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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 26 August 2024. These drawings are accepted.
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 4-7 and 11-14 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.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations “the first line” (in line 5) and “the second line” (in line 7) lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner suggests that the first instance of each be changed to “a first line” and “a second line”, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations “the second line” (in line 18) and “the third line” (in line 20) lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner suggests that the first instance of each be changed to “a second line” and “a third line”, respectively.
Regarding claims 6-7, the claims inherit the deficiencies of claim 5 through their dependencies.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations “the first line” (in line 4) and “the second line” (in line 6) lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner suggests that the first instance of each be changed to “a first line” and “a second line”, respectively.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations “the second line” (in line 18) and “the third line” (in line 20) lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner suggests that the first instance of each be changed to “a second line” and “a third line”, respectively.
Regarding claims 13-14, the claims inherit the deficiencies of claim 12 through their dependencies.
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:
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 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wills et al. (US 2002/0012167) (hereafter Wills), in view of Miao et al. (US 2014/0185139) (hereafter Miao).
Regarding claim 1, Wills discloses a polarization beam splitter with isolation function (see at least the abstract), comprising: a single input port (see at least Fig. 1a and paragraph [0048], where 117 in an input port), a first birefringent crystal, a first Faraday rotator, a second birefringent crystal (see at least Fig. 1a and paragraph [0046], where 110 and 116 are birefringent crystals and 112 is a Faraday rotator) and a dual-core polarization-maintaining waveguide (see at least Fig. 1a and paragraph [0048], where output ports 118 and 119 can have polarization maintaining fibers) that are successively arranged along the forward optical path (see at least Fig. 1a); the first birefringent crystal, the first Faraday rotator, and the second birefringent crystal are all parallel plate structures (see at least Fig. 1a); the first birefringent crystal is configured to separate the convergent beam into the first crystal forward o-light and the first crystal forward e-light whose polarization directions are perpendicular to each other, and form a first forward relative displacement between the first crystal forward o-light and the first crystal forward e-light, and then output them to the first Faraday rotator; the first Faraday rotator is configured to rotate the polarization direction of the first crystal forward o-light and the first crystal forward e-light by an angle of α in the first rotation direction and then output them to the second birefringent crystal, where α=45°; the second birefringent crystal is configured to form a second forward relative displacement between the first crystal forward o-light and the first crystal forward e-light, and then output them to the two cores of the dual-core polarization-maintaining waveguide (see at least Fig. 1a and paragraph [0048]); the distance between the two cores of the dual-core polarization-maintaining waveguide is equal to the sum of the first forward relative displacement and the second forward relative displacement between the first crystal forward o-light and the first crystal forward e-light, the polarization states of the two cores of the dual-core polarization-maintaining waveguide are aligned with the polarization states of the first crystal forward o-light and the first crystal forward e-light output from the second birefringent crystal; the dual-core polarization-maintaining waveguide is configured to export the first crystal forward o-light and the first crystal forward e-light (see at least Fig. 1a and paragraph [0048]); when two backward linearly polarized lights that are aligned with the polarization states of the two cores of the dual-core polarization-maintaining waveguide respectively enter the two cores of the dual-core polarization-maintaining waveguide along the backward light path, the two cores of the dual-core polarization-maintaining waveguide are configured to output the two backward linearly polarized lights to the second birefringent crystal, and the polarization states of the two backward linearly polarized lights are aligned with the o-light and e-light polarization states of the second birefringent crystal; the second birefringent crystal is configured to form a second backward relative displacement between the two backward linearly polarized lights and then output them to the first Faraday rotator; the first Faraday rotator is configured to rotate the polarization states of the two backward linearly polarized lights by an angle α in the first rotation direction and then output them to the first birefringent crystal; the first birefringent crystal is configured to form a first backward relative displacement between the two backward linearly polarized lights; in the optical path between the forward input surface of the first birefringent crystal and the forward output surface of the second birefringent crystal, the polarization states of the two backward linearly polarized lights form a 90° rotation relative to the forward light with the o-light and e-light undergoing conversion in the first birefringent crystal, causing the optical path of the two backward linearly polarized lights in the first birefringent crystal to deviate from the forward light path in the first birefringent crystal, and ultimately, the two backward linearly polarized lights output from the first birefringent crystal cannot be coupled into the single-core waveguide after passing through the lens (see at least Figs. 4a and 4b, where the reverse direction shows that the backward linearly polarized lights do not align with the input port).
Wills does not specifically disclose a single-core waveguide and a lens; wherein the single-core waveguide is configured to import divergent beam and output it to the lens and the lens is configured to convert the divergent beam into convergent beam and output it to the first birefringent crystal.
However, Miao teaches a polarization beam splitter comprising a birefringent crystal (see at least the abstract), and an input comprising a single-core waveguide and a lens, wherein the single-core waveguide is configured to import divergent beam and output it to the lens and the lens is configured to convert the divergent beam into convergent beam and output it to the birefringent crystal (see at least Figs. 1 and 4 and paragraphs [0018]-[0022], where signal input 106 is a single-core waveguide and 159 is a lens that converges the diverging light).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarization beam splitter of Wills to include the teachings of Miao so that the beam splitter comprises a single-core waveguide and a lens; wherein the single-core waveguide is configured to import divergent beam and output it to the lens and the lens is configured to convert the divergent beam into convergent beam and output it to the first birefringent crystal, for the purpose of guiding the incoming light and focusing the light to a small point (see at least Figs. 1 and 4 and paragraph [0022] of Miao).
Regarding claim 2, Wills as modified by Miao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Wills also teaches that the polarization state of the first crystal forward o-light along the forward light path aligns with the o-light or e-light polarization state of the second birefringent crystal after passing through the first Faraday rotator (see at least Figs. 4a and 4b).
Regarding claim 3, Wills as modified by Miao discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Wills also discloses that, the angle θ1 between the normal to the forward light incidence surface of the first birefringent crystal and the optical axis of the first birefringent crystal is the first walk-off angle, wherein -90° < θ1 < 0° or 0° < θ1 < 90°, the first walk-off angle is configured to control the first forward relative displacement and the first backward relative displacement; and/or, The angle θ2 between the normal to the forward light incidence surface of the second birefringent crystal and the optical axis of the second birefringent crystal is the second walk-off angle, wherein -90° ≤ θ2 < 0° or 0° < θ2 ≤ 90°, the second walk-off angle is configured to control the second forward relative displacement and the second backward relative displacement, as well as the optical path difference between the o-light and e-light cumulated in both the first birefringent crystal and the second birefringent crystal (see at least Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 8, Wills discloses a polarization beam combiner with isolation function (see at least the abstract), comprising: a dual-core polarization-maintaining waveguide (see at least Fig. 5a and paragraph [0059], where output ports 118 and 119 can have polarization maintaining fibers), a first birefringent crystal, a first Faraday rotator, a second birefringent crystal (see at least Fig. 5a and paragraph [0058], where 110 and 116 are birefringent crystals and 112 is a Faraday rotator), and a single output port (see at least Fig. 5a and paragraph [0059], where 117 is an output port) along the forward light path successively (see at least Fig. 5a); the first birefringent crystal, the first Faraday rotator and the second birefringent crystal are parallel plate structures (see at least Fig. 5a); the two cores of the dual-core polarization-maintaining waveguide are configured to import two linearly polarized lights which polarization states are aligned with the polarization states of the two cores, and outputting them to the first birefringent crystal; the o-light and e-light polarization states of the first crystal are aligned with the polarization states of the two linearly polarized lights, and the first birefringent crystal is configured to form a first forward relative displacement between the two linearly polarized lights and then output them to the first Faraday rotator as the first crystal forward o-light and the first crystal forward e-light; the first Faraday rotator is configured to rotate the polarization states of the first crystal forward o-light and the first crystal forward e-light by α angle in the first rotation direction and then output them to the second birefringent crystal, wherein α=45°; the second birefringent crystal is configured to form a second forward relative displacement between the first crystal forward o-light and the first crystal forward e-light, the sum of the first forward relative displacement and the second forward relative displacement causes the first crystal forward o-light and the first crystal forward e-light to coincide as a single beam of light (see at least Figs. 5a and 5b and paragraphs [0058]-[0059]); when the backward light enters the single output port in the backward light path it is output to the second birefringent crystal; the second birefringent crystal is configured to form a second backward relative displacement between the two backward linearly polarized lights which are separated from the backward light and are in perpendicular polarization state to each other, and then output them to the first Faraday rotator; the first Faraday rotator is configured to rotate the polarization states of the two backward linearly polarized lights by α angle in the first rotation direction and then output them to the first birefringent crystal; the first birefringent crystal is configured to form a first backward relative displacement between the two backward linearly polarized lights; in the optical path between the forward input surface of the first birefringent crystal and the forward output surface of the second birefringent crystal, the polarization states of the two backward linearly polarized lights form a 90° rotation relative to the forward light with the o-light and e-light undergoing transformation in the first birefringent crystal, causing the optical path of the two backward linearly polarized lights to deviate from the forward light path in the first birefringent crystal, and ultimately, the two backward linearly polarized lights output from the first birefringent crystal cannot be coupled into any core of the dual-core polarization-maintaining waveguide (see at least Figs. 5a and 5c and paragraph [0060]).
Wills does not specifically disclose a lens and a single-core waveguide; wherein the light is output to the lens as divergent beam and the lens is configured to convert the divergent beam into convergent beam and output it to the single-core waveguide and, in backward operation, the single-core waveguide is configured to output the backward light to the lens as divergent beam and the lens is configured to convert the backward light into convergent beam.
However, Miao teaches a polarization beam splitter comprising a birefringent crystal (see at least the abstract), and an input comprising a single-core waveguide and a lens, wherein the single-core waveguide is configured to import divergent beam and output it to the lens and the lens is configured to convert the divergent beam into convergent beam and output it to the birefringent crystal (see at least Figs. 1 and 4 and paragraphs [0018]-[0022], where signal input 106 is a single-core waveguide and 159 is a lens that converges the diverging light).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarization beam combiner of Wills to include the teachings of Miao so that the beam combiner comprises a lens and a single-core waveguide; wherein the light is output to the lens as divergent beam and the lens is configured to convert the divergent beam into convergent beam and output it to the single-core waveguide and, in backward operation, the single-core waveguide is configured to output the backward light to the lens as divergent beam and the lens is configured to convert the backward light into convergent beam, for the purpose of guiding the outgoing (forward direction) and incoming (backward direction) light and focusing the light to a small point (see at least Figs. 1 and 4 and paragraph [0022] of Miao).
Regarding claim 9, Wills as modified by Miao discloses all of the limitations of claim 8.
Wills also discloses that, the polarization state of the first crystal forward o-light along the forward light path, aligns with the o-light or e-light polarization state of the second birefringent crystal after passing through the first Faraday rotator (see at least Figs. 5a and 5b).
Regarding claim 10, Wills as modified by Miao discloses all of the limitations of claim 8.
Wills also discloses that, the angle θ1 between the normal to the forward light incidence surface of the first birefringent crystal and the optical axis of the first birefringent crystal is the first walk-off angle, wherein -90° < θ1 < 0° or 0° < θ1 < 90°, the first walk-off angle is configured to control the first forward relative displacement and the first backward relative displacement; and/or, the angle θ2 between the normal to the forward light incidence surface of the second birefringent crystal and the optical axis of the second birefringent crystal is the second walk-off angle, wherein -90° ≤ θ2 < 0° or 0° < θ2 ≤ 90°, the second walk-off angle is configured to control the second forward relative displacement and the second backward relative displacement, as well as the optical path difference between the o-light and e-light cumulated in both the first birefringent crystal and second birefringent crystal (see at least Figs. 5a and 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 11-14 WOULD BE objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, once the above stated rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are corrected, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 would be objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a polarization beam splitter wherein |ϕ2 – ϕ1| = (m·90° ± α), and m=1 or 3, as generally set forth in claim 4, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 1, from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 5 would be objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a polarization beam splitter wherein |ϕ3 – ϕ2| = (m·90° ± β), m=1 or 3, and β = 45°, as generally set forth in claim 5, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends.
Claims 6 and 7 would be objected to for at least the reason that they depend from claim 5.
Claim 11 would be objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a polarization beam splitter wherein |ϕ2 – ϕ1| = (m·90° ± α), and m=1 or 3, as generally set forth in claim 11, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 8, from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 12 would be objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest a polarization beam splitter wherein |ϕ3 – ϕ2| = (m·90° ± β), m=1 or 3, and β = 45°, as generally set forth in claim 12, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 8, from which claim 12 depends.
Claims 13 and 14 would be objected to for at least the reason that they depend from claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0231873 to Wu et al. discloses a high isolation optical splitter comprising first and second birefringent crystals and a Faraday rotator (see at least Fig. 5 and paragraphs [0046]-[0048]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights