DETAILED ACTION
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 02/25/2022. A certified copy of the CN202210177565.1 application was received 02/25/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed 07/31/2024, 04/17/2025, 06/23/2025, 01/06/2026, and 05/14/2026 have all been considered and made of record.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Drawings
Figure 4 is objected to because labels 301 and 302 appear to indicate the same feature. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-15 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.
With regards to claims 1 and 7, the claims respectively recite “…a first input port configured to input an operating signal…” and “…a second input port configured to input a detection signal…”. Conventionally, an input port is defined by its capacity to receive. In the above cases, it is unclear if the respective input ports are - in a structurally defining way - configured to receive a signal from another element, input a signal to another element, or input a signal to themselves. The claims are indefinite because the limitations create confusion regarding the structure of the claimed device.
Claims 2-15 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 on which they depend.
Claims 8-12 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 7 on which they depend.
With regards to claims 2, 4, and 8, claim 2 recites “…the optical power output from the first output port is represented by P2 = P1 * (100-A)%, and the optical power output from the second output port is represented by P3 = P1 * A%, where A% is less than 50%...”. The term “A” is not clearly defined. Dependent claim 4 (and Paragraph 13 of the instant specification) states that A% can be “…a constant value…” or “…determined on the basis of a power ratio…”. Examiner understands the equations of claim 2 (and 8) to in some way define the distribution of optical power between output ports. However, it is unclear how exactly “A%” is determined and which - if any - of the presented interpretations of “A%” should be applied when considering the meaning of “A” and interpreting the scope of claim 2. The claims are indefinite because an “A” term is used within equations which may otherwise create bounds for the invention, but since the “A” term itself is not clearly defined, the limitations create confusion regarding the structure of the claimed device. Furthermore, claim 8 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 2 in addition to any indefiniteness present from independently relying on an “A” term for newly introduced equations.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, examiner will interpret the limitations of claims 2 and 8 as generally stating that optical power will be distributed amongst relevant outputs within a device whist in a state of operation.
Claims 3-12 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 2 on which they depend.
Claims 9-12 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 8 on which they depend.
With regards to claims 9-12, claim 9 recites “…the first input port of the first light-splitting element and the second input port of the first light-splitting element have exchange symmetry, and the first output port of the first light- splitting element and the second output port of the first light-splitting element have exchange symmetry…”. When considered in the context of the optical arts, the term “exchange symmetry” is considered to be a characteristic of photon pairs (I.E, a pair of photons can exhibit exchange symmetry). Optical ports do not themselves exhibit this type of exchange symmetry. Thus, it is unclear whether claim limitations are stating
that the signals entering the first and second input ports both exhibit exchange symmetry and that the signals exiting the first and second output ports both exhibit exchange symmetry,
that the signals entering the first and second input ports and the signals exiting the first and second output ports are respectively symmetrical in some other capacity (such as having the same optical power), or
another interpretation.
Claims 10-12 similarly rely on the term exchange symmetry and recite limitations that are unclear for reasons similar to those of claim 9 as explained above. The claims are indefinite because the limitations created confusion regarding the structure of the claimed device.
Examiner’s note: Claims 10-12 have not been further treated on the merits because there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims. This is NOT an indication that the claims are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103. The scope of the claims are unclear as discussed above. As a result, a meaningful formulation of art rejections cannot be done at this time (See MPEP § 2173.06 II, 2nd paragraph “…where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. … a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims…”).
With regards to claim 13, the claim recites the limitations “…configured to output the maximum optical power values of coherently enhanced signals of two branch optical signals…” and “…configured to correspondingly output set allocation proportions of the maximum optical power values of coherently enhanced signals of two branch optical signals…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “coherently enhanced signals” in the claim. Furthermore, with regards to the limitations “…the first output port of the third light-splitting element is configured to output the maximum optical power values of coherently enhanced signals of two branch optical signals with a phase difference of 2Nπ, where N is 0 or a natural number; and the second output port and the third output port of the third light-splitting element are configured to correspondingly output set allocation proportions of the maximum optical power values of coherently enhanced signals of two branch optical signals…”, examiner understands the referenced phase and power outputs to in some way limit the structure of the electro-optic modulator, but it is unclear whether the “…the second output port and the third output port of the third light-splitting element…” configurations “correspond to” themselves, the configuration of the first output port of the third light-splitting element, or something else. The claim is indefinite because the limitations created confusion regarding the structure of the claimed device.
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of further examination, examiner has generally interpreted claim 13 as requiring structural symmetry between the second and third output ports.
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 1-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine (US 20090092401 A1) in view of Park (US 20170070297 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Sekine discloses an electro-optic modulator, comprising:
a first light-splitting element (Fig8/First light splitting element 12), comprising a first input port configured to input an operating signal, a first output port configured to output a main path signal, and a second output port configured to output a first monitoring signal (First input port, first output port, and second output port [FIP, FOP, and SOP as indicated below]);
PNG
media_image1.png
475
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second light-splitting element, which has a one-in two-out structure and an input port thereof being connected to the first output port (Fig8/Second light-splitting element 14);
two waveguide arms, with one end of each of the waveguide arms being correspondingly connected to two output ports of the second light-splitting element (Fig8/Two waveguide arms [Unlabeled; portion between elements 14 and 17]);
a bias voltage modulation circuit, which is configured to apply a bias voltage to the two waveguide arms based on a bias voltage signal (Fig8/Bias voltage modulation circuit defined by elements 22a and 22b);
a radio frequency modulation circuit, which is configured to apply a radio frequency voltage to the two waveguide arms based on a radio frequency signal (Fig8/Radio frequency modulation circuit defined by element 27; Paragraph 80);
a third light-splitting element, which has a two-in structure and two input ports thereof being correspondingly connected to the other end of each of the two waveguide arms (Fig8/Third light-splitting element 17); and
a fourth light-splitting element (Fig8/Fourth light-splitting element 18), which has a one-in two-out structure and an input port thereof being connected to a first output port of the third light-splitting element, the fourth light-splitting element comprising a third output port configured to output a maximum optical power value and a fourth output port configured to output a second monitoring signal (Fig8/Input port, third output port, and fourth output port [IP, TOP, and FOP as indicated below]).
PNG
media_image2.png
475
719
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sekine is silent regarding the third light-splitting element having a three-out structure. However, the practice of configuring a light splitting element to have a three-out structure exists in the art as exemplified by Park.
Sekine and Park both disclose optical modulators with multiple light splitting elements (Sekine/Fig8; Park/Fig1). Park further teaches a light splitting element with a three-out structure (Park/Fig1/Light splitting element 107). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the third light splitting element of Sekine to have a three-out structure as suggested by Park since doing so would facilitate routing signals from the modulator to additional discrete outputs and/or devices.
With regards to claim 2, Sekine and Park together disclose the electro-optic modulator according to claim 1, wherein when the electro-optic modulator is in an operating state, the optical power input from the first input port is represented by P1, the optical power output from the first output port is represented by P2 = P1 * (100-A)%, and the optical power output from the second output port is represented by P3 = P1 * A%, where A% is less than 50% (Sekine/Fig8; Paragraph 73 [See the 35 USC 112 section of this office action]).
With regards to claim 3, Sekine and Park together disclose the electro-optic modulator according to claim 2, but are silent regarding a fifth light-splitting element, which has a one-in two-out structure and an input port thereof being connected to a second output port of the third light-splitting element, the fifth light-splitting element comprising a fifth output port configured to output a third monitoring signal and a sixth output port configured to output a fourth monitoring signal. However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect a fifth light splitting element to a second a second output port of the third light-splitting element since doing so would further facilitate routing signals from the modulator to additional discrete outputs and/or devices.
With regards to claim 4, Sekine and Park together disclose the electro-optic modulator according to claim 3, wherein A% is a constant value, or A% is determined based on a power ratio of the third monitoring signal to the fourth monitoring signal ([See the 35 USC 112 section of this office action]).
With regards to claim 5, Sekine and Park together disclose the electro-optic modulator according to claim 3, but are silent regarding a sixth light-splitting element, which has a one-in two-out structure and an input port thereof being connected to a third output port of the third light-splitting element, the sixth light-splitting element comprising a seventh output port configured to output a fifth monitoring signal and an eighth output port configured to output a sixth monitoring signal. However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect a sixth light-splitting element to a third output port of the third light-splitting element since doing so would further facilitate routing signals from the modulator to additional discrete outputs and/or devices.
With regards to claim 6, Sekine and Park together disclose electro-optic modulator according to claim 5, further comprising: a feedback circuit, which is configured to adjust the bias voltage signal output to the bias voltage modulation circuit based on at least one of the first monitoring signal, the second monitoring signal, the third monitoring signal, the fourth monitoring signal, the fifth monitoring signal, or the sixth monitoring signal (Paragraph 34/Lines 15-23).
With regards to claim 7, Sekine and Park together disclose the electro-optic modulator according to claim 5, but are silent regarding the first light-splitting element further comprising a second input port configured to input a detection signal. However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first light-splitting element further comprises an additional input port configured to input a detection signal since doing so would forego the need to use the same port for both the input signal and detection signal.
With regards to claim 8, Sekine and Park together disclose the electro-optic modulator according to claim 7, wherein when the electro-optic modulator is in a detection state, the optical power input from the second input port is represented by P0, the optical power output from the first output port is represented by P4 = P0 * A%, the optical power output from the second output port is represented by P5 = P0 * (100-A)%, the maximum optical power value output from the third output port is represented by P6, the maximum optical power value output from the fourth output port is represented by P7 = P6 * A%, and a transmission loss of the electro-optic modulator is represented by C = P6/P4 (Sekine/Fig8; Paragraph 73 [See the 35 USC 112 section of this office action]).
With regards to claim 13, Sekine and Park together disclose the electro-optic modulator according to claim 1, wherein the first output port of the third light-splitting element is configured to output the maximum optical power values of coherently enhanced signals of two branch optical signals with a phase difference of 2Nπ, where N is 0 or a natural number; and the second output port and the third output port of the third light-splitting element are configured to correspondingly output set allocation proportions of the maximum optical power values of coherently enhanced signals of two branch optical signals with a phase difference of (2N + 1)π, where the set allocation proportions are greater than 0 and less than 1 (Park/Fig1).
With regards to claim 14, Sekine and Park together disclose the electro-optic modulator according to claim 1, wherein the third light-splitting element has an axisymmetric structure, and the second output port and the third output port thereof are arranged symmetrically relative to the first output port (Park/Fig1/First output port OP1, Second output port OP2, and third output port OP3).
With regards to claim 15, Sekine and Park together disclose electro-optic modulator according to claim 1. Sekine and Park do not explicitly state that the electro-optic modulator is configured in a Non-return-to-zero (NRZ) encoding format or a 4-Level Pulse Amplitude Modulation (PAM4) encoding format. However, the encoding format of the electro-optic modulator represents a manner by which the modulator is intended to be employed. It has been held that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)); and that if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). See MPEP § 2111.02, II and MPEP § 2114, II.
Conclusion
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar structure and/or similar optical elements to what is disclosed and/or claimed in the instant application:
Betty (US 20040008965 A1) [Fig1]
Tiemann (US 6081358 A) [Fig2]
Morton (US 20200409229 A1) [Fig7]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marc E Manheim whose telephone number is (703)756-1873. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am - 5pm E.T., Monday - Tuesday and Thursday - Friday.
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, Thomas A Hollweg can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/MARC E MANHEIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights