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 .
Foreign Priority
Applicant requested a confirmation of a claim for foreign priority. The examiner notes that there does not appear to be a claim for foreign priority in the application (e.g. see the ADS sheet dated 12/21/23, the foreign priority information is blank). The application appears to only claim to be a continuation of a PCT.
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 4-20 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 Figs. 3-4) teaches a dielectric waveguide including:
Regarding Claim 1, 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).
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 6, wherein 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 twisted form of 330 and 340).
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 11, wherein a longest axis of the port of the first branch and a longest axis of the port of the second branch are orientated orthogonal to each other (e.g. the longitudinal directions of the rectangular shaped ports 350/360 are orthogonal to each other in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 12, wherein a port of the first branch and a port of the second branch are partially overlapping and not parallel to each other (e.g. at dual polarisation port 210, the respective/individual ports of the branches 330 and 340 partially overlap to form the cross shape).
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).
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); 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).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nesic fails to disclose the dual polarization port with C4 or D4 symmetry and points to Applicant’s special definition for the terminology in that the port must be invariant under rotations of 90 degrees about its center.
This argument is not convincing, especially since the port 210 of Nesic forms a cross having the extended portions of the cross shape being spaced by 90 degrees and thus rotations about the center of the cross 210 result in the same invariant port (i.e. rotation of the cross shaped area 210 about its center by 90 degrees would look the same at cross 210 by any integer multiple of 90 degrees). It should be noted, Applicant appears to be attempting to argue a symmetry relationship along the longitudinal length of the waveguide device in the applicant’s invention that is not commensurate with the claims. The claims merely describe a port having a symmetry but nothing is recited in the claims about a waveguide having a particular symmetry along its length as it appears applicant is attempting to argue (also note in Applicant’s definitions a port can merely be a cross-section of a waveguide including the end of a waveguide, see [0004] of the present application specification).
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