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 submitted on 07/29/2024 and 12/24/2025 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 4, 10, and 15 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.
The term “an azimuthal angle” renders the claim indefinite. The term “an azimuthal angle” is not defined by the claim and is unclear whether the retardation plate includes an azimuthal angle. As a result, it’s unclear how the retardation plate and the azimuthal angle are related. Therefore, one of ordinary art in the skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. ( See claim 5 line 1-2 as a guide to overcome the 112 rejection).
Claim 20 depends from Claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reason(s) of indefiniteness as indicated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martelli (US 9571196).
Consider Claim 1, Martelli 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).
Consider Claim 6, Mareli discloses the optical communication system according to claim 1, further comprising: a polarizing plate (Figure 2, element 20), wherein the polarizing plate and the patterned retardation plate are integrated (Figure 2, output from element 11 is directed into element 20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 under5 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) 3 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martelli and further in view of Ashrafi (US 10887013).
Consider Claim 3, Martelli discloses the optical communication system according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of the polarized light sources are provided (Figure 2, elements 5-9) but does not disclose the modulator is provided between each of the polarized light sources and the patterned retardation plate.
However, Ashrafi discloses the modulator (Figure 6, element 604) is provided between each of the polarized light sources and the patterned retardation plate (Figure 6, where element 606 does twist signal processing and is between sources 602 and twist processing unit 606).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Ashrafi into Martelli to reduce the effect of chirp that can arise from direct modulation.
Consider Claim 17, Martelli discloses the optical communication system according to claim 3, further comprising: a polarizing plate (Figure 2, element 20), wherein the polarizing plate and the patterned retardation plate are integrated (Figure 2, output from element 11 is directed into element 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Ashrafi into Martelli to reduce the effect of chirp that can arise from direct modulation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martelli and further in view of White (US 10731077).
Consider Claim 7, Martelli does not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, White discloses the optical communication system according to claim 1, comprising: an alignment mechanism capable of accurately aligning a center of the plate and an incident position of light with each other (Figure 3 and Column 8, Lines 18-20, where waveplate element 66 is moved in respect to beam element 72 by controller element 70). Although the plate in White is not a retardation plate, it would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that a retardation plate of Martelli can be used to achieve the task of alignment with an incident light to automate the process with controller element 70 of white to reduce the need of human intervention in case of misalignment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof White into Martelli to ensure light hits the retardation plate and avoid misdirection of light beam.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martelli and further in view of Buck Jr. (US 11057116).
Consider Claim 8, Martelli discloses the optical communication system according to claim 1, wherein the patterned retardation plate includes (Figure 2, element 11) but does not disclose in the same plane, a plurality of phase difference patterns that are different in at least one of an order or the number of nodes.
However, Buck Jr. discloses in the same plane, a plurality of phase difference patterns that are different in at least one of an order (Figure 2A, where element 206 can detect modes of vortices outputted by element 204) or
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Buck Jr. into Martelli to properly distinguish vortices.
Consider Claim 9, Martelli discloses a patterned retardation plate comprising: a plurality of phase difference patterns that convert incident polarized light into optical vortices (Figure 2, element 11 takes light beam elements F1-F5 and converts them into optical vortex elements V1-V5 but does not disclose wherein the plurality of phase difference patterns that are different in at least one of an order or the number of nodes are provided in the same plane.
However, Buck Jr. discloses wherein the plurality of phase difference patterns that are different in at least one of an order (Figure 2A, where element 206 can detect modes of vortices outputted by element 204)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Buck Jr. into Martelli to properly distinguish vortices.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martelli in view of Ashrafi, and further in view of White.
Consider Claim 18, Martelli and Mashrafi do not disclose the limitations of this claim.
However, White discloses the optical communication system according to claim 1, comprising: an alignment mechanism capable of accurately aligning a center of the plate and an incident position of light with each other (Figure 3 and Column 8, Lines 18-20, where waveplate element 66 is moved in respect to beam element 72 by controller element 70). Although the plate in White is not a retardation plate, it would be obvious to one of skill in the ordinary art that a retardation plate of Martelli can be used to achieve the task of alignment with an incident light to automate the process with controller element 70 of white to reduce the need of human intervention in case of misalignment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof White into Martelli and Ashrafi to ensure light hits the retardation plate and avoid misdirection of light beam.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martelli in view of Ashrafi, and further in view of Buck Jr.
Consider Claim 19, Martelli discloses the optical communication system according to claim 3, wherein the patterned retardation plate includes (Figure 2, element 11) but does not disclose in the same plane, a plurality of phase difference patterns that are different in at least one of an order or the number of nodes.
However, Buck Jr. discloses in the same plane, a plurality of phase difference patterns that are different in at least one of an order (Figure 2A, where element 206 can detect modes of vortices outputted by element 204) or
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before theeffective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachingsof Buck Jr. into Martelli and Ashrafi to properly distinguish vortices.
Conclusion
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 11-14, and 16 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.
Claims 4, 10, 15, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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