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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 10-20 in the reply filed on 2/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second lens” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: all claims must end with a period “.”. 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “lens means” in claims 10 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 2002/0031324) in view of Frisken (US 2005/0100277).
Regarding Claim 10, Cao discloses a variable optical attenuator (VOA) comprising:
a lens means (Fig. 4, lens 404, Paragraph 0034) for receiving an input light beam (Fig. 4, input 402, Paragraph 0034) and for outputting an output light beam (Fig. 4, output 406, Paragraph 0034);
a rotatable mirror (Fig. 4, mirror support 304 may rotate, Paragraph 0031, lines 7-8, mirror coating 302, Paragraph 0034) positioned and operative, when rotating, for reflecting the input light beam received from the lens means to different parts of an input face of a lens which causes the input light beam received at the different parts of the input face of the lens to be output as a plurality of beams of light via an output face of the lens (Fig. 4, as shown); and
Cao does not specifically disclose a
… cylindrical lens … and … parallel beams … and
a reflector positioned for reflecting at least a portion of the parallel beams of light output via the output face of the cylindrical lens back through the cylindrical lens to the rotatable mirror which reflects the light received from the cylindrical lens as the output light beam.
However, Frisken, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
… cylindrical lens (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, cylindrical lens 13, Paragraph 0044) … and … parallel beams (Paragraph 0044, light is collimated in the y dimension or the x dimension, the collimated rays being parallel to each other, lines 4-7) … and
a reflector (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, LCD 15 can be reflective, Paragraph 0045, lines 3-4) positioned for reflecting at least a portion of the parallel beams of light output via the output face of the cylindrical lens back through the cylindrical lens (Fig. 2, as shown) to the rotatable (see Cao, above, Fig. 4, mirror support 304 may rotate, Paragraph 0031, lines 7-8), mirror (Fig. 2, mirror 12) which reflects the light received from the cylindrical lens as the output light beam, for the purpose of providing an attenuated light beam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the variable optical attenuator of Cao with the … cylindrical lens … and … parallel beams … and a reflector positioned for reflecting at least a portion of the parallel beams of light output via the output face of the cylindrical lens back through the cylindrical lens to the rotatable mirror which reflects the light received from the cylindrical lens as the output light beam, of Frisken, for the purpose of providing an attenuated light beam.
Regarding Claim 17, Cao in view of Frisken discloses as is set forth above and Cao further discloses further comprising a controller that is programed or configured for controlling a position of the reflector at least partially in the path of the parallel beams of light that are output via the output face of the cylindrical lens (Paragraphs 0033-0034, the mirror is controlled by controlling the voltages applied to the electrodes 314 and 316, Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 18, Cao et al. (US 2002/0031324) discloses a method of variably optically attenuating a light beam comprising:
(a) passing an input light beam (Fig. 4, input 402, Paragraph 0034) through a first lens (Fig. 4, lens 404, Paragraph 0034);
(b) reflecting, by a rotating mirror (Fig. 4, mirror support 304 may rotate, Paragraph 0031, lines 7-8, mirror coating 302, Paragraph 0034), at least a portion of the input light beam of step (a)
Frisken (US 2005/0100277) further discloses
to a reflector (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, LCD 15 can be reflective, Paragraph 0045, lines 3-4) via a cylindrical lens (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, cylindrical lens 13, Paragraph 0044)
(c) reflecting, by the reflector, at least a portion of the parallel beams of light output via the output face of the cylindrical lens back through the cylindrical lens (Fig. 2, as shown)
to the rotating (see Cao, above, Fig. 4, mirror support 304 may rotate, Paragraph 0031, lines 7-8) mirror which reflects the light received from the cylindrical lens as the output light beam through a second lens (Frisken, Fig. 2, mirror 12).
Neither Cao et al. (US 2002/0031324) nor Frisken (US 2005/0100277) further disclose “… which separates the input light beam received at the different parts of an input face of the cylindrical lens into a plurality of parallel beams of light that are output via an output face of the cylindrical lens to the reflector …”.
Additionally, neither Moon et al. (US 2003/0174939), Moon et al. (US 6,934,069), Mao et al. (US 2015/0185583), Mao et al. (US 9,201,286), Garrett et al. (US 2018/0210151), Akashi et al. (US 2009/0323167), nor Suzuki et al. (US 2016/0286288) remedy the deficiencies of Cao et al. (US 2002/0031324) and Frisken (US 2005/0100277).
Reasons for Allowance/Examiner’s Comments
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, regarding the allowability of independent claim 18: The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a method comprising “… which separates (emphasis on “separates”) the input light beam received at the different parts of an input face of the cylindrical lens into a plurality of parallel beams of light that are output via an output face of the cylindrical lens to the reflector …”, along with other claim limitations. Claims 19-20 are allowable due to pendency on independent claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12, 13-15, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 11, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a variable optical attenuator including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the reflector is positioned for passing another portion of the parallel beams of light output via the output face of the cylindrical lens.
Specifically, with respect to claim 12, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a variable optical attenuator including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the reflector is moveable into or out of a path of the parallel beams of light output via the output face of the cylindrical lens.
Specifically, with respect to claim 13, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a variable optical attenuator including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein further comprising a shutter or block between the output face of the cylindrical lens and the reflector, wherein the shutter or block is positioned to pass the at least portion of the parallel beams of light to the reflector and to avoid or prevent another portion of the parallel beams of light output via the output face of the cylindrical lens from reaching the reflector.
Specifically, with respect to claim 16, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a variable optical attenuator including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein further comprising: a splitter in the paths of the input and output light beams between the lens means and the rotatable mirror, the splitter operative for reflecting portions of the input and output light beams, for passing another portion of the input light beam to the rotatable mirror, and for passing another portion of the output light beam to the lens means; an input photodiode positioned and operative to receive and convert the reflected portion of the input light beam into a input electrical signal; and an output photodiode positioned and operative to receive and convert the reflected portion of the output light beam into an output electrical signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872