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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 (line 23), it appears the phrase “second or third parts” should instead read as --second or third ports--.
In Claim 21 (line 24), it appears the phrase “second or third parts” should instead read as --second or third ports--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 1 and 4-5, 7-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Nesic et al. (US 2023/0213703 of record).
Nesic (e.g. including Fig. 3) teaches a dielectric waveguide including:
Regarding Claim 1, the dielectric waveguide configured as an orthomode transducer (OMT) (e.g. see [0039], the optical signals can be any type of electromagnetic radiation including in the microwave or terahertz frequencies, and the device is for orthogonal modes, e.g. see [0005] and [0021] thus the device is an orthomode transducer), a first branch (e.g. 330) for carrying a first linearly polarised wave; and a second branch (e.g. 340) for carrying a second linearly polarised wave (e.g. see [0049]), the dielectric waveguide having a dual-polarisation port (e.g. 210) comprising a first area (e.g. 230) and a second area (e.g. 240) which overlap partially, the first area and the second area being a cross-section of the first branch and a cross-section of the second branch respectively (e.g. see cross-shape formed by 230, 240, 210), wherein the dual-polarisation port has C4 or D4 symmetry (e.g. the Nesic structure Fig. 3 has the same cross-shaped/symmetry dual polarisation section formed by 210, 230, 240 such as described in the present application [0043-0044] and the port/cross 210 is invariant under rotations of 90 degrees because it is a cross shaped port having the extending portions of the cross spaced at 90 degrees in the same manner as applicant’s invention description of C4/D4 symmetry),
first area and the second area are congruent and are arranged relative to each other at an angle of 90 degrees such that the dual-polarisation port is invariant under rotations of 90 degrees about a longitudinal axis of the dielectric waveguide at the dual-polarisation port (e.g. see Fig. 11, and [0116], the device is symmetric or virtually symmetric about a plane axis 11 thus in the case of being symmetric, the first area and second area (340/330/360/350) are congruent and same size and at 90 degrees relative to each other at area 210 since they are orthogonal, i.e. 90 degrees, e.g. see [0093] and 120a and 130a in Fig. 1);
wherein the dielectric waveguide multiplexes the polarisations with first, second and third physical ports such that the first port contains the combined (dual) polarisations and the second and third ports contain the individual plane polarisations, one of the second and third ports being associated with the first branch and the other of the second and third ports being associated with the second branch, and wherein the cross-section of the first branch and the cross-section of the second branch rotate gradually in space such that the polarisation vector of a wave in the first branch and the polarisation vector of a wave in the second branch rotate from a relative angle of 90 degrees at the dual polarisation port to a relative angle of zero or 180 degrees between the port of the first branch and the port of the second branch (e.g. see Fig. 3, the branches 340 and 330 rotate from parallel ports, i.e. the ports 360/350 are zero or 180 degree relationship to each other since they are parallel in the longitudinal axis of the ports and transition to the 90 degree angle at the dual port 210/230/240, and the rotation/twisting of the waveguide branches 340/330 can be seen in relation to the X axis and the Y axis in Fig. 3, the longest axis of the branches at ports 360/350 are at an angle between X and Y and they rotate along the length of the branches to the respective X and Y angles at 210 to be 90 degrees to each other); the port of the first branch being one of the second or third parts associated with the first branch, and the port of the second branch being the other of the second and third ports associated with the second branch (i.e. ports 350/360 are the second or third ports respectively).
Regarding Claim 4, wherein the first branch and the second branch diverge gradually from each other in space (e.g. see Fig. 3, the branches 330/340 diverge apart towards 350/370, 360/380).
Regarding Claim 5, wherein the first branch and the second branch each have an elongated cross-section (e.g. see rectangular shape at 350/360 elongated widthwise/longitudinally).
Regarding Claim 7, wherein the first branch and the second branch are symmetric to each other under reflection by a plane that passes through the dual polarisation port (e.g. see Fig. 3 which is the same shape/symmetry as Fig. 1 of the present invention, and see [0072] and [0116]).
Regarding Claim 8, wherein a port of the first branch and a port of the second branch are spatially separate (e.g. ports 350 and 360 are spaced apart).
Regarding Claim 9, wherein the port of the first branch and the port of the second branch are congruent and have a same orientation (e.g. in Fig. 3 the ports 350 and 360 are oriented in the same direction and parallel, i.e. congruent and same orientation).
