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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument(s).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the monitor light of a certain polarization must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “monitor light of a certain polarization.”
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to Claim 1, the recitation “second monitor port being configured to monitor the second output light an input lens system facing the input port;” in lines 13-14 of the claim, lacks punctuation separating the claim limitations (e.g., a semicolon).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-3 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.
With respect to Claim 1, the recitation “the first/second polarizer being configured to transmit only monitor light of a certain polarization of a first/second monitor light, the first/second monitor light being transmitted through the semiconductor modulator” includes relative terminology which renders the claim indefinite. The term “monitor light of a certain polarization” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
“Monitor light of a certain polarization” fails to specify what polarization state (e.g., linear, circular, orientation angle, the degree of polarization, etc.) qualifies as “certain,” nor does this recitation provide a standard for determining whether a given light signal satisfies the requirement of the claim limitation(s). Since a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope, the first polarizer, second polarizer, monitor light, first monitor light, second monitor light, and semiconductor modulator are also rendered indefinite for the use of the term “monitor light of a certain polarization.”
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within an optical module.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. JP 2019159077 A (see machine translation; herein after "Suzuki"), or alternatively, as being unpatentable over Suzuki JP 2019159077 A (see machine translation) in view of Pu et al. WO 2022100278 A1 (see machine translation; herein after "Pu").
With respect to Claim 1, Suzuki discloses an optical module (fig. 3) comprising:
a semiconductor modulator (optical modulator 100; [0015]) having a rectangular planar shape (substrate 10 of optical modulator 100 comprising rectangular planar shape as seen in fig. 3; [0015]), wherein the semiconductor modulator (optical modulator 100; [0015]) includes:
an input port (substrate 10 having one input port; [0015]) for receiving continuous light (linearly polarized optical signal/TE wave input from the input port; [0017]);
a dividing portion (demultiplexer 17; [0017]) for dividing the continuous light to obtain divided light rays (linearly polarized optical signal/TE wave is split by demultiplexer 17; [0017]);
modulation electrodes (IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0017]) for modulating the divided light rays (linearly polarized optical signal/TE wave is modulated by IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0017]), and converting one of the divided light rays (split by demultiplexer 17; [0017]) into a first modulation signal to generate a first output light and converting another one of the divided light rays into a second modulation signal to generate a second output light (main signal light and monitor light from IQ modulators 11 and 12 are output from each of two adjacent output ports and each of two outer output ports, monitor light is optical signal used to monitor output intensity of main signal light, two main signal beams and two monitor beams are incident on polarization multiplexer 300; [0017]);
a first output port (one of each of two adjacent output ports; [0017]) for outputting the first output light (main signal light from IQ modulators 11 and 12 is output from each of two adjacent output ports in center; [0017]);
a second output port (one of each of two adjacent output ports; [0017]) for outputting the second output light (main signal light from IQ modulators 11 and 12 is output from each of two adjacent output ports in center; [0017]);
a first monitor port (one of each of two outer output ports; [0017]) being configured to monitor the first output light (monitor light from IQ modulators 11 and 12 is output from each of two outer output ports; [0017]); and
a second monitor port (one of each of two outer output ports; [0017]) being configured to monitor the second output light (monitor light from IQ modulators 11 and 12 is output from each of two outer output ports; [0017])
an input lens system (optical lenses 21-24; [0017]) facing the input port (optical lenses 21-24 facing input port labeled near demultiplexer 17 as seen in fig. 3; [0015-17]);
a first output lens system (optical lenses 21 and 22; fig. 3) facing the first output port (main signal light from IQ modulator 11 output from one of each of two adjacent output ports; [0017]; fig. 3);
a second output lens system (optical lenses 23 and 24; fig. 3) facing the second output port (main signal light from IQ modulator 12 output from one of each of two adjacent output ports; [0017]; fig. 3);
a first monitor element (adjustment electrodes 15 and a 2-input, 2-output multiplexer 16 for each IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0016]) facing (fig. 3) the first monitor port (monitor light from IQ modulator 11 output from one of each of two outer output ports; [0017]; fig. 3);
a second monitor element (adjustment electrodes 15 and a 2-input, 2-output multiplexer 16 for each IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0016]) facing (fig. 3) the second monitor port (monitor light from IQ modulator 12 output from one of each of two outer output ports; [0017]; fig. 3);
a first polarizer (integrated unit of MZ modulators 13 and 14 for each IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0016]) disposed between (two IQ modulators 11 and 12 connected to outputs of demultiplexer 17, adjustment electrodes 15 and multiplexer 16 connected to outputs of MZ modulators 13 and 14, MZ modulators 13 and 14 being disposed between two outer output ports and adjustment electrodes 15 and multiplexer 16; [0016]; fig. 3) the first monitor port (one of each of two outer output ports; [0017]) and the first monitor element (adjustment electrodes 15 and a 2-input, 2-output multiplexer 16 for each IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0016]), the first monitor light (monitor light from IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0017]) being transmitted through (half-wave plate 50 transmits monitor light from IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0036]) the semiconductor modulator (optical modulator 100; [0015]); and
a second polarizer (integrated unit of MZ modulators 13 and 14 for each IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0016]) disposed between (MZ modulators 13 and 14 being disposed between two outer output ports and adjustment electrodes 15 and multiplexer 16; [0016]; fig. 3) the second monitor port (one of each of two outer output ports; [0017]) and the second monitor element (adjustment electrodes 15 and a 2-input, 2-output multiplexer 16 for each IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0016]), the second monitor light (monitor light from IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0017]) being transmitted through (half-wave plate 50 transmits monitor light from IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0036]) the semiconductor modulator (optical modulator 100; [0015]),
wherein the semiconductor modulator (optical modulator 100; [0015]) has a side surface (fig. 3),
wherein, at the side surface (fig. 3), the first output port (one of each of two adjacent output ports; [0017]) and the second output port (one of each of two adjacent output ports; [0017]) are each disposed on a corresponding one (two adjacent output ports each disposed on one side of each split by demultiplexer 17; fig. 3) of two sides (substrate/circuit board 10 has one-input, two-output demultiplexer 17 connected to an input port, two IQ modulators 11 and 12 connected to outputs of demultiplexer 17, TE wave input from input port split by demultiplexer 17, two sides as seen in fig. 3; [0016-17]) of the input port (substrate 10 having one input port; [0015]),
wherein the first monitor port (one of each of two outer output ports; [0017]) is disposed on a side (fig. 3) of the first output port (one of each of two adjacent output ports; [0017]), the side being opposite to a side thereof (each of two outer output ports on opposite side of one-input, two-output demultiplexer 17 connected to an input port; [0016-17]) where the input port (substrate 10 having one input port; [0015]) is disposed (fig.3); and
wherein the second monitor port (one of each of two outer output ports; [0017]) is disposed on a side (fig. 3) of the second output port (one of each of two adjacent output ports; [0017]), the side being opposite to a side thereof (each of two outer output ports on opposite side of one-input, two-output demultiplexer 17 connected to an input port; [0016-17]) where the input port (substrate 10 having one input port; [0015]) is disposed (fig. 3).
Suzuki does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): the first polarizer being configured to transmit only monitor light of a certain polarization of a first monitor light, and the second polarizer being configured to transmit only monitor light of a certain polarization of a second monitor light.
However, it has been held that where a mere rearrangement of parts without modification of the operation of the device is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See Section VI, citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Furthermore, it has been held that where a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. See Section VI, citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), wherein the court upheld that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.
In the instant case, Suzuki further teaches several polarizing elements (polarization multiplexer 300, polarization combining surface 303, polarized combined TM wave and TE wave, half-wave plate 50; [0018], [0036]), including a half-wave plate 50 transmitting monitor light from both IQ modulators 11 and 12 ([0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical modulator of Suzuki to further include the technical feature of rearranging and duplicating polarizing element(s) (MZ modulators, half-wave plate, etc.) transmitting monitor signals, for the purpose of achieving a desirable configuration in which both of two monitor beams pass through a polarizing element as opposed to only one monitor beam passing through, as taught by Suzuki ([0036]), and since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where a mere rearrangement and duplication of an element involves only routine skill in the art as a matter of design choice. See MPEP § 2144.
