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 .
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 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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0102064 to Rosemeier et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,995,693 to Wilson.
Regarding Claim 1, Rosemeier discloses (e.g., at least Fig. 4 and its description, though the whole document appears relevant) an optical switch comprising: M input optical fibers configured to receive M optical signals respectively (Fig. 4; 1,20), wherein M is an integer greater than or equal to 1 (Fig. 4); a first acousto-optic deflector (AOD) configured to control a propagation direction of the M optical signals, such that the M optical signals are coupled to any one of N groups of output optical fibers (Fig. 4), wherein the first AOD is configured to operate at a first frequency or a second frequency (e.g., Fig. 8 and paragraph [0046]); and the N groups of output optical fibers, wherein each of the N groups of output optical fibers comprises M output optical fibers, the N groups of output optical fibers are configured to output the M optical signals through M output optical fibers of the any one of the N groups of output optical fibers, respectively, and N is an integer greater than 1 (e.g., Figs. 2 and 4 and their descriptions).
Rosemeier does not explicitly disclose that an absolute value of a difference between the first frequency and a nominal frequency of the first AOD is equal to an absolute value of a difference between the second frequency and the nominal frequency of the first AOD, and the nominal frequency of the first AOD is an operating frequency that enables the first AOD to have a first nominal diffraction efficiency.
Wilson discloses (e.g., col. 2, lines 10–29 and col. 3, line 31 to col. 4, line 2) an acousto-optic switch, and teaches that when applying different operating frequencies, the operation efficiency is related to the closeness of the operating frequency to the Bragg frequency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Rosemeier such that an absolute value of a difference between the first frequency and a nominal frequency of the first AOD is equal to an absolute value of a difference between the second frequency and the nominal frequency of the first AOD, and the nominal frequency of the first AOD is an operating frequency that enables the first AOD to have a first nominal diffraction efficiency, as suggested by Wilson, in order to ensure that operation at either frequency achieves a same operating efficiency of the acousto-optic switch.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Rosemeier and Wilson would have rendered obvious wherein the M input optical fibers are arranged in a two-dimensional array (e.g., Fig. 4 of Rosemeier, also where selecting a specific arrangement would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, based on controlling the deflection of the input signal, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Rosemeier and Wilson would have rendered obvious wherein a row direction and a column direction of the two-dimensional array are not perpendicular (e.g., Fig. 4 of Rosemeier, also where selecting a specific arrangement would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, based on controlling the deflection of the input signal, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosemeier and Wilson, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,577,430 to Jin et al.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Rosemeier and Wilson does not explicitly disclose a polarization splitter configured to split the M optical signals from the M input optical fibers into M first optical signals having a first polarization direction and M second optical signals having a second polarization direction orthogonal to the first polarization direction; a first waveplate configured to convert the M second optical signals from having the second polarization direction to having the first polarization direction, wherein the first AOD is configured to control a propagation direction of the M first optical signals and the M second optical signals output from the first waveplate; a second waveplate configured to convert the M first optical signals output from the first AOD from having the first polarization direction to having the second polarization direction, or convert the M second optical signals from having the first polarization direction to having the second polarization direction; and a polarization combiner configured to combine the M first optical signals output from the second waveplate and the M second optical signals output from the first AOD, or configured to combine the M second optical signals output from the second waveplate and the M first optical signals output from the first AOD, to obtain and transmit combined M optical signals to the any one of the N groups of output optical fibers.
Jin discloses an optical switch, and teaches improved bi-directional switching can be achieved by splitting the input signal into polarized components, then recombining the polarized components before outputting the signal, using blocks 12/13 (e.g., Figs. 2–5 and their description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Rosemeier and Wilson to include a polarization splitter configured to split the M optical signals from the M input optical fibers into M first optical signals having a first polarization direction and M second optical signals having a second polarization direction orthogonal to the first polarization direction; a first waveplate configured to convert the M second optical signals from having the second polarization direction to having the first polarization direction, wherein the first AOD is configured to control a propagation direction of the M first optical signals and the M second optical signals output from the first waveplate; a second waveplate configured to convert the M first optical signals output from the first AOD from having the first polarization direction to having the second polarization direction, or convert the M second optical signals from having the first polarization direction to having the second polarization direction; and a polarization combiner configured to combine the M first optical signals output from the second waveplate and the M second optical signals output from the first AOD, or configured to combine the M second optical signals output from the second waveplate and the M first optical signals output from the first AOD, to obtain and transmit combined M optical signals to the any one of the N groups of output optical fibers, as suggested by Jin, in order to achieve improved bidirectional switching.
Claims 3–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosemeier and Wilson, further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0102878 to Brookhyser et al.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Rosemeier and Wilson does not explicitly disclose a second AOD configured to control a propagation direction of the M optical signals output from the first AOD, so that the M optical signals are coupled to the any one of the N groups of output optical fibers, wherein a longitudinal axis of the second AOD overlaps a longitudinal axis of the first AOD, and a beam deflection axis of the second AOD is not parallel to a beam deflection axis of the first AOD.
Brookhyser discloses a system, and teaches that AODs can be placed in series to provide greater control of the beam deflection by having each AOD control deflection in a single direction, and the control direction of the AODs crossing each other (e.g., Fig. 2 and paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Rosemeier and Wilson to include a second AOD configured to control a propagation direction of the M optical signals output from the first AOD, so that the M optical signals are coupled to the any one of the N groups of output optical fibers, wherein a longitudinal axis of the second AOD overlaps a longitudinal axis of the first AOD, and a beam deflection axis of the second AOD is not parallel to a beam deflection axis of the first AOD, as suggested by Brookhyser, to provide greater control of the beam deflection.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Rosemeier, Wilson, and Brookhyser would have rendered obvious wherein the second AOD is configured to operate at a third frequency or a fourth frequency, an absolute value of a difference between the third frequency and a nominal frequency of the second AOD is equal to an absolute value of a difference between the fourth frequency and the nominal frequency of the second AOD, and the nominal frequency of the second AOD is an operating frequency that enables the second AOD to have a second nominal diffraction efficiency (where Rosemeier teaches that the AOD may operate at different frequencies, and selecting specific frequencies based on desired deflection would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Rosemeier, Wilson, and Brookhyser would have rendered obvious wherein the beam deflection axis of the second AOD is perpendicular to the beam deflection axis of the first AOD (e.g., Fig. 2 of Brookhyser).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Rosemeier, Wilson, and Brookhyser would have rendered obvious wherein an angle between the beam deflection axis of the second AOD and the beam deflection axis of the first AOD is 60 degrees (where Brookhyser illustrates two AOD at 90°, but selecting the number of AOD and relative angular difference of deflection would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, based on desired deflection, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Rosemeier, Wilson, and Brookhyser would have rendered obvious a third AOD configured to control a propagation direction of the M optical signals output from the second AOD, so that the M optical signals are coupled to the any one of the N groups of output optical fibers, wherein a longitudinal axis of the third AOD, the longitudinal axis of the second AOD and the longitudinal axis of the first AOD overlap, and a beam deflection axis of the third AOD is not parallel to either the beam deflection axis of the second AOD or the beam deflection axis of the first AOD (where Brookhyser illustrates two AOD at 90°, but selecting the number of AOD and relative angular difference of deflection would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, based on desired deflection, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Rosemeier, Wilson, and Brookhyser would have rendered obvious wherein the first AOD is further configured to operate at the nominal frequency of the first AOD, the second AOD is further configured to operate at the nominal frequency of the second AOD, the third AOD is configured to operate at a fifth frequency, a sixth frequency, or a nominal frequency of the third AOD, an absolute value of a difference between the fifth frequency and the nominal frequency of the third AOD is equal to an absolute value of a difference between the sixth frequency and the nominal frequency of the third AOD, and the nominal frequency of the third AOD is an operating frequency that enables the third AOD to have a third nominal diffraction efficiency (where Rosemeier teaches that the AOD may operate at different frequencies, and selecting specific frequencies based on desired deflection would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Rosemeier, Wilson, and Brookhyser would have rendered obvious wherein an angle between the beam deflection axis of the third AOD and the beam deflection axis of the second AOD is 60 degrees, an angle between the beam deflection axis of the third AOD and the beam deflection axis of the first AOD is 60 degrees, and an angle between the beam deflection axis of the second AOD and the beam deflection axis of the first AOD is 60 degrees (where Brookhyser illustrates two AOD at 90°, but selecting the number of AOD and relative angular difference of deflection would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, based on desired deflection, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