Regarding Claim 10, wherein a longest axis of the port of the first branch and a longest axis of the port of the second branch are orientated parallel to each other (e.g. the longitudinal directions of the rectangular shaped ports 350/360 are parallel to each other in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 12, wherein the first branch includes a further port located between the dual-polarisation port and the port of the first branch, the second branch has a further port located between the dual-polarisation port and the port of the second branch, and the further port of the first branch and the further port of the second branch are partially overlapping and not parallel to each other (e.g. applicant’s specification, see [0036] broadly defines “port” as merely a cross-section of a waveguide portion and not necessarily located at an end of a waveguide, thus Nesic Fig. 3 includes a branching waveguide section (300), located between 210 and 350/360, which necessarily has waveguide cross-sections which can thus be considered ports in the same manner as the broadly defined ports of the present invention where the first and second branches (330/340) diverge away from each other but still partially overlap but increasingly separate towards ports 370/380).
Regarding Claim 13, wherein the dielectric waveguide is made of a polymeric material (e.g. see [0043] each waveguide component including 10, 330, and 340 can be polymer, and see [0090], [0109]).
Regarding Claim 14, injecting a wave (e.g. 112 in Fig. 18) into a dielectric waveguide (10), the dielectric waveguide comprising: a first branch (e.g. 330) for carrying a first linearly polarised wave; and a second branch (e.g. 340) for carrying a second linearly polarised wave (e.g. see [0049]), the dielectric waveguide having a dual-polarisation port comprising a first area (e.g. 230) and a second area (e.g. 240) which overlap partially, the first area and the second area being a cross-section of the first branch and a cross-section of the second branch, respectively (e.g. at 210, 240, 230, a port is formed of partially overlapping cross-sections of branches 330 and 340 as a cross shape); wherein the dual-polarisation port has C4 or D4 symmetry (e.g. the Nesic structure Fig. 3 has the same cross-shaped/symmetry dual polarisation section formed by 210, 230, 240 such as described in the present application [0043-0044] and the port/cross 210 is invariant under rotations of 90 degrees because it is a cross shaped port having the extending portions of the cross spaced at 90 degrees in the same manner as applicant’s invention description of C4/D4 symmetry);
first area and the second area are congruent and are arranged relative to each other at an angle of 90 degrees such that the dual-polarisation port is invariant under rotations of 90 degrees about a longitudinal axis of the dielectric waveguide at the dual-polarisation port (e.g. see Fig. 11, and [0116], the device is symmetric or virtually symmetric about a plane axis 11 thus in the case of being symmetric, the first area and second area (340/330/360/350) are congruent and same size and at 90 degrees relative to each other at area 210 since they are orthogonal, i.e. 90 degrees, e.g. see [0123] and 120a and 130a in Fig. 1); the port of the first branch being one of the second or third parts associated with the first branch, and the port of the second branch being the other of the second and third ports associated with the second branch (i.e. ports 350/360 are the second or third ports respectively).
Regarding Claim 15, wherein the dielectric waveguide is configured to spatially separate two orthogonally polarised components propagate in contrary directions at the dual-polarisation port (e.g. Fig. 4, 350 and 360 are contrary/orthogonal directions of orientation, also the use of the device to propagate in different/contrary directions is not patentable in an apparatus claim other than to describe the capability of the device, and the Nesic device is capable of the same functionality since it is the same structurally as the present invention disclosure).
Regarding Claim 16, wherein the dielectric waveguide is configured to spatially separate the two orthogonally polarised components propagate in a same direction at the dual-polarisation port (e.g. in Fig. 3, 350 and 360 are in the same directions of orientation, also the use of the device to propagate in the same directions is not patentable in an apparatus claim other than to describe the capability of the device, and the Nesic device is capable of the same functionality since it is the same structurally as the present invention disclosure).
Regarding Claim 17, a first branch (e.g. 330) for carrying a first linearly polarised wave; and a second branch (e.g. 340) for carrying a second linearly polarised wave, the dielectric waveguide having a dual-polarisation port (e.g. the cross shaped area 210, 230, 240) comprising a first area (e.g. 230) and a second area (e.g. 240) which overlap partially (e.g. see 210), the first area and the second area being a cross-section of the first branch and a cross-section of the second branch respectively, wherein: the first area and the second area intersect each other orthogonally such that a longest axis of the first area and a longest axis of the second are positioned at right angles to one another (e.g. see the cross shaped area 210 having the orthogonal overlap 230 and 240); the dual-polarisation port is provided with one of C4 or D4 symmetry (e.g. the Nesic structure Fig. 3 has the same cross-shaped/symmetry dual polarisation section formed by 210, 230, 240 such as described in the present application [0043-0044] and the port/cross 210 is invariant under rotations of 90 degrees because it is a cross shaped port having the extending portions of the cross spaced at 90 degrees in the same manner as applicant’s invention description of C4/D4 symmetry);
first area and the second area are congruent and are arranged relative to each other at an angle of 90 degrees such that the dual-polarisation port is invariant under rotations of 90 degrees about a longitudinal axis of the dielectric waveguide at the dual-polarisation port (e.g. see Fig. 11, and [0116], the device is symmetric or virtually symmetric about a plane axis 11 thus in the case of being symmetric, the first area and second area (340/330/360/350) are congruent and same size and at 90 degrees relative to each other at area 210 since they are orthogonal, i.e. 90 degrees, e.g. see [0123] and 120a and 130a in Fig. 1);
at least one of the cross-section of the first branch and the cross-section of the second branch rotates gradually in space (e.g. see Fig. 3 which shows rotation of 330 and 340); and the port of the first branch and the port of the second branch are congruent (e.g. see Fig. 3, branches 350 and 360 are in the same orientation, rectangular cross-section shape, and angle and thus are congruent); the port of the first branch being one of the second or third parts associated with the first branch, and the port of the second branch being the other of the second and third ports associated with the second branch (i.e. ports 350/360 are the second or third ports respectively).
Regarding Claim 18, wherein the dielectric waveguide is made of a polymeric material (e.g. see [0071], the waveguide coupling element, i.e. the waveguides 10/330/340, can be polymer).
Regarding Claim 19, wherein the port of the first branch and the port of the second branch have a same orientation (e.g. see Fig. 3, 350 and 360 are in the same orientation).
Regarding Claim 20, wherein the first branch and the second branch each have an elongated cross-section (e.g. see Fig. 3, branches 350 and 360 have elongated rectangular cross-sections).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nesic et al. (US 2023/0213703 of record) in view of Pauwels et al. (US 2022/0086542).
Nesic teaches a dielectric waveguide as described above (e.g. see the detailed rejection of Claim 1 above which includes all of the subject matter of lines 1-26 of Claim 21).
Nesic (e.g. see [0103], [0043], and [0039]) further discloses that the first port has a polymer microwave fiber optical component (400) coupled to the first port (i.e. the combined port 210). Nesic also teaches that the ports 350/360 of the first and second branches can be connected to photo detectors (e.g. 50a, 50b) (e.g. see Fig. 18).
However, Nesic does not appear to explicitly teach that the photo detectors are part of millimeter wave transceivers.
Pauwels provides the general teaching of connecting a splitter (e.g. 134) to split to two optical transceivers (e.g. TRX 141 and 341).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Nesic microwave/millimeter waveguide device to have the branches connected to optical transceivers such as generally taught by Pauwels, because connecting to transceivers at the ports of the branches such as generally taught by Pauwels would have been a mere selection of a specific use of the Nesic device millimeter wave photo sensors/detectors which are a fundamental component of an optical transceiver while the transceivers would have provided the further benefits of two way signaling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nesic does not state that cross sections 230, 240 are congruent, that they share a common center, or that their superposition is invariant under any rotation.
This argument is not convincing. Contrary to applicant’s assertion that there is no teachings in Nesic of being congruent sharing a common center and being invariant upon rotations of 90 degrees, Nesic does indeed provide details that disclose these characteristics.
In [0116] and Fig. 11, Nesic clearly shows and teaches the device can be “symmetric” about an axis and congruent as detailed in the rejections above. Nesic (e.g. see [0093] and 120a and 130a in Fig. 1) discloses that section 210 has 230/120a and 240/130a as orthogonal (i.e. 90 degrees relative to each other). Since the Nesic port 210 is arranged to have the 90 degree crossing it is invariant under rotations of 90 degrees in the same manner as the present invention (i.e. it will look the same when rotated 90 degrees regardless of the number of times rotated). The argument that Nesic teaches the symmetry can only be “virtually symmetric” is not persuasive because Nesic also states it can be “symmetrical or virtually symmetric” (e.g. see [0116], i.e. Nesic is teaching the device is not limited to being symmetrical but could also be close to symmetrical as a design choice).
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 STEPHEN E JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1762. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM to 5PM.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/Stephen E. Jones/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