Nonetheless, Examiner further submits, and in the same field of endeavor, Pu teaches an optical module (optical module 200 comprised within optical communication system; [0022], [0040]; figs. 1 and 4) comprising a circuit board (300; [0040]; fig. 1) and optical emitting sub-module (400; [0043]; figs. 4 and 7-8) further comprising a first polarizer (first polarization beam splitter 4051; [0071]) being configured to transmit monitor light of a first monitor light within a polarization state (first wavelength signal light λ1 incident on first polarization beam splitter 4051 along output optical path of first laser chip 404a1 and passes through first polarization beam splitter 4051; [0072]), and a second polarizer (second polarization beam splitter 4055; [0072]) being configured to transmit monitor light of a second monitor light within a polarization state (second wavelength signal light λ2 incident on second polarization beam splitter 4055 along output optical path of second laser chip 404a2, transmitted to second polarization state changing device 4056 along transmission optical path of second polarization beam splitter 4055; [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the optical modulator of Suzuki to include the technical features of two polarizing elements transmitting monitor signals, for the purpose of achieving low-cost and low-loss information transmission, and enabling conversion between optical signals and electrical signals to thereby establish connections within an optical communication system, as taught by Pu ([0020], [0026]).
With respect to Claim 2, Suzuki (alternatively in view of Pu) teaches the optical module (fig. 3; Suzuki) according to claim 1,
wherein, at the side surface (fig. 3) of the semiconductor modulator (optical modulator 100; [0015]), the first output port (one of each of two adjacent output ports; [0017]) and the second output port (one of each of two adjacent output ports; [0017]) are disposed at positions (fig. 3) at which the first output port (one of each of two adjacent output ports; [0017]) and the second output port (one of each of two adjacent output ports; [0017]) are symmetrical with each other (main signal light and monitor light from IQ modulators 11 and 12 are output from each of two adjacent output ports in the center, and output from each of two outer output ports; [0017]; symmetry as seen in fig. 3) with respect to the input port (substrate/circuit board 10 has one-input, two-output demultiplexer 17 connected to input port, and two IQ modulators 11 and 12 connected to outputs of demultiplexer 17, respectively; [0016]; Suzuki), and
the first monitor port (one of each of two outer output ports; [0017]) and the second monitor port (one of each of two outer output ports; [0017]) are disposed at positions (fig. 3) at which the first monitor port (one of each of two outer output ports; [0017]) and the second monitor port (one of each of two outer output ports; [0017]) are symmetrical with each other (main signal light and monitor light from IQ modulators 11 and 12 are output from each of two adjacent output ports in the center, and output from each of two outer output ports; [0017]; symmetry as seen in fig. 3) with respect to the input port (substrate/circuit board 10 has one-input, two-output demultiplexer 17 connected to input port, and two IQ modulators 11 and 12 connected to outputs of demultiplexer 17, respectively; [0016]; Suzuki).
With respect to Claim 3, Suzuki (alternatively in view of Pu) teaches the optical module (fig. 3; Suzuki) according to claim 1,
wherein the first polarizer (integrated unit of MZ modulators 13 and 14 for each IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0016]) is linearly disposed between (adjustment electrodes 15 and a 2-input, 2-output multiplexer 16 are connected to outputs of MZ modulators 13 and 14, respectively, outputs of multiplexers 16 of each of IQ modulators 11 and 12 are connected to four output ports; [0016] linear disposal between elements as seen in fig. 3) the first monitor port (one of each of two outer output ports; [0017]) and the first monitor element (adjustment electrodes 15 and a 2-input, 2-output multiplexer 16 for each IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0016]) along a longitudinal direction (fig. 3) of the optical module (fig. 3; Suzuki); and
the second polarizer (integrated unit of MZ modulators 13 and 14 for each IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0016]) is linearly disposed between (adjustment electrodes 15 and a 2-input, 2-output multiplexer 16 are connected to outputs of MZ modulators 13 and 14, respectively, outputs of multiplexers 16 of each of IQ modulators 11 and 12 are connected to four output ports; [0016] linear disposal between elements as seen in fig. 3) the second monitor port (one of each of two outer output ports; [0017]) and the second monitor element (adjustment electrodes 15 and a 2-input, 2-output multiplexer 16 for each IQ modulators 11 and 12; [0016]) along a longitudinal direction (fig. 3) of the optical module (fig. 3; Suzuki).
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 K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 20 March 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872