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 with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 requires 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.
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.
Or
(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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW B SMITHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3876. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00 (Teleworking).
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 571-270-5143. 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.
/MATTHEW SMITHERS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights