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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 02/04/2026. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-15 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-15 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Request for Continued Examination
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 02/04/2026.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant's arguments, remarks, and amendments.
Examiner is not convinced by Applicant’s arguments, but invites the Applicant to initiate an interview to discuss Applicant’s third argument.
Applicant argues that the amendments to explicitly call out three separate beams (argument 1) and the angle of components (argument 2) to get around Boosalis. Applicant further argues that PHOSITA would never be motivated to modify Boosalis to arrive at the claimed invention (argument 3).
In short, Examiner does not find the explicit number of beams or the angles of components relative to each other to be convincing. Examiner understands both of these to be routine in the art and that any reasonable PHOSITA would be able to limit the number of beams or adjust the angles of components as needed by PHOSITA’s needs.
However, even if Examiner is not at this time convinced by Applicant’s third argument, related to the motivation to modify Boosalis, Examiner feels further elaboration on this point may prove fruitful. Based on Examiner’s review and understanding, Examiner feels highlighting this distinction or amending the claims to more precisely address this distinction could be a good path forward. As is, Examiner finds it a little hard to clearly point to the claims at the distinction discussed. As presented and understood, Examiner still finds it reasonable for PHOSITA to modify Boosalis and maintains the rejection.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boosalis (US 20210262921 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Boosalis discloses:
An optical polarization diversity receiver assembly, comprising:
an optical collimator (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0046], “focusing optics 136”);
a first non-polarizing beam splitter (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], wavelength separator 142);
a second non-polarizing beam splitter (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], wavelength separator 142, and FIG. 1, [0047], “The wavelength separator 142 may spatially separate the wavelengths in the reflected light 133, e.g., where multiple wavelengths are produced by light source 102 simultaneously. For example, the wavelength separator 142 may be a diffractive element that spatially separates the multiple wavelengths in the reflected light 133, and thus, wavelength separator 142 may be sometimes referred to herein as a wavelength diffractive element 142.” Examiner notes that in this way wavelength separator 142 may act as a second beam splitter);
a first linear polarizer (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0048], “The polarization separator 144 receives the reflected light 133 and separates the reflected light into a plurality of polarization states”);
a first photodetector (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], “the two-dimensional sensor 146 may capture multiple frames, where each frame captures polarization information for a different wavelength”);
a second linear polarizer (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0048], “The polarization separator 144 receives the reflected light 133 and separates the reflected light into a plurality of polarization states.” Examiner notes that in this way, polarization separator 144 acts as a second linear polarizer);
a second photodetector (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], “the two-dimensional sensor 146 may capture multiple frames, where each frame captures polarization information for a different wavelength.” Examiner notes that in this way two-dimensional sensor 146 may act as a second photodetector);
a third linear polarizer (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0048], “The polarization separator 144 receives the reflected light 133 and separates the reflected light into a plurality of polarization states.” Examiner notes that in this way, polarization separator 144 acts as a third linear polarizer); and
a third photodetector (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], “the two-dimensional sensor 146 may capture multiple frames, where each frame captures polarization information for a different wavelength.” Examiner notes that in this way two-dimensional sensor 146 may act as a second photodetector),
wherein, during operation:
with an input of an optical dual-beam interference signal (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0036, light source 102, and FIG. 1, [0036], “the light source 102 may produce multiple contiguous wavelengths.” For the purposes of this mapping, Examiner is treating the path of the light from light 102 to focusing optics 136) launched into the optical collimator (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0046], focusing optics 136), a collimated beam emerges and propagates in a free space (Boosalis, FIG. 1, Examiner understands the collimated beam from focusing optics 136 to propagate in a free space),
the collimated beam (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], showing detector 140 receiving reflected light 133) is divided into … three beams (Examiner notes that splitting the incoming beam as described would result in 3 or more beams) … and directed along different paths upon encountering the first non-polarizing beam splitter (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], wavelength separator 142) … the second non-polarizing beam splitter (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], wavelength separator 142), …
permissible polarization transmission axes of the first linear polarizer, the second linear polarizer and the third linear polarizer are set apart from each other by a predetermined angle …, with a respective transmitted beam manifesting interference across each corresponding axis (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0056], “The meta-grating diffracts the beams 1043 into orders based on polarization, similar to a blazed grating separating wavelengths,” and FIG. 10, [0054], “As illustrated, the prism 1042 separates the wavelengths of the light into separate non-contiguous beams 1043. In one implementation, the separation of the light into beams with different wavelengths is due to the use of a light source 102 (shown in FIG. 1) that produces non-contiguous wavelengths, such as a broadband frequency comb light source”),
three separate beams generated from the first linear polarizer, the second linear polarizer and the third linear polarizer are coupled correspondingly into the first photodetector, the second photodetector and the third photodetector to be converted into electrical signals, and a maximum electrical signal among the electrical signals is selected for analysis (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], “the two-dimensional sensor 146 may capture multiple frames, where each frame captures polarization information for a different wavelength”), and
each of the three separate beams in the optical polarization diversity receiver assembly maintains a same polarization state as that of the input when entering the respective linear polarizer by propagating through the free space or a polarization-independent media (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], detector 140. Examiner notes that once split by wavelength separator 142 and then transmitted to polarization separator 144, the light does not change polarization. Examiner understands light, as shown in FIG. 10, to propagate in free space or a polarization-independent media).
Boosalis discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
(1) … the collimated beam is divided into exactly three beams of equal power, each beam containing 1/3 of an input power of the collimated beam and …
(2) … towards the first, second and third linear polarizers, respectively, …
(3) … directed along different paths upon encountering the first non-polarizing beam splitter followed by the second non-polarizing beam splitter, towards the first, second and third linear polarizers, (emphasis added) …
(4) … by a predetermined angle of 60 degrees, …
Regarding (1) above, Boosalis’s wavelength separator 142 separates out the wavelengths into separate beams. Based on review and Examiner’s understanding, the separate beams would have equal or roughly equal power between them as each beam would represent a sliver of the incoming beam. The number of beams is a result-effective variable. In that, depending on the needs of the user, if there are too many beams or beams are not split in manners useful to the user, the device would not operate or detect properly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant' s filing date to include “the collimated beam is divided into exactly three beams of equal power, each beam containing 1/3 of an input power of the collimated beam and,” since determining the optimum number of beams and their power is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding (2) and (3) above, as mapped, Boosalis’s wavelength separator 142 is not explicitly sequential. As shown in Applicant’s FIG. 1, the beam splitters 1130 and 1140 are sequential. However, functionally, wavelength separator 142 would separate the beam in a similar manner in a single step. Boosalis does disclose sequential splitting of light, for example through wavelength separator 142 and then polarization separator 144. Examiner acknowledges that polarization separator 144 is not a non-polarizing beam splitter, but mentions it to show that sequential splitting is disclosed.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sequential non-polarizing beam splitters. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of sequential polarizing and non-polarizing beam splitters as disclosed by Boosalis and how to use them to modify Boosalis. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as known method of beam splitting (See Boosalis, [0048] and [0054]).
Regarding (4) above, the angle components are to each other is a result-effective variable. In that, depending on the needs of the user, if the angles are not determined properly, the device would not operate or detect properly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant' s filing date to include “by a predetermined angle of 60 degrees,” since determining the optimum angle is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 2, Boosalis discloses Claim 1, and further discloses:
… wherein the optical collimator comprises a convex lens (Boosalis, FIG. 1, showing focusing optics 136 as a convex lens).
Regarding Claim 4, Boosalis discloses Claim 1, and further discloses:
… wherein each of the first non-polarizing beam splitter and the second non-polarizing beam splitter comprises a plate beam splitter (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], wavelength separator 142).
Regarding Claim 9, Boosalis discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein each of the first linear polarizer, the second linear polarizer and the third linear polarizer comprises a wire grid polarizer.
However, Boosalis discloses in FIGS. 16 & 17A-17B, [0078]:
Each of the micropolarizer pixels 1702 is, e.g., a wire grid polarizer…
Additionally:
The unit cell 1710 is repeated over the entire micropolarizer array 1645, so that the micropolarizer array 1645 includes a repeated array of micropolarizer pixels 1702 having discrete polarizations. The micropolarizer pixels 1702 have a size and spacing that match the size and spacing of the detector pixels 1704 of the two-dimensional sensor 146, so that each detector pixel 1704 in the two-dimensional sensor 146 is matched, i.e., aligned, with a micropolarizer pixel 1702.
Micropolarizer pixels 1702 are used after polarization separator 1644, but are a separate component after polarization separator 1644. However, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the polarizers a wire grid polarizer as disclosed by Boosalis. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of wire grid polarizers as disclosed by Boosalis and how to use them to modify Boosalis. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as known method of polarization for pixel mapping (See Boosalis, [0078]).
Regarding Claim 10, Boosalis discloses Claim 1, and further discloses:
… wherein two mechanically identical modulets are incorporated (Boosalis, FIG. 20, [0087], showing a first and second channel operating in parallel).
Regarding Claim 11, Boosalis discloses
An optical polarization diversity receiver assembly, comprising:
a first optical collimator (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0046], “focusing optics 136”);
a first non-polarizing beam splitter (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], wavelength separator 142);
a second non-polarizing beam splitter (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], wavelength separator 142, and FIG. 1, [0047], “The wavelength separator 142 may spatially separate the wavelengths in the reflected light 133, e.g., where multiple wavelengths are produced by light source 102 simultaneously. For example, the wavelength separator 142 may be a diffractive element that spatially separates the multiple wavelengths in the reflected light 133, and thus, wavelength separator 142 may be sometimes referred to herein as a wavelength diffractive element 142.” Examiner notes that in this way wavelength separator 142 may act as a second beam splitter);
a first linear polarizer (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0048], “The polarization separator 144 receives the reflected light 133 and separates the reflected light into a plurality of polarization states”);
a second optical collimator (Boosalis, FIG. 20, [0088], “Optical elements, e.g., lens 2010 and folding mirror 2012 in the first channel, and lens 2014 and folding mirror 2016 in the second channel, direct the separated beams towards the two-dimensional sensor”);
a second linear polarizer (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0048], “The polarization separator 144 receives the reflected light 133 and separates the reflected light into a plurality of polarization states.” Examiner notes that in this way, polarization separator 144 acts as a second linear polarizer);
a third linear polarizer (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0048], “The polarization separator 144 receives the reflected light 133 and separates the reflected light into a plurality of polarization states.” Examiner notes that in this way, polarization separator 144 acts as a third linear polarizer); and
a third optical collimator (Boosalis, FIG. 20, [0088], “Optical elements, e.g., lens 2010 and folding mirror 2012 in the first channel, and lens 2014 and folding mirror 2016 in the second channel, direct the separated beams towards the two-dimensional sensor.” Examiner notes that another channel’s optical elements are interpreted as the third optical collimator);
a fourth optical collimator (Boosalis, FIG. 20, [0088], “Optical elements, e.g., lens 2010 and folding mirror 2012 in the first channel, and lens 2014 and folding mirror 2016 in the second channel, direct the separated beams towards the two-dimensional sensor.” Examiner notes that another channel’s optical elements are interpreted as the fourth optical collimator);
wherein, during operations:
with an input of an optical dual-beam interference signal (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0036, light source 102, and FIG. 1, [0036], “the light source 102 may produce multiple contiguous wavelengths.” For the purposes of this mapping, Examiner is treating the path of the light from light 102 to focusing optics 136) launched into the first optical collimator (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0046], focusing optics 136), a collimated beam emerges and propagates in a free space (Boosalis, FIG. 1, Examiner understands the collimated beam from focusing optics 136 to propagate in a free space),
the collimated beam (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], showing detector 140 receiving reflected light 133) is divided into three beams (Examiner notes that splitting the incoming beam as described would result in 3 or more beams) … and directed along different paths upon encountering the first non-polarizing beam splitter (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], wavelength separator 142) … the second non-polarizing beam splitter (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], wavelength separator 142), …
permissible polarization transmission axes of the first linear polarizer, the second linear polarizer and the third linear polarizer are set apart from each other by a predetermined angle, with a respective transmitted beam manifesting interference across each corresponding axis (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0056], “The meta-grating diffracts the beams 1043 into orders based on polarization, similar to a blazed grating separating wavelengths,” and FIG. 10, [0054], “As illustrated, the prism 1042 separates the wavelengths of the light into separate non-contiguous beams 1043. In one implementation, the separation of the light into beams with different wavelengths is due to the use of a light source 102 (shown in FIG. 1) that produces non-contiguous wavelengths, such as a broadband frequency comb light source”),
three separate beams generated from the first linear polarizer, the second linear polarizer and the third linear polarizer are coupled correspondingly into the second optical collimator, the third optical collimator and the fourth optical collimator (Boosalis, FIG. 20, showing two channels with their own associated optical elements), …
… correspondingly to a first external photodetector, a second external photodetector and a third external photodetector located remotely (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], “the two-dimensional sensor 146 may capture multiple frames, where each frame captures polarization information for a different wavelength.” Examiner notes that in this way two-dimensional sensor 146 may act as a second, third, and fourth photodetector, and that detector 140 is external to the previous lighting system that produces light beam 133 and computer system 170), to convert optical signals into electrical signals with a maximum electrical signal among the electrical signals selected for analysis (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0050], “The detector 140 is coupled to a computer system 170”), and
each of the three separate beams in the assembly maintains a same polarization state as that of the input when entering the respective linear polarizer by propagating through the free space or a polarization-independent media (Boosalis, FIG. 1, [0047], detector 140. Examiner notes that once split by wavelength separator 142 and then transmitted to polarization separator 144, the light does not change polarization. Examiner understands light, as shown in FIG. 10, to propagate in free space or a polarization-independent media).
Boosalis discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
(1) … the collimated beam is divided into exactly three beams of equal power, each beam containing 1/3 of an input power of the collimated beam and …
(2) … the three beams towards the first, second and third linear polarizers, respectively, …
(3) … directed along different paths upon encountering the first non-polarizing beam splitter followed by the second non-polarizing beam splitter, towards the first, second and third linear polarizers, (emphasis added) …
(4) … by a predetermined angle of 60 degrees, …
Regarding (1) above, Boosalis’s wavelength separator 142 separates out the wavelengths into separate beams. Based on review and Examiner’s understanding, the separate beams would have equal or roughly equal power between them as each beam would represent a sliver of the incoming beam. The number of beams is a result-effective variable. In that, depending on the needs of the user, if there are too many beams or beams are not split in manners useful to the user, the device would not operate or detect properly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant' s filing date to include “the collimated beam is divided into exactly three beams of equal power, each beam containing 1/3 of an input power of the collimated beam and,” since determining the optimum number of beams and their power is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding (2) and (3) above, as mapped, Boosalis’s wavelength separator 142 is not explicitly sequential. As shown in Applicant’s FIG. 1, the beam splitters 1130 and 1140 are sequential. However, functionally, wavelength separator 142 would separate the beam in a similar manner in a single step. Boosalis does disclose sequential splitting of light, for example through wavelength separator 142 and then polarization separator 144. Examiner acknowledges that polarization separator 144 is not a non-polarizing beam splitter, but mentions it to show that sequential splitting is disclosed.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sequential non-polarizing beam splitters. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of sequential polarizing and non-polarizing beam splitters as disclosed by Boosalis and how to use them to modify Boosalis. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as known method of beam splitting (See Boosalis, [0048] and [0054]).
Additionally, Boosalis discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… the second optical collimator, the third optical collimator and the fourth optical collimator send optical signals through optical fibers (emphasis added) …
As show in Applicant’s FIG. 5, second collimator 2180 collects light for second optical fiber pigtail 2181.
Boosalis’s two-dimensional sensor 146 is functions as the sensor for all of the beams in Boosalis. Boosalis, [0047], discloses:
[T]he two-dimensional sensor 146 may capture multiple frames, where each frame captures polarization information for a different wavelength.
Additionally, [0050]:
The detector 140 is coupled to a computer system 170
Though Boosalis does not explicitly disclose use of optical fibers, FIG. 1 clearly shows a wired connection between detector 140 and computer system 170.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include detectors that send the signals through optical fibers. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of optical fibers and how to use them to modify Boosalis. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as known method of transmitting electrical signals (See Boosalis, [0050]).
Regarding (4) above, the angle components are to each other is a result-effective variable. In that, depending on the needs of the user, if the angles are not determined properly, the device would not operate or detect properly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before applicant' s filing date to include “by a predetermined angle of 60 degrees,” since determining the optimum angle is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 12, Boosalis discloses Claim 11, and further discloses:
… wherein each of the second optical collimator, the third optical collimator and the fourth optical collimator comprises a convex lens (Boosalis, FIG. 1, showing focusing optics 136 as a convex lens).
Claims 3, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boosalis (US 20210262921 A1) in view of Lin (US 20230188215 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Boosalis discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the optical collimator comprises a gradient-index lens.
However, Lin, in a similar field of endeavor (OPTICAL TRANSCEIVER), discloses:
… wherein the optical collimator comprises a gradient-index lens (Lin, [0022], “examples of lenses include convex lens and gradient-index lens”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boosalis with the gradient-index lens of Lin. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of gradient-index lens as disclosed by Lin and how to use them to modify Boosalis. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as known lens for focusing light in a similar manner as convex lens (See Lin, [0022]).
Regarding Claim 6, Boosalis discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein each of the first linear polarizer, the second linear polarizer and the third linear polarizer comprises a birefringent crystal.
However, Lin, in a similar field of endeavor (OPTICAL TRANSCEIVER), discloses:
… wherein each of the first linear polarizer, the second linear polarizer and the third linear polarizer comprises a birefringent crystal (Lin, FIG. 1A, [0023], “first polarization beam splitter/combiner 130 comprises a birefringent material,” and Claim 6, “wherein each of the first polarization beam splitter/combiner and the second polarization beam splitter/combiner comprises a birefringent crystal wedge”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boosalis with the birefringent material of Lin. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of birefringent material as disclosed by Lin and how to use them to modify Boosalis. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as the use of a known material for focusing and directing light (See Lin, [0023]).
Regarding Claim 13, Boosalis discloses Claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein each of the second optical collimator, the third optical collimator and the fourth optical collimator comprises a gradient-index lens.
However, Lin, in a similar field of endeavor (OPTICAL TRANSCEIVER), discloses:
… wherein the optical collimator comprises a gradient-index lens (Lin, [0022], “examples of lenses include convex lens and gradient-index lens”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boosalis with the gradient-index lens of Lin. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of gradient-index lens as disclosed by Lin and how to use them to modify Boosalis. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as known lens for focusing light in a similar manner as convex lens (See Lin, [0022]).
Regarding Claim 14, Boosalis discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… where the directions of the first linear polarizer, the second linear polarizer, and the third linear polarizer are set normally 60 degrees apart relative to each other.
However, as noted above, as mapped, Boosalis’s wavelength separator 142 is not explicitly sequential. As shown in Applicant’s FIG. 1, the beam splitters 1130 and 1140 are sequential. However, functionally, wavelength separator 142 would separate the beam in a similar manner in a single step. Boosalis does disclose sequential splitting of light, for example through wavelength separator 142 and then polarization separator 144. Examiner acknowledges that polarization separator 144 is not a non-polarizing beam splitter, but mentions it to show that sequential splitting is disclosed.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sequential non-polarizing beam splitters. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of sequential polarizing and non-polarizing beam splitters as disclosed by Boosalis and how to use them to modify Boosalis. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as known method of beam splitting (See Boosalis, [0048] and [0054]).
The position of optical components a result-effective variable. In that, if the optical components are not positioned properly as needed by the user, the device would fail to function properly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before Applicant' s filing date to include “where the directions of the first linear polarizer, the second linear polarizer, and the third linear polarizer are set normally 60 degrees apart relative to each other,” since determining the optimum positioning of optical components is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 15, Boosalis discloses Claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose:
… where the directions of the first linear polarizer, the second linear polarizer, and the third linear polarizer are set normally 60 degrees apart relative to each other.
However, as noted above, as mapped, Boosalis’s wavelength separator 142 is not explicitly sequential. As shown in Applicant’s FIG. 1, the beam splitters 1130 and 1140 are sequential. However, functionally, wavelength separator 142 would separate the beam in a similar manner in a single step. Boosalis does disclose sequential splitting of light, for example through wavelength separator 142 and then polarization separator 144. Examiner acknowledges that polarization separator 144 is not a non-polarizing beam splitter, but mentions it to show that sequential splitting is disclosed.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sequential non-polarizing beam splitters. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of sequential polarizing and non-polarizing beam splitters as disclosed by Boosalis and how to use them to modify Boosalis. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as known method of beam splitting (See Boosalis, [0048] and [0054]).
The position of optical components a result-effective variable. In that, if the optical components are not positioned properly as needed by the user, the device would fail to function properly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before Applicant' s filing date to include “where the directions of the first linear polarizer, the second linear polarizer, and the third linear polarizer are set normally 60 degrees apart relative to each other,” since determining the optimum positioning of optical components is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boosalis (US 20210262921 A1) in view of Li (US 20120224184 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Boosalis discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein each of the first non-polarizing beam splitter and the second non-polarizing beam splitter comprises a cube beam splitter.
However, Li, in a similar field of endeavor (OPTICAL DETECTOR FOR DETECTING OPTICAL SIGNAL BEAMS, METHOD TO DETECT OPTICAL SIGNALS, AND USE OF AN OPTICAL DETECTOR TO DETECT OPTICAL SIGNALS), discloses:
… wherein each of the first non-polarizing beam splitter and the second non-polarizing beam splitter comprises a cube beam splitter ([0013], “The polarisation beam splitters (PBS) might be implemented as cube PBS, plate PBS, grating couplers with metalized and/or dielectric coatings. Other implementations may be used by those skilled in the art”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boosalis with the cube beam splitter of Li. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cube beam splitter as disclosed by Li and how to use them to modify Boosalis. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known beam splitter (See Li, [0013]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boosalis (US 20210262921 A1) in view of Sirat (US 20170336326 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Boosalis discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein each of the first linear polarizer, the second linear polarizer and the third linear polarizer comprises a dichroic filter.
However, Sirat, in a similar field of endeavor (Optical Measuring Device And Process), discloses:
… wherein each of the first linear polarizer, the second linear polarizer and the third linear polarizer comprises a dichroic filter (Sirat, [0573], “Dichroic elements representative but non-limiting are Brewster plates or some dichroic glasses comprising elongated metallic nanoparticles oriented homogeneously, enclosed in superficial layers of glass.” Examiner notes that Brewster plates are dichroic filters).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boosalis with the Brewster plates of Sirat. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of Brewster plates as disclosed by Sirat and how to use them to modify Boosalis. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known polarizer (See Li, [0573]).
Regarding Claim 8, Boosalis discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein each of the first linear polarizer, the second linear polarizer and the third linear polarizer comprises a Brewster polarizer.
However, Sirat, in a similar field of endeavor (Optical Measuring Device And Process), discloses:
… wherein each of the first linear polarizer, the second linear polarizer and the third linear polarizer comprises a Brewster polarizer (Sirat, [0573], “Dichroic elements representative but non-limiting are Brewster plates or some dichroic glasses comprising elongated metallic nanoparticles oriented homogeneously, enclosed in superficial layers of glass”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boosalis with the Brewster plates of Sirat. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of Brewster plates as disclosed by Sirat and how to use them to modify Boosalis. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known polarizer (See Li, [0573]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877