DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to the amendment filed 4/3/2026.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agha Riza (US 20020136524).
Regarding Claim 14, Agha Riza teaches an optical beam intensity modulator (abstract; figs. 1-6) comprising
a modulator element (fig. 3, 34, AOM) arranged to transmit an optical beam along a first path in a first modulator state (fig. 3, 12, DC) and having a first polarization (¶[0021], line 1-16, These VOAs can be made essentially independent of the optical polarization of the incident light by the use a unique fixed waveplate compensation technique within the VOA configuration that suppresses polarization dependent loss) and
a second, spatially deviated path, in a second modulator state, having a second polarization (fig. 3, 12, -1), and
a polarization element arranged to suppress the beam in one of the first or second polarization states (fig. 3, 36; ¶[0024], line 1-18, uses a half-wave plate (HWP) to reduce polarization dependent loss variation by invoking a 90 degree flip in the light polarization state between the first Bragg diffraction and the second Bragg diffraction; -- HWP 36 changing polarization state of beam in second light path (12, -1)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agha Riza (US 20020136524).
Regarding Claim 1, Agha Riza teaches an optical beam intensity modulator (abstract; figs. 1-6) comprising
a modulator element (fig. 3, 34, AOM) arranged to transmit an optical beam along a first path in a first modulator state as a first beam (fig. 3, 12, DC) and
along a second, deviated path in a second modulator state as a second beam (fig. 3, 12, -1), and
a beam return element arranged to return a transmitted beam to the modulator element (fig. 3, 30, 32).
But in embodiment of fig. 3, Agha Riza does not specifically disclose that wherein the beam return element is arranged to return the second beam at 180° to the second path.
However in embodiment of fig. 6, Agha Riza teaches that wherein the beam return element is arranged to return the second beam at 180° to the second path (fig. 6, 60, 78, 76; ¶[0032], line 1-12, Instead of using a mirror pair shown in FIGS. 3-5, total internal reflection (TIR) prisms can be used for beam routing in an AO-based VOA structures. Such an example design is shown in FIG. 6, where the TIR prisms 76 make the retro-reflected optical beams 78 parallel to the incident optical beam 60 putting a certain physical spacing between the beams depending on the size of the prisms 76).
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 device of Agha Riza to have the beam return element is arranged to return the second beam at 180° to the second path, for a purpose of providing of an acousto optic (AO) device which has high dynamic range, low loss, high power handling, ultra-fast, high optical isolation, broadband operation, self-aligning robust modules (¶[0021], line 1-24).
Regarding Claim 2, Agha Riza teaches the optical beam intensity modulator of claim 1, wherein the beam return element is arranged to return the first beam at 180° to the first path (fig. 6, 60, 78, 76), wherein the path of the returned first beam is spatially displaced from the path of the returned second beam (fig. 3, θB, output angle at 24 between +1 beam and -1 beam).
Regarding Claim 3, Agha Riza teaches the optical beam intensity modulator of claim 1, wherein the beam return element is arranged to return a transmitted beam at an angle equivalent to an entry angle to the beam return element (fig. 3, θB, 30, 32).
Regarding Claim 4, Agha Riza teaches the optical beam intensity modulator of claim 1, wherein the beam return element comprises one of a retro reflector, prism, corner cube or angled mirror pair (fig. 3, 30,32; fig. 6, 76).
Regarding Claim 5, Agha Riza teaches the optical beam intensity modulator of claim 1, wherein the beam return element includes first and second beam return faces; and the first and second beam return faces are angled to provide a differing reflection efficiency for the first beam and the second beam (fig. 6, 76).
Regarding Claim 6, Agha Riza teaches the optical beam intensity modulator of claim 1, wherein the beam return element includes a beam entry face angled to reflect the first beam away from the modulator element (fig. 3, 30,32).
Regarding Claim 7, Agha Riza teaches the optical beam intensity modulator of claim 1, wherein the modulator element comprises an acousto-optic modulator element (fig. 3, 34, AOM).
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki teaches the optical beam intensity modulator of claim 1, wherein the optical beam intensity modulator is arranged to transmit the first beam and the second beams in different polarization states (fig. 3, 12, DC, +1, -1; ¶[0021], line 1-16, These VOAs can be made essentially independent of the optical polarization of the incident light by the use a unique fixed waveplate compensation technique within the VOA configuration that suppresses polarization dependent loss), and
the optical beam intensity modulator further includes a polarization element arranged to suppress one of the first and second beams (fig. 3, 36; ¶[0024], line 1-18, uses a half-wave plate (HWP) to reduce polarization dependent loss variation by invoking a 90 degree flip in the light polarization state between the first Bragg diffraction and the second Bragg diffraction; -- HWP 36 changing polarization state of beam in second light path (12, -1)).
Regarding Claim 9, Agha Riza teaches the optical beam intensity modulator of claim 1, wherein the optical beam intensity modulator is comprised within a modulator system comprising (abstract; figs. 1-6);
an input beam element for transmitting an optical beam into the modulator element (fig. 3, 12); and
an output beam element for receiving a returned beam from the modulator element (fig. 3, 24).
Regarding Claim 10, Agha Riza teaches the optical beam intensity modulator of claim 9, wherein at least one of the input and output beam elements comprises a single mode polarization maintaining fiber (fig. 3, 12, 24—fibers; ¶[0004], line 1-12, VOAs as AO technology; single-mode in-line fiber attenuator).
Regarding Claim 11, Agha Riza teaches the optical beam intensity modulator of claim 9, wherein the input beam element is aligned to the modulator element at a first order Bragg angle (fig. 3, 12, θB).
Regarding Claim 12, Agha Riza teaches the optical beam intensity modulator of claim 1, wherein the beam return element is spatially offset relative to the modulator element to increase the further deviation (fig. 3, 34, 30, 32; fig. 6, 64, 76).
Regarding Claim 13, Agha Riza teaches the optical beam intensity modulator of claim 12, wherein the beam return element is angled relative to a plane of the first and second beams (fig. 3, 12, 24, 30, 32; fig. 6, 60, 78, 76).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 and 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
In regard to claim 15, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an optical beam intensity modulator further comprise a separation distance D < vr/2λf specified as in claim 15.
In regard to claims 16 and 21, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an optical beam intensity modulator/method further comprise wherein a design separation distance between the modulator element and the beam return element based on the extinction ratio maxima.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are also allowed as they depending on claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current new rejections.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
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 extension fee 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 communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights