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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/29/24 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: See paragraph [0020], filed 1/26/24.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-20 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.
Claims 17-20 recite the limitation "the method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, claims 17-20 are considered dependent on claim 11 to remedy this clarity issue.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-12, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandran (US 9,203,209 B2).
Re. Claim 1, Ramachandran discloses a system for generating quantum-entangled photons (Figs. 10-11) comprising:
a multi-mode optical fiber “Fiber I” or “Fiber 1” having a plurality of guided modes LP04 and LP05 (Figs. 7 and 10-11; col. 2 lines 35-36 and 51-56; col. 4 lines 41-44; col. 6 lines 34-36);
a plurality of laser sources, the laser sources comprising first and second laser sources 40/42 or 50/52 coupled to the fiber, the first laser source 40 or 50 coupled into one of the guided modes and the second laser source 42 or 52 coupled into another one of the guided modes of the fiber (Figs. 10-11; col. 6 lines 37-43 and 54-57);
a filter “Fiber II” or “Fiber 2”, the filter coupled to an output of the fiber and performing four-wave mixing thereof (Figs. 10-11; col. 6 lines 43-47 and 57-59); and
However, this embodiment does not disclose a tree architecture, and accordingly does not disclose a plurality of multi-mode optical fibers, a plurality of laser sources, and a plurality of filters such that a first and second laser source are coupled to each of the fibers, and a signal combiner coupled to the plurality of filters and combining the filtered outputs of the fibers.
First, tree architecture is known in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have found the use of multiple pairs of lasers, each pair coupled to a separate multi-mode fiber, obvious for the purpose of providing a plurality of modulated signals across a plurality of wavelengths. Moreover, regarding the inclusion of additional laser sources and multi-mode fibers would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Second, the use of a signal combiner to combine a plurality of signals generated in a device is well known in the art, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing a common output signal comprising a plurality of wavelengths. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claim 2, Ramachandran renders obvious the system as discussed above. In addition, Ramachandran discloses the first laser source 40 or 50 comprises a pump laser (Figs. 10-11). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 3, Ramachandran renders obvious the system as discussed above. In addition, Ramachandran discloses the first laser source 40 or 50 comprises a narrowband laser (Figs. 10-11). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 4, Ramachandran renders obvious the system as discussed above. Ramachandran does not disclose an arrangement wherein the second laser source comprises a probe laser.
Probe lasers are known in the art, and their use as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing the desired input signals for modulation. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claims 5-7, Ramachandran renders obvious the system as discussed above. Also, Ramachandran discloses the second laser source 42 comprises a broadband laser, more specifically a supercontinuum laser or a frequency comb laser (e.g., 1440-1600 nm tunable telecom laser; Fig. 10; col. 6 lines 39-41). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 8, Ramachandran renders obvious the system as discussed above. Ramachandran does not disclose an arrangement wherein the multi-mode optical fiber comprises a few-mode fiber.
Few-mode fibers are known in the art, and their use as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing the desired propagation of optical signals for modulation. “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Re. Claims 9-10, Ramachandran renders obvious the system as discussed above. Also, Ramachandran discloses the filter “Fiber 2” or “Fiber II” comprises a long period grating LPG (Figs. 10-11).
However, Ramachandran does not disclose arrangements wherein the filter comprises a cascade of fiber-Bragg grating filters or an arrayed waveguide grating.
Both cascades of Bragg grating filters and arrayed waveguide gratings are known in the art, and their use as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of providing the desired filtering operation(s). “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” – ‘[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The same reasoning applied in the rejection of apparatus claims 1 and 8, mutatis mutandis, applies to the subject-matter of method claims 11 and 17, given the apparatus is considered inseparable from the method of (making/using) the apparatus.
Re. Claim 12, Ramachandran renders obvious the system as discussed above. In addition, Ramachandran discloses multiplexing (e.g., via WDM 44 or 54) the first and second laser signals supplied thereto for transmission via the fiber “Fiber I” or “Fiber 1” (Figs. 10-11). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Re. Claim 20, Ramachandran renders obvious the system as discussed above. In addition, Ramachandran discloses the first and second guided modes of the fibers correspond to different wavelengths and wherein intermodal four-wave mixing, comprises phase matching the output of each of the fibers (Figs. 10-11 and 13; col. 7 lines 20-21). The claimed arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16, 18, and 19 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, and upon resolution of the clarity issues discussed above with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112.
Re. Claims 13-16, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed method, specifically comprising demultiplexing the multiplexed first and second laser signals transmitted via the fibers before intermodal four-wave mixing.
Re. Claim 18, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed method, specifically comprising supplying the first laser signal comprises generating a plurality of pump laser signals and combining the plurality of pump laser signals into the first laser signal.
Re. Claim 19, the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed method, specifically comprising wherein the outputs of the fibers comprise copies of spectra shifted relative to each other and combining the intermodal four-wave mixed outputs of the fibers to produce the broadband source of quantum-entangled photons comprises coupling the copies of spectra.
The most applicable prior art, Ramachandran (US 9,203,209 B2), addressed above, fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed invention specifically those portions highlighted above in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R. PEACE whose telephone number is (571)272-8580. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/RHONDA S PEACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 3/9/24