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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 04/10/2026.
Claims 1 and 5-14 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/10/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the specification has support is acknowledged, however, the claims are indefinite because they fail to establish clear boundaries for the required “double pass configuration.” Examiner notes that the 112b rejection could have been further clarified to by providing detailed explanation as to why the claim is indefinite. The claimed limitation does not specify whether both orthogonal polarization modes must pass through the recited optical elements twice, whether the time-demultiplexing unit itself must be traversed twice, or whether passage through only the phase modulation unit is sufficient. Furthermore, the alternative language “and/or” leaves uncertain which combination of repeated passages falls within the claim. The claim also does not identify the relationship between the phase values applied during the outbound and inbound passages and whether those values must be equal, different, or otherwise coordinated to produce the claimed relative phase modulation. Finally, the phrase “in particular wherein” creates uncertainty as to whether rotation of the polarization modes is a required limitation or merely an exemplary feature. Because the claim does not specify the required number of modes, passages, components, or phase-control relationships, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine with reasonable certainty which optical architectures are within the scope of the claim.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Salsi et al. generally is concerned with data transmission via optical pulses, in particular data encoded via Quadrature Phase-Shift Keying (QPSK). Paragraphs [0045] - [0048] of Salsi et al. describe the concept of applying a low-frequency "phase overmodulation" to one of the two polarization channels at the transmitter to serve as an identifying marker, or "tag," for later use at the receiver. However, from FIG. 2, which is described in paragraphs [0045] - [0048], it is clear that the transmitter of Salsi et al., takes two orthogonal polarization signals (104 and 105) and sends them into two physically separate modulators (201 and 202). In other words, Salsi et al. applies spatial demultiplexing, not temporal demultiplexing. The signals are processed simultaneously in parallel paths. In Salsi et al., after the data is modulated onto each signal, one of the signals (e.g., the one exiting modulator 201) is passed through an optional "overmodulator" (203). This overmodulator applies a low-frequency phase signal (paragraph [0045]). This is the "tag." The two signals are then recombined by prism 220 and transmitted. Salsi et al. uses the "tag" to correctly demultiplex the QPSK signals at a receiver (see paragraph [0048] of Salsi et al.). However, this is different from the method of claims 13 and 14, which uses time-demultiplexing to create a time delay between two modes (e.g., the early and late modes). This makes it possible to use a single phase modulator to apply different modulations to each mode individually as they pass through sequentially. Accordingly, Salsi et al. fails to disclose claimed step of "demultiplexing the two orthogonal modes in time."
Applicant’s point of view of the Salsi reference is acknowledged but not persuasive. Salsi paragraph [0038] and [0049]-[0053] discloses that the medium as having variable birefringence, which causes the output polarization to differ from the input polarization. Salsi discloses that polarization separator 103 separates the optical signal 102 into two optical signals 104 and 105 on the same wavelength. The optical signal 111 may potentially be carried by a different wavelength than the signal 107 if the optical medium 110 comprises wavelength conversion means. Due to the propagation within the medium 110 which may exhibit variable birefringence over time, the optical signal 111 exhibits a polarization state that is generally not the same as that of the signal 107. Examiner suggests amending the claim to specifically capture the inventive concept to overcome some of the issues pointed out in the 112b section above.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “uses a single phase modulator with temporal demultiplexing of tow polarization modes” and “sequential modulation … through the same device” ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because labeling for various elements are missing from the drawings. 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 abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “and/or” should be amended to clarify whether the claim intended to cover. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: polarization state preparation unit, polarization state control unit; polarization state control unit, time-demultiplexing unit, phase modulation unit, double pass unit; polarization state control unit, spatial de- multiplexing unit, double pass unit; pulse generation unit; electronic control unit, pulse generation unit, active polarization state control unit; electronic control unit; and intensity modulation unit, “sub-unit” in claims 1, 5-9. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, and 5-14 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. The claims require an optical system to apply a relative phase modulation between two orthogonal polarization modes using a double pass configuration that acts independently on each polarization state. The specification provides multiple architecture examples employing a double pass unit. Neither the claims nor the examples in the specification make it clear to one of ordinary skill in the art which of the optical elements within the architecture must be traversed twice and how the system achieves the claimed independence acting on each polarization states. With the lack of detail in the claims and guidance in the specification a skilled artisan would be unable to determine the proper metes and bounds of applicant’s invention (see also further explanation provided under Response to Argument section above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US patent publication 20120189307 granted to Salsi et al.
Regarding claim 13, Salsi meets the claimed limitations as follows:
“The method for applying a relative phase to orthogonal optical polarization modes comprising: preparing an initial polarization state of an optical pulse; transforming the initial polarization state into two orthogonal polarization modes;” see paragraph [0038] (polarization separator 103 separates the optical signal 102 into two optical signals 104 and 105 on the same wavelength. The signals 104 and 105 exhibit substantially perpendicular polarization.)
“demultiplexing the two orthogonal modes in time; and applying phase modulations to the demultiplexed orthogonal states individually.” see paragraphs [0045]-[0048] (the phase overmodulation of one of the two polarization components of the transmitted optical signal will make it possible to tell, during the demultiplexing of the signals).
Regarding claim 14, Salsi meets the claimed limitations as follows:
“The method according to claim 11, further comprising re-combining the modulated time-demultiplexed orthogonal modes.” see paragraph [0050].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ashrafi et al. (US 20210133614) directed to time-bin qubits: For a more robust long-distance transmission of quantum information, one can use time-bin qubits. The computational basis consists of two states which are of the same spectral shape, but time shifted by much more than the coherence time: early and late. Referring now to FIG. 171, any state of time-bin qubits 17102 can be realized with a single-photon pulse 17104 sent through an unbalanced Mach-Zehnder interferometer 17106. OAM qudits: This is a degree of freedom that uses resolved OAM modes of photonic beam. However, unlike the two-state polarization, OAM can have many orthogonal resolvable modes and they can lend themselves to creating qudits rather than qubits.
Xu et al. (US 20120027410) directed to a device for generating a phase polarization modulated signal includes: an LD, a time division demultiplexer, a phase precoding module, a phase modulating module, a polarization precoding module and a polarization modulating module, in which the LD is configured to output an optical signal; the time division demultiplexer is configured to divide service data to be transmitted into first sub-service data and second sub-service data; the phase precoding module is configured to perform phase precoding processing on the first sub-service data, so as to obtain phase precoded first sub-service data.
Liu et al. (US 20100215374) directed to modulating digital data onto an optical carrier to produce a modulated optical carrier in which symbol-modulated optical signals of orthogonal polarizations are temporally interleaved and adapted to be processed by electronic time-division demultiplexing to recover the digital data modulated onto the orthogonal polarizations of the optical signals.
Tanaka et al. (US 20100195831) directed to quantum cryptographic transmitter 1301, the optical pulses from the quantum cryptographic receiver 1303 pass through a variable optical attenuator 1314, delay line 1313, and optical phase modulator 1312. A Faraday mirror 1311 reverses the traveling direction of the optical pulses and simultaneously rotates the polarization directions by 90.degree. The optical phase modulator 1312 applies a phase difference to the divided optical pulses, which then return to the quantum cryptographic receiver 1303 via the delay line 1313 and the variable optical attenuator 1314.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Shewaye Gelagay whose telephone number is (571)272-4219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8 A.M. - 4 P.M..
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, Amy C. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-2238. 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.
/SHEWAYE GELAGAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436
