DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 8/8/2025. In virtue of this communication claims 21-26, 29-37 and 39-40 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Amendment
In response to the action mailed on 5/19/2025, the Applicant has filed a response amending the claims.
In view of Applicant’s response the claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new references and/or interpretation being used in the current rejection.
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 21-26 and 29-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno et al (JP H0777602 A) in view of Hamasaki et al (US Pub 20020136256).
Regarding claim 21. Konno discloses an optical element having a mirror-symmetric hexagon shape (Fig 2, where an optical element (1) has a mirror-symmetric hexagon shape), comprising:
a first face having a first upper facet and a first lower facet (Fig 2, where the optical element (1) comprises a first face (e.g. at a left hand side) having a first upper facet and a first lower facet);
a second face, arranged opposite the first face on the mirror-symmetric hexagon shape, having a second upper facet and a second lower facet (Fig 2, where the optical element (1) comprises a second face (e.g. at a right hand side), arranged opposite to the first face (e.g. at a left hand side) on the mirror-symmetric hexagon shape, having a second upper facet and a second lower facet); and
a plurality of at least semi-transparent mirrors (Fig 2, where the optical element (1) comprises a plurality of at least semi-transparent mirrors (e.g. at 1c and 1d)),
wherein at least two of the first upper facet, the second upper facet, the first lower facet, or the second lower facet comprise the at least semi-transparent mirrors (Fig 11, where at least two of the first upper facet, the second upper facet, the first lower facet or the second lower facet comprise the at least semi-transparent mirrors (e.g. at 1c and 1d)).
Konno fails to explicitly disclose the semi-transparent mirrors being partially reflective surfaces.
However, Hamasaki discloses
a semi-transparent mirror being a partially reflective surface (Fig 4, para [53] where a semi-transparent mirror (43) is a partially reflective surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the semi-transparent mirrors (e.g. at 1c and 1d) as described in Konno, with the teachings of the semi-transparent mirror (43) as described in Hamasaki. The motivation being is that as shown a semi-transparent mirror (43) is a partially reflective surface and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the semi-transparent mirrors (e.g. at 1c and 1d) as described in Konno and better show and illustrate that the semi-transparent mirrors (e.g. at 1c and 1d) are partially reflective surfaces i.e. because the semi-transparent mirrors (e.g. at 1c and 1d) reflects part of an incident light and passes through another part of the incident light in order to optimally perform optimal multiplexing and optical demultiplexing and which combination is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. semi-transparent mirrors) and which combination is a simple implementation of a known concept of a known semi-transparent mirror (43) into other similar semi-transparent mirrors (e.g. at 1c and 1d), namely, for better clarifying their operation/configuration and which combination yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 22. Konno as modified by Hamasaki also discloses the optical element, wherein the optical element comprises a 4-port optical device (Konno Fig 2, Fig 11, where the optical element (1) comprises a 4-port/connector optical device (e.g. as shown in Fig 11)).
Regarding claim 23. Konno as modified by Hamasaki also discloses the optical element, wherein the 4-port optical device comprises an etalon (Konno Fig 2, Fig 11, where the optical element (1) with the 4-port/connector optical device (e.g. as shown in Fig 11) comprises an optical filter/demultiplexer (etalon) (e.g. as shown in Fig 2) (similar to Applicant’s disclosure Fig 4A)).
Regarding claim 24. Konno as modified by Hamasaki also discloses the optical element, wherein the 4-port optical device comprises an interleaver (Konno Fig 2, Fig 11, where the optical element (1) with the 4-port/connector optical device (e.g. as shown in Fig 11) comprises an optical multiplexer (interleaver) (e.g. as shown in Fig 2) (similar to Applicant’s disclosure Fig 4A)).
Regarding claim 25. Konno as modified by Hamasaki also discloses the optical element, wherein the first lower facet and the second lower facet comprise the partially reflective surfaces and form ports of the 4-port optical device (Konno Fig 2, Fig 11, where the first lower facet and the second lower facet comprise the semi-transparent mirrors (e.g. at 1c and 1d) (partially reflective surfaces) and form ports of the 4-port/ connector optical device (e.g. as shown in Fig 11)).
Regarding claim 26. Konno as modified by Hamasaki also discloses the optical element, wherein the first upper facet and the second upper facet comprise fully reflective surfaces (Konno Fig 11, where the first upper facet and the second upper facet comprise fully reflective surfaces (e.g. at 16 and 17)).
Regarding claim 29. Konno as modified by Hamasaki also discloses the optical element, wherein the optical element is configured to receive two input beams and provide four output beams (Konno Fig 2, where the optical element (1) is configured to receive two input beams and provide four output beams (e.g. during optical demultiplexing)).
Regarding claim 30. Konno as modified by Hamasaki also discloses the optical element, wherein the four output beams comprise two back reflected beams (Konno Fig 2, where the four output beams (e.g. during optical demultiplexing) comprise two back reflected beams).
Regarding claim 31. Konno as modified by Hamasaki also discloses the optical element, wherein at least one of the at least partially reflective surfaces comprises a mirror (Konno Fig 2, where at least one of the semi-transparent mirrors (e.g. at 1c and 1d) (partially reflective surfaces) comprises a mirror).
Regarding claim 32. Konno as modified by Hamasaki also discloses the optical element, wherein at least one of the at least partially reflective surfaces comprises a prism surface (Konno Fig 2, where at least one of the semi-transparent mirrors (e.g. at 1c and 1d) (partially reflective surfaces) comprises a prism surface).
Regarding claim 33. Konno as modified by Hamasaki also discloses the optical element, wherein the first upper facet, the first lower facet, the second upper facet, and the second lower facet form a resonant cavity (Konno Fig 2, where the optical element (1) with the first upper facet, the first lower facet, the second upper facet, and the second lower facet form a structure/cavity that reinforces/resonates light during optical multiplexing and thus the first upper facet, the first lower facet, the second upper facet, and the second lower facet form a resonant cavity (similar to Applicant’s disclosure Fig 4A)).
Claims 34-37 and 39-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konno et al (JP H0777602 A).
Regarding claim 34. Konno Fig 2 discloses an etalon having a mirror-symmetric hexagon shape (Fig 2, where an optical element (1) has a mirror-symmetric hexagon shape and where the optical element (1) is an optical filter/demultiplexer (etalon) (similar to Applicant’s disclosure Fig 4A)), comprising:
a first face having a first upper facet and a first lower facet (Fig 2, where the optical element (1) comprises a first face (e.g. at a left hand side) having a first upper facet and a first lower facet); and
a second face, arranged opposite the first face on the mirror-symmetric hexagon shape, having a second upper facet and a second lower facet (Fig 2, where the optical element (1) comprises a second face (e.g. at a right hand side), arranged opposite to the first face (e.g. at a left hand side) on the mirror-symmetric hexagon shape, having a second upper facet and a second lower facet),
wherein the first upper facet, the second upper facet, the first lower facet, and the second lower facet are configured to provide 4 inputs/outputs for the etalon (Fig 2, where the first upper facet, the second upper facet, the first lower facet, and the second lower facet are configured to provide 4 inputs/outputs for the optical element (1)).
Konno Fig 2 fails to explicitly disclose the 4 inputs/outputs comprises 4 ports.
However, Konno Fig 11 discloses
4 inputs/outputs comprise 4 ports (Fig 11, where 4 inputs/outputs comprise 4 ports/connectors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the 4 inputs/outputs as described in Konno Fig 2, with the teachings of the 4 inputs/outputs as described in Konno Fig 11. The motivation being is that as shown 4 inputs/outputs can comprise 4 ports/connectors and one of ordinary skill in the art can implement this concept into the 4 inputs/outputs as described in Konno Fig 2 and have the 4 inputs/outputs as described in Konno Fig 2 comprise 4 ports/connectors i.e. as an alternative so as to have the optical element (1) optimally coupling to other optical elements in a more efficient manner and where the 4 ports/connectors optimally allows for an easy connection and disconnection of the optical element (1) and which modification is being made because the systems are similar and have overlapping components (e.g. optical elements) and which modification is a simple implementation of a known concept of known 4 inputs/outputs as described in Konno Fig 11 into other similar 4 inputs/outputs as described in Konno Fig 2, namely, for their improvement and for optimization and which modification yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 35. Konno also discloses the etalon, wherein at least two of the first upper facet, the second upper facet, the first lower facet, or the second lower facet comprise at least partially reflective surfaces (Konno Fig 2, Fig 11, where at least two of the first upper facet, the second upper facet, the first lower facet, or the second lower facet comprise at least semi-transparent mirrors (e.g. at 1c and 1d) (partially reflective surfaces)).
Regarding claim 36. Konno also discloses the etalon, wherein the first lower facet and the second lower facet comprise the partially reflective surfaces and form the 4 ports for the etalon (Konno Fig 2, Fig 11, where the first lower facet and the second lower facet comprise the semi-transparent mirrors (e.g. at 1c and 1d) (partially reflective surfaces) and form the 4 inputs/outputs (4 ports/connectors) for the optical device (1)).
Regarding claim 37. Konno also discloses the etalon, wherein the first upper facet and the second upper facet comprise fully reflective surfaces (Konno Fig 2, Fig 11, where the first upper facet and the second upper facet comprise fully reflective surfaces (e.g. at 16 and 17)).
Regarding claim 39. Konno also discloses the etalon, wherein the etalon is configured to receive two input beams and provide four output beams (Konno Fig 2, Fig 11, where the optical element (1) (e.g. as shown in Fig 2) is configured to receive two input beams and provide four output beams (e.g. during optical demultiplexing)).
Regarding claim 40. Konno also discloses the etalon, wherein the four output beams comprise two back reflected beams (Konno Fig 2, Fig 11, where the four output beams (e.g. during optical demultiplexing) comprise two back reflected beams).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 2634