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 .
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 states “an integrated value…is from 1.20 V*cm to 1.79 V*cm”. This part of the limitation is confusing within the scope of claim 1. Firstly, there is no limitation stating what this integrated value is related to or corresponds to. Secondly, there is a range of values provided for what this integrated value can be. Is the claim stating that the value can be any number between this range or is the value variable and changes? Moreover, there are no limitations pertaining to what any of “1.20 V*cm to 1.79 V*cm” represents i.e. for example an integrated value of 1.20 V*cm represents something or is related to something? This part of the limitation is a calculation being made with no reference or connection to any other limitation within the claim. Also, there is no limitation stating what “the interaction length” is, and this limitation also comprises insufficient antecedent issues.
Claim 5 states “and a wavelength of the visible light emitted from the laser light source is set to A nm”. Claim 5 depends on claim 1 which already comprises the laser emits “a wavelength” for further processing. Is the “a wavelength” within claim 5 supposed to be related to the wavelength being output by the laser within claim 1?
Claims 2-4 and 6-14 are also rejected via dependency on claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4, 6-14 of the present application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11 and 12 of US Patent 12,191,909. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
With respect to claim 1 of present application, claim 1 of US Patent 12,191,909 teaches the same limitations as underlined below:
Claim 1 of present application
Claim 1 of US Patent 12,191,909
A transmission device configured to transmit a visible light signal to a receiving device, comprising:
a laser light source configured to emit visible light;
an optical modulator configured to change intensity of the visible light and generate the visible light signal corresponding to the visible light, and
an electrical signal generation element receives information data to be transmitted, and outputs the information data to the optical modulator, wherein the optical modulator has an optical waveguide that serves as a transmission path for the visible light and an electrode layer that modulates the visible light traveling in the optical waveguide,
wherein a wavelength of the visible light is within a range of 380 nm or more and 830 nm or less,
the electrical signal generation element is configured to change the voltage value Vπ required to phase-modulate the wavelength of light to half-wavelength applied to the electrode layer by the visible light transmitting through the optical waveguide, an integrated value Vπ*Li [V*cm] which is the product of the voltage value Vπ and the interaction length Li is from 1.20 V*cm to 1.79 V*cm.
A transmission device configured to transmit a visible light signal to a receiving device, comprising:
a laser light source configured to emit visible light, the visible light is red light, green light, or blue light each having a different wavelength;
an optical modulator configured to change intensity of the visible light and generate a visible light signal corresponding to the red light, green light, or blue light; and
an electrical signal generation element configured to receive information data to be transmitted, and output the information data to the optical modulator, wherein the optical modulator has an optical waveguide that serves as a transmission path for the visible light, and an electrode layer that modulates the visible light traveling in the optical waveguide, the optical waveguide is formed of a material containing lithium niobate, the optical waveguide has a ridge portion and a flat portion,
a wavelength of the red light is 638 nm, a wavelength of the green light is 520 nm, a wavelength of the blue light is 473 nm, a width of a cross section perpendicular to a transmission direction of the visible light of the ridge portion in the optical waveguide is within a range of 510.4 nm or more and 1182.5 nm or less, and a height of the cross section of the ridge portion is within a range of 510.4 nm or more and 709.5 nm or less,
the electrical signal generation element is configured to change a voltage value Vπ required to phase-modulate the wavelength of light to half-wavelength applied to the electrode layer by the visible light transmitting through the optical waveguide, and an integrated value Vπ*Li[V*cm] which is a product of the voltage value Vπ and an interaction length Li is 1.79 V*cm when the visible light is the red light, is 1.39 V*cm when the visible light is the green light, and is 1.20 V*cm when the visible light is the blue light.
It is clear that all the elements of the application claim 1 is to be found in patent claim 1. The difference in between the application claim and the patent claim, besides the wording, lies in the fact that the patent claim includes more elements. Thus, the invention of claim 1 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claim 1. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (FED. Cir. 1993). Since application claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the patent.
Regarding claim 2 of the present application is taught by claim 1, of the US Patent 12,191,909 and is also rejected.
Regarding claim 3 of the present application is taught by claim 2, of the US Patent 12,191,909 and is also rejected.
Regarding claim 4 of the present application is taught by claim 3, of the US Patent 12,191,909 and is also rejected.
Regarding claim 6 of the present application is taught by claim 1, of the US Patent 12,191,909 and is also rejected.
Regarding claim 7 of the present application is taught by claim 1, of the US Patent 12,191,909 and is also rejected.
Regarding claim 8 of the present application is taught by claim 11, of the US Patent 12,191,909 and is also rejected.
Regarding claim 9 of the present application is taught by claim 12, of the US Patent 12,191,909 and is also rejected.
Regarding claim 10 of the present application is taught by claim 4, of the US Patent 12,191,909 and is also rejected.
Regarding claim 11 of the present application is taught by claim 5, of the US Patent 12,191,909 and is also rejected.
Regarding claim 12 of the present application is taught by claim 6, of the US Patent 12,191,909 and is also rejected.
Regarding claim 13 of the present application is taught by claim 7, of the US Patent 12,191,909 and is also rejected.
Regarding claim 14 of the present application is taught by claim 8, of the US Patent 12,191,909 and is also rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the notice of reference cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANESH K BARUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1017. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat: 11-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Payne can be reached on 5712723024. 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.
/PRANESH K BARUA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights