DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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 23 is/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.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the relative phases and the relative target amplitudes can be chosen to give a predetermined shape to the shaped light beam”, however, this limitation makes the claim indefinite because of the following. First, the phrases “the relative target amplitudes” and “the shaped light beam” lack antecedent basis. There is no previous disclosure of relative target amplitudes and a shaped light beam. Also, the phrase "can be chosen" renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the relative phases and the relative target amplitudes are being chosen or not. Appropriate correction is required for clarification.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6, 17, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanomura et al (Monolithic InP optical unitary converter based on multi-plane light conversion) in view of Le Taillandier et al (US Pub 20150229438).
Regarding Claim 1. Tanomura discloses a processing device for processing at least two single-mode incident light beams, the incident light beams having phases and/or amplitudes capable of varying, the processing device comprising, connected in succession to each other by free spaces or by waveguides according to a main direction of propagation, at least the following elements (Fig 1(a), where a processing device (e.g. N-mode MUX, N-mode DEMUX, All-optical MIMO) processes at least two single-mode incident light beams, the incident light beams have phases and/or amplitudes capable of varying (e.g. at an All-optical MIMO), the processing device (e.g. N-mode MUX, N-mode DEMUX, All-optical MIMO) comprises, connected in succession to each other by free spaces or by waveguides according to a main direction of propagation (e.g. shown in Fig 1(b)), at least the following elements):
a first phase actuator circuit configured to adjust relative phases of the incident light beams (Fig 1(a), Fig 1(b), where a first phase actuator circuit (e.g. Phase shifters at N input waveguides) is configured to adjust relative phases of the incident light beams);
a multi-plane conversion device configured to receive, on a first optical port, light beams coming from the first phase actuator circuit and configured to distribute energy of these light beams to at least two single-mode converted light beams produced at a second optical port (Fig 1(a), Fig 1(b), where a multi-plane conversion device (e.g. an NxN MMI coupler) is configured to receive, on a first optical port (e.g. an input), light beams coming from the first phase actuator circuit (e.g. Phase shifters at N input waveguides) and is configured to distribute energy of these light beams to at least two single-mode converted light beams produced at a second optical port (e.g. an output)); and
a second phase actuator circuit arranged downstream of the multi-plane conversion device and configured to adjust relative phases of the converted light beams (Fig 1(a), Fig 1(b), where a second phase actuator circuit (e.g. Phase shifters at N output waveguides) is arranged downstream of the multi-plane conversion device (e.g. an NxN MMI coupler) and is configured to adjust relative phases of the converted light beams).
Tanomura fails to explicitly disclose the incident light beams being coherent.
However, Le Taillandier discloses
incident light beams being coherent (Fig 6, where a transmitter (501) generates incident light beams (e.g. towards a modal multiplexer 592) that are coherent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the incident light beams as described in Tanomura, with the teachings of the incident light beams as described in Le Taillandier. The motivation being is that as shown incident light beams (e.g. towards a modal multiplexer 592) can be coherent and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the incident light beams as described in Tanomura and have the incident light beams (e.g. towards N-mode MUX) be coherent i.e. as an alternative so as to have the incident light beams with a known technique of known incident light beams for the purpose of optimally transmitting data by using a known optical coherent modulator/demodulator and which technique optimally implements the benefits of using optical coherent technology into the system which includes for example increased spectral utilization and superior signal quality and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. incident light beams, mode multiplexers,…) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of known incident light beams into other similar incident light beams, namely, for their improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2. Tanomura as modified by Le Taillandier also discloses the processing device, wherein the converted beams at the output of the second phase actuator have relative amplitudes and relative phases respectively in accordance with relative setpoint amplitudes and to relative setpoint phases (Tanomura Fig 1(a), Fig 1(b), where the converted beams at the output of the second phase actuator (e.g. Phase shifters at N output waveguides) have relative amplitudes and relative phases respectively in accordance with relative setpoint amplitudes and relative setpoint phases (i.e. in order to recover the original transmitted incident light beams)).
Regarding Claim 3. Tanomura as modified by Le Taillandier also discloses the processing device, wherein the multi-plane conversion device comprises a plurality of microstructured zones arranged on at least one optical element to spatially intercept and modify the respective phases of the incident light beams during a plurality of reflections or transmissions separated by free propagation (Tanomura Fig 1(a), Fig 1(b), where the multi-plane conversion device (e.g. an NxN MMI coupler) comprises a plurality of microstructured zones (e.g. as shown in Fig 2(a), Fig 2(b)) arranged on at least one optical element which spatially intercepts and modifies the respective phases of the incident light beams during a plurality of reflections or transmissions separated by free propagation (e.g. as shown in Fig 2(c), Fig (2d))).
Regarding Claim 4. Tanomura as modified by Le Taillandier also discloses the processing device, wherein the first phase actuator circuit and the second phase actuator circuit comprise a plurality of optical phase shifters associated with the incident light beams and the processing device comprises at least one control device configured to generate control signals of the optical phase shifters (Tanomura Fig 1(a), Fig 1(b), where the first phase actuator circuit (e.g. Phase shifters at N input waveguides) and the second phase actuator circuit (i.e. Phase shifters at N output waveguides) comprise a plurality of optical phase shifters associated with the incident light beams and where it is known that the processing device (e.g. N-mode MUX, N-mode DEMUX, All-optical MIMO) comprises at least one control device configured to generate control signals for the optical phase shifters (i.e. in order to obtain a desired output light beam) (see for example Mansouri Rad et al (US Pub 20180059332) Fig 3)).
Regarding Claim 5. Tanomura as modified by Le Taillandier also discloses an optical system comprising a processing device and a spatial demultiplexer, arranged upstream of the first phase actuator circuit, the spatial demultiplexer configured to receive an incident multi-mode light radiation and produce the incident light beams (Tanomura Fig 1(a), Fig 1(b), where an optical system comprises the processing device (e.g. N-mode MUX, N-mode DEMUX, All-optical MIMO) and a spatial demultiplexer (e.g. N-mode DEMUX), arranged upstream of the first phase actuator circuit (i.e. Phase shifters at N input waveguides), the spatial demultiplexer (e.g. N-mode DEMUX) is configured to receive an incident multi-mode light radiation (e.g. transmitted via a Multi-mode fiber) and produce incident light beams).
Regarding Claim 6. Tanomura as modified by Le Taillandier also discloses the optical system, wherein the spatial demultiplexer is implemented by a multi-plane conversion device (Tanomura Fig 1(a), Fig 1(b), where the spatial demultiplexer (e.g. N-mode DEMUX) is a mode demultiplexer and it is known that a mode demultiplexer is implemented by a multi-plane conversion device (MPLC) (see for example Parsons et al (US Pub 20210311247) para [29]).
Regarding Claim 17. Tanomura as modified by Le Taillandier also discloses the optical system, further comprising an emission subsystem and a reception subsystem, the emission subsystem being configured from parameters determined in the reception subsystem (Tanomura Fig 1(a), Fig 1(b), where the optical system comprises an emission subsystem (e.g. a source for generating incident light beams) and a reception subsystem (e.g. a destination for receiving incident light beams), and where it is known that the emission subsystem (e.g. a source for generating incident light beams) is configured from parameters determined in the reception subsystem (e.g. a destination for receiving incident light beams) (i.e. in order to improve system performance) (see for example Yin (US Pub 20170302399) Fig 6)).
Regarding Claim 21. Tanomura as modified by Le Taillandier also discloses the optical system, further comprising a light source, arranged upstream of the spatial demultiplexer, and configured to produce the incident multi-mode light radiation (Tanomura Fig 1(a), Fig 1(b), where the optical system comprises a light source (e.g. a source for generating incident light beams) (e.g. as shown in Le Taillandier Fig 6), arranged upstream of the spatial demultiplexer (e.g. N-mode DEMUX), and configured to produce the incident multi-mode light radiation (e.g. transmitted via a Multi-mode fiber)).
Regarding Claim 23. Tanomura as modified by Le Taillandier also discloses the optical system, wherein the relative phases and the relative target amplitudes can be chosen to give a predetermined shape to the shaped light beam (Tanomura Fig 1(a), Fig 1(b), where the relative phases and relative target amplitudes (e.g. varied at an All-optical MIMO) are chosen to give a predetermined shape to an output shaped light beam (e.g. as shown in Fig 1(b))).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-16, 18-20 and 22 is/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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIBSON J SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0868. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached on 5712723078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIBSON J SANCHEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2636
Prosecution Insights