discloses wherein the light source (“driving laser”) is adapted to emit a continuous light wave. (From sec. III: “our driving laser, a distributed-feedback cw erbium-doped fiber laser”. Note, per sec. II, that “cw” abbreviates “continuous-wave”)
Regarding claim 14, Garbin discloses a polarization sensor (see FIG. 2, sec. II-III) for sensing a change of polarization direction of a light wave (see also sec. VI discussing sensing applications), the polarization sensor comprising:
a polarization alteration device comprising a resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator” pictured in FIG. 1a) having a resonance mode at a resonance wavelength and a linewidth (FIG. 1c, blue curve), wherein the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) is configured to:
exhibit no intensity-independent birefringence or an intensity-independent birefringence, whose effect on a light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity is smaller than the linewidth of the resonance mode (As discussed in sec. II and shown in FIG. 1b, degenerate states
E
+
and
E
-
are related by a symmetry transformation, and at low intensities (“control parameter”) – i.e. where second order intensity-dependent effects are negligible and the intensity-independent contributions dominate – the two states share a common intensity, implying a shared resonance condition. Thus, in this region below the threshold, these intensity-independent contributions have effects smaller than the linewidth of the resonance mode, as no resonance splitting is evident here); and
exhibit a Kerr nonlinearity, which is adapted to generate an additional polarization component due to symmetry breaking for the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity having a light intensity exceeding a threshold intensity (as shown in FIG. 1(b,c), the symmetry is broken and degeneracy is lifted at high intensities (“control parameter”) above the threshold, allowing the two states to propagate at different speeds (i.e. “phase shift”); this enables the generation of additional polarization components), wherein a polarization direction of the additional polarization component is orthogonal to an initial polarization component of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) (Examiner notes that this relationship between initial/additional polarizations is automatically satisfied by any pair of input/output polarizations that differ by any nonzero amount.);
a light source (“driving laser”) for coupling the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) as a linearly polarized continuous light wave into the polarization alteration device, such that the intensity of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) of the polarization alteration device exceeds the threshold intensity for the Kerr nonlinearity (from sec. II: “The driving laser frequency […] offers a simple way to scan the cavity resonances. It is the control parameter we use to cross the SSB [spontaneous symmetry breaking] bifurcation [i.e. the threshold into Kerr nonlinearity].”); and
a polarization analyzer (“output analysis” in FIG. 2) for analyzing the polarization of a part of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) which is coupled out of the polarization alteration device and determining a change of the polarization of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) of the polarization alteration device based on a measured change of the polarization of the part of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) which is coupled out of the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”).
(Regarding item C, Examiner first notes that relative intensities/phases between polarization components provides all necessary information to construct a polarization state. For intensity of light coupled into the resonator cavity, note from:
sec. II: “a driving power imbalance between the modes is accounted for by introducing an effective driving polarization ellipticity angle χ. An ellipticity angle χ of 45° represents perfectly balanced driving”
And regarding the phase difference, note from:
sec. III: " The dual carrier driving field is prepared, ahead of injection into the resonator, by splitting the output of the single frequency driving laser into two components with a polarization beam-splitter (PBS), and frequency-shifting one of these with an acousto-optic modulator (AOM) […] The two components are then recombined".
Now, for intensities of light coupled out of the resonator cavity, note from:
sec. III: "Another 1% tap coupler extracts a small fraction of the intracavity field for analysis through three photodiodes monitoring respectively the total output intensity as well as the individual intensities of the two polarization modes"
And regarding the phase difference, note from:
sec. II: "The difference in detuning,
δ
Δ
=
Δ
+
-
Δ
-
, equivalently represents the difference in wave numbers [that is directly related to the phase difference] with which the two polarization components propagate inside the resonator"
sec. III: “adjusting the frequency of the rf signal applied onto the AOM (around 80 MHz) controls the effective isotropy, specifically the difference in wave numbers
δ
Δ
with which the two polarization components propagate inside the resonator"
Thus, all details pertinent to the input/output states and change of polarization are considered by Garbin. See also FIGs. 3-6 for polarization measurements/data associated with these in-/out-coupled light waves (output intensity measurements and detunings
Δ
+
, input ellipticities χ, detuning differences δΔ, etc.). See also Appendix A for related definitions/discussion.)
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Garbin discloses (see FIGs. 1-2, secs. II-III) a method for adjusting a polarization of a light wave having a linear polarization, the method comprising:
coupling the light wave into and confining the light wave in a resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) having a resonance mode at a resonance wavelength and a linewidth (FIG. 1c, blue curve), wherein the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) exhibits no intensity-independent birefringence or an intensity-independent birefringence, whose effect on the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) is smaller than the linewidth of a resonance mode (As discussed in sec. II and shown in FIG. 1b, degenerate states
E
+
and
E
-
are related by a symmetry transformation, and at low intensities (“control parameter”) – i.e. where second order intensity-dependent effects are negligible and the intensity-independent contributions dominate – the two states share a common intensity, implying a shared resonance condition. Thus, in this region below the threshold, these intensity-independent contributions have effects smaller than the linewidth of the resonance mode, as no resonance splitting is evident here);
changing the polarization of the light wave coupled into and confined the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) in a controlled manner by increasing an intensity of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) such as to exceed a threshold intensity for a Kerr nonlinearity of the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) to generate an additional polarization component for the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) due to symmetry breaking (as shown in FIG. 1(b,c), the symmetry is broken and degeneracy is lifted at high intensities (“control parameter”) above the threshold, allowing the two states to propagate at different speeds (i.e. “phase shift”); this enables the generation of additional polarization components), wherein a polarization direction of the additional polarization component is orthogonal to an initial polarization component of the light wave coupled into the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”); and
coupling out a part of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) after changing the polarization to provide the light wave having the adjusted polarization (“Another 1% tap coupler extracts a small fraction of the intracavity field for analysis through three photodiodes monitoring respectively the total output intensity as well as the individual intensities of the two polarization modes”).
Further regarding claim 18, Garbin discloses:
the light wave having a central wavelength (“driving laser frequency”)
changing the polarization of the light wave coupled into and confined the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) in a controlled manner by adjusting the central wavelength (“driving laser frequency”) of the light wave coupled into and confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) such as to overlap with one of several different resonance wavelengths split due to symmetry breaking. (From sec. III: “The driving laser frequency, which can be tuned via a piezoelectric actuator, offers a simple way to scan the cavity resonances.”).
Regarding claim 21, Garbin discloses the polarization control device according to claim 11.
Garbin further discloses (see FIG. 1, sec. II) wherein the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) exhibits at least two degenerate polarization resonance modes (
E
+
,
E
-
) sharing an identical resonance wavelength at intensities below the threshold intensity (from sec. II: "Ideally, when the two polarization modes are equally driven and are degenerate […] the modes have identical resonance frequencies […] and the two modes have the same intensities.") and differing in their polarization direction or polarization handedness (from sec II: “Our experiment is based on a passive nonlinear optical fiber ring resonator (akin to a Fabry-Pérot etalon) that presents two distinct orthogonal polarization modes.”).
Regarding claim 22, Garbin discloses the polarization control device according to claim 21.
Garbin further discloses (see FIG. 1, sec. II) wherein degenerate polarization resonance modes (
E
+
,
E
-
) split at an intensity of the light wave coupled into and confined in in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) exceeding the threshold intensity for the Kerr nonlinearity. (from sec II: “Symmetry breaking occurs above a certain threshold”)
Regarding claim 24, Garbin discloses the polarization control device according to claim 11.
Garbin further discloses (see FIG. 1, sec. II) wherein the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) is adapted as a fiber cavity or as a waveguide cavity or as a free space cavity comprising a nonlinear Kerr medium.
Regarding claim 26, Garbin discloses the polarization control device according to claim 11.
Garbin further discloses (see FIG. 2, secs. II-III) wherein the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) includes a fiber polarization controller (
P
C
i
n
t
r
a
) for reducing or eliminating any intensity-independent birefringence of the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”). (Note the following excerpts:
from sec. II: “Because of residual birefringence [i.e. including the intensity-independent contributions] in our fiber resonator, the resonances of the two polarization mode families are normally observed for different driving laser frequencies, which correspond to having different detunings in the equations above,
Δ
+
≠
Δ
-
. The difference in detuning,
δ
Δ
=
Δ
+
-
Δ
-
, equivalently represents the difference in wave numbers with which the two polarization components propagate inside the resonator”
from sec. III: “we purposefully introduce some fixed birefringence in the resonator through an intracavity polarization controller,
P
C
i
n
t
r
a
in Fig. 2, to counterbalance the associated difference in wave numbers, and to realize effective isotropic (or close to isotropic) conditions for the two driven polarization components [corresponding to conditions where intensity-independent contributions have been eliminated/reduced]”)
Regarding claim 27, Garbin discloses the polarization control device according to claim 11.
Garbin further discloses wherein resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) is or comprises a micro-resonator. (See sec. IV: “we note that, because optical fiber ring resonators are formally equivalent to Kerr microresonators”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 16 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garbin, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in in view of Del Bino et al (NPL entitled Symmetry Breaking of Counter-Propagating Light in a Nonlinear Resonator, hereinafter “Del Bino”).
Regarding claim 16, Garbin discloses the polarization control device according to claim 11.
Garbin does not disclose an electrooptical chip comprising the polarization control device. the polarization control device.
Garbin and Del Bino commonly relate to symmetry-broken Kerr resonators.
Del Bino discloses an electrooptical chip comprising the polarization control device (“whispering gallery resonator”). (See pg. 4: “threshold powers […] could be easily reduced to tens of microwatts by using chip-based resonators”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Garbin by on-chip integration, as taught by Del Bino, in order to reduce energy requirements needed to sustain the symmetry-broken state (Del Bino pg. 4), and more generally to fulfill optical sensing roles in modern circuits.
Regarding claim 29, Garbin discloses the polarization control device according to claim 11.
Garbin does not disclose wherein the polarization alteration device is integrated in a chip.
Garbin and Del Bino commonly relate to symmetry-broken Kerr resonators.
Del Bino discloses wherein the polarization alteration device (“whispering gallery resonator”) is integrated in a chip. (See pg. 4: “threshold powers […] could be easily reduced to tens of microwatts by using chip-based resonators”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Garbin by on-chip integration, as taught by Del Bino, in order to reduce energy requirements needed to sustain the symmetry-broken state (Del Bino pg. 4), and more generally to fulfill optical sensing roles in modern circuits.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garbin, as applied to claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 19, Garbin discloses the method for adjusting the polarization of the light wave according to claim 17.
Garbin also discloses wherein the light wave comes from a continuous wave source. (Sec. III: “our driving laser, a distributed-feedback cw[=continuous-wave] erbium-doped fiber laser”)
Garbin does not disclose wherein the light wave itself is a continuous light wave. Garbin instead carves pulses from their continuous wave source. (Sec. III. “pulses carved into the cw beam of our driving laser with an amplitude modulator (AM)”). However, Garbin quite clearly establishes this to be a matter of convenient design choice, simply to suit some experimental details/procedures (“to reach more easily the peak power […] pulses carved into the cw beam”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Garbin by maintaining a continuous light wave, in order to provide steady light signals in a simple apparatus that is suitable for continuous measurement in sensing/detection applications (Garbin, sec. VI), where pulsed operation and associated details may not be particularly necessary for basic operation.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garbin et al (NPL entitled Asymmetric balance in symmetry breaking, hereinafter “Garbin”).
Regarding claim 20, Garbin discloses a method for sensing a change of a polarization direction of a continuous light wave, the method comprising:
providing a resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) having a resonance at a resonance wavelength and a linewidth (FIG. 1c, blue curve), wherein the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) exhibits no intensity-independent birefringence or an intensity-independent birefringence, whose effect on a light wave confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) is less than the linewidth of the resonance (As discussed in sec. II and shown in FIG. 1b, degenerate states
E
+
and
E
-
are related by a symmetry transformation, and at low intensities (“control parameter”) – i.e. where second order intensity-dependent effects are negligible and the intensity-independent contributions dominate – the two states share a common intensity, implying a shared resonance condition. Thus, in this region below the threshold, these intensity-independent contributions have effects smaller than the linewidth of the resonance mode, as no resonance splitting is evident here);
coupling the light wave into the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) such that the light wave is confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) at an intensity exceeding a threshold intensity for a Kerr nonlinearity resulting in symmetry breaking (as shown in FIG. 1(b,c), the symmetry is broken and degeneracy is lifted at high intensities (“control parameter”) above the threshold, allowing the two states to propagate at different speeds (i.e. “phase shift”); this enables the generation of additional polarization components); and
coupling out a part of the light wave confined in the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”) and measuring the polarization of the part of the light wave coupled out of the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”)and determining a change of the polarization of the light wave coupled into the resonator cavity or confined within the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”)based on a measured change of the polarization of the part of the light wave coupled out of the resonator cavity (“fiber ring resonator”).
(Regarding item C, Examiner first notes that relative intensities/phases between polarization components provides all necessary information to construct a polarization state. For intensity of light coupled into the resonator cavity, note from:
sec. II: “a driving power imbalance between the modes is accounted for by introducing an effective driving polarization ellipticity angle χ. An ellipticity angle χ of 45° represents perfectly balanced driving”
And regarding the phase difference, note from:
sec. III: " The dual carrier driving field is prepared, ahead of injection into the resonator, by splitting the output of the single frequency driving laser into two components with a polarization beam-splitter (PBS), and frequency-shifting one of these with an acousto-optic modulator (AOM) […] The two components are then recombined".
Now, for intensities of light coupled out of the resonator cavity, note from:
sec. III: "Another 1% tap coupler extracts a small fraction of the intracavity field for analysis through three photodiodes monitoring respectively the total output intensity as well as the individual intensities of the two polarization modes"
And regarding the phase difference, note from:
sec. II: "The difference in detuning,
δ
Δ
=
Δ
+
-
Δ
-
, equivalently represents the difference in wave numbers [that is directly related to the phase difference] with which the two polarization components propagate inside the resonator"
sec. III: “adjusting the frequency of the rf signal applied onto the AOM (around 80 MHz) controls the effective isotropy, specifically the difference in wave numbers
δ
Δ
with which the two polarization components propagate inside the resonator"Thus, the outgoing light polarization is known. See also FIGs. 3 and 5 the partial intensities for each polarization component as a function of cavity detuning
Δ
+
(for fixed detuning difference
δ
Δ
)
Thus, all details pertinent to the input/output states and change of polarization are considered by Garbin. See also FIGs. 3-6 for polarization measurements/data associated with these in-/out-coupled light waves (output intensity measurements and detunings
Δ
+
, input ellipticities χ, detuning differences δΔ, etc.). See also Appendix A for related definitions/discussion.)
Garbin does not disclose coupling a continuous light wave into the resonator cavity. Garbin instead carves pulses from their continuous wave source. (Sec. III. “pulses carved into the cw beam of our driving laser with an amplitude modulator (AM)”). However, Garbin quite clearly establishes this to be a matter of convenient design choice to suit some experimental details/procedures (“to reach more easily the peak power […] pulses carved into the cw beam”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Garbin by maintaining a continuous light wave, in order to provide steady light signals in a simple apparatus that is suitable for continuous measurement in sensing/detection applications (Garbin, sec. VI), where pulsed operation and associated details may not be particularly necessary for basic operation.
Claims 23, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garbin, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in in view of Kim et al (KR 101589577 B1, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 23, Garbin discloses the polarization control device according to claim 11.
Garbin does not disclose wherein the resonator cavity further comprises at least two highly reflective mirrors.
Garbin and Kim commonly relate to nonlinear resonators and polarization modulation based on the Kerr effect.
Kim discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 25-28, 32, 51-56) wherein the resonator cavity (“[broadband, high-speed repetition-rate scanning fiber femtosecond laser] resonator”) further comprises at least two highly reflective mirrors (chirped fiber Bragg gratings 108, each with “a reflectivity of 90% or more”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Garbin with Kim’s fiber Bragg mirrors in order to tune the optical path within the resonator and control resonance-associated processes (Kim ¶s 32, 56).
Regarding claim 25, Garbin discloses the polarization control device according to claim 11.
Garbin does not disclose wherein the resonator cavity comprises two fiber Bragg mirrors as cavity mirrors.
Garbin and Kim commonly relate to nonlinear resonators and polarization modulation based on the Kerr effect.
Kim discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 25-28, 32, 51-56) wherein the resonator cavity (“[broadband, high-speed repetition-rate scanning fiber femtosecond laser] resonator”) comprises two fiber Bragg mirrors (chirped fiber Bragg gratings 108) as cavity mirrors.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Garbin with Kim’s fiber Bragg mirrors in order to tune the optical path within the resonator and control resonance-associated processes (Garbin ¶s 32, 56).
Regarding claim 28, Garbin discloses the polarization control device according to claim 11.
Garbin and Kim commonly relate to nonlinear resonators and polarization modulation based on the Kerr effect.
Kim discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 25-28, 32, 51-56) wherein the resonator cavity (“[broadband, high-speed repetition-rate scanning fiber femtosecond laser] resonator”) has a Finesse of at least 100. (While Kim does not explicitly disclose finesse values, Examiner notes that they do provide chirped fiber Bragg gratings 108, each with “a reflectivity of 90% or more”. Examiner notes also that a reflectance of 90% typically corresponds to a finesse of ~20-30%, while the finesse diverges as reflectance approaches 100%. And while some slight differences in finesse may depend more precisely on other system parameters, the stated estimate nonetheless provides a decent lower bound, even for fiber ring resonators (such as Garbin’s) that are equipped with reflecting member (such as Kim’s). Kim’s disclosure of a “reflectivity of 90% or more” thus supports finesse values greater than ~20-30, which encompasses the claimed range.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Garbin with Kim’s fiber Bragg mirrors in order to tune the optical path within the resonator and control resonance-associated processes (Garbin ¶s 32, 56).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights