Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 8-10, 15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and claims(s) 4, 10, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicants’ arguments are rendered moot in view of the present Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the modulator is provided between each of the polarized light sources and the patterned retardation plate.” In Lines 2-3. However, Claim 3 is dependent on Claim 1, where Claim 1 now recites the limitation “the modulator is provided between the patterned retardation plate and the multiplexer.” In Lines 9-10. In the specification, Figure 1 of the drawings where the modulators (elements 15-18) are in between the patterned retardation plate (element 14) and the multiplexer (element 19) corresponds with Claim 1 and the structure recited by the limitation in Claim 3 corresponds to Figure 3, where the modulators (elements 15-18) are in between the light sources (elements 41-44) and the patterned retardation plate (element 14); paragraphs 0014-0018 and 0022-0030 discuss Figure 1 in greater detail while paragraphs 0033-0040 discuss Figure 3 in greater detail. However, these two figures are separate embodiments and there is no indication from the paragraphs of the specification nor the drawings of Figure 3 limiting Figure 1. Therefore, it is unclear how from the drawings and the specification how the two different embodiments would be merged under a single embodiment as indicated by the claims.
Claims 15-19 depend from Claim 3 and are therefore rejected for the reason(s)
as indicated above.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the modulator is provided between each of the polarized light sources and the patterned retardation plate.” In Lines 2-3. However, Claim 3 is dependent on Claim 1, where Claim 1 now recites the limitation “the modulator is provided between the patterned retardation plate and the multiplexer.” In Lines 9-10. It is unclear how Claim 1 has “the modulator is provided between the patterned retardation plate and the multiplexer” while Claim 3 then proceeds to state that “the modulator is provided between each of the polarized light sources and the patterned retardation plate.” Claim 1 corresponds with Figure 1 of the drawings where the modulators (elements 15-18) are in between the patterned retardation plate (element 14) and the multiplexer (element 19) and the structure recited by the limitation in Claim 3 corresponds to Figure 3, where the modulators (elements 15-18) are in between the light sources (elements 41-44) and the patterned retardation plate (element 14). These two figures represent different embodiments and it is unclear how these embodiments would be merged together under a single embodiment.
Claims 15-19 depend from Claim 3 and are therefore rejected for the reason(s) of
indefiniteness as indicated above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the modulator is provided between each of the polarized light sources and the patterned retardation plate.” In Lines 2-3. However, Claim 3 is dependent on Claim 1, where Claim 1 now recites the limitation “the modulator is provided between the patterned retardation plate and the multiplexer.” In Lines 9-10. The structure recited by the limitation in Claim 1 is related to Figure 1 of the drawings where the modulators (elements 15-18) are in between the patterned retardation plate (element 14) and the multiplexer (element 19). The structure recited by the limitation in Claim 3 is related to Figure 3, where the modulators (elements 15-18) are in between the light sources (elements 41-44) and the patterned retardation plate (element 14). Figures 1 and 3 represent two different embodiments of the invention due to the change in modulator placement. Therefore, Claim 3 represents a different embodiment which contradicts with Claim 1 and does not further limit the subject matter of the claim.
Claims 15-19 depend from Claim 3 and are therefore rejected for the reason(s)
as indicated above.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-8, and 20 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Martelli (US 9571196) discloses an optical communication system comprising: an optical transmitter (Figure 1, element 2); a transmission path (Figure 1, element 40); and an optical receiver (Figure 2, element 102), wherein the optical transmitter includes a polarized light source (Figure 1, elements 5-9 and Column 10 Lines 59067 and Column 11, Lines 1-6, where elements 5-9 are laser sources with polarization states), a patterned retardation plate that converts light from the polarized light source into a plurality of optical vortices (Figure 2, element 11 takes light beam elements F1-F5 and converts them into optical vortex elements V1-V5), a modulator (Column 10, Lines 53-55 where beams F1-F5 are already modulated so the laser source elements acts as a modulator), and a multiplexer (Figure 2, element 30 and Column 10, Lines 13-15, where element 30 performs multiplexing function on vortex elements CVLS1-CVLS1-5 and transmits over fiber element 40), and wherein a plurality of the polarized light sources are provided (Figure 2, elements 5-9)
However, Martelli and a thorough search in the art fail to disclose the following:
Claim 1: the modulator is provided between the patterned retardation plate and the multiplexer.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 ASIF SHAMEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-6576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST-5:00 PM 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, KENNETH VANDERPUYE can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/ASIF SHAMEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 2634
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights