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 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/309,585, filed on June 7th, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 13th, 2025 and July 1st, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference numerals are blurry and illegible. 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 2-3 and 11 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 2 recites the limitation "the reflective plate" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which of the “one of the reflective plates” or “the other reflective plate” the reflective plate is referring to in claim 1. For examination purposes, “the reflective plate” is interpreted as referring to “the other reflective plate”.
The term “about” in claim 11, line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The 3% of signal light is rendered indefinite as the term “about” makes the value of 3% relative, and a range is not provided in the description for the term “about” and is therefore indefinite. For examination purposes, “about 3%” is interpreted as being any value within 0 to 100% of 3%.
Claim 3 is rejected due to dependency upon claim 2.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-10, 12-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai (US 2002/0076144) in view of Huang (US 2005/0018967).
Regarding claim 1, Tai discloses an integrated free space circulator (Figs. 11-13), comprising
a first polarizing beam splitter (1225, [0082], “a walk-off crystal 1225 for dividing the input beams into orthogonally polarized sub-beams”) in optical communication with a first port (1201) and second port (1202, [0082], “ports 1201, 1202”);
a half-wave plate ([0083], “a half wave plate 1251”);
a Faraday rotating plate ([0083], “Faraday rotator 1252”);
a second beam splitter (1265, [0083], “birefringent assembly 1265, preferably including a first birefringent element of length L and a second birefringent element of length 2L”);
a third beam splitter (1270, [0083], “walk-off crystal 1270”) in optical communication with the second beam splitter (as shown in “Fig. 12a, 1265 is adjacent to 1270), and a third port (1203), and a fourth port (1204, [0082], “ports 1201, 1202, 1203 and 1204”, examiner interprets 1204 to be the third port and 1203 to be the fourth port);
a pair of reflective plates (1272 and 1275),
wherein the first polarizing beam splitter (1225), the half-wave plate (1251), the Faraday rotating plate (1252), the second beam splitter (1265), and the third beam splitter (1270) are sequentially arranged (as shown in Figs. 12a-12b, 1225, 1251, 1252, 1265, and 1270 are sequentially arranged).
Tai does not specifically disclose a quarter-wave plate; and the quarter-wave plate and one of the reflective plates are sequentially attached to a side surface of the first polarizing beam splitter adjacent to the half-wave plate, and the other reflective plate is arranged on a side surface of the second beam splitter adjacent to or opposite to the Faraday rotating plate.
However Huang, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a free space circulator, teaches a quarter-wave plate (Fig. 8, element 814, [0078], “wave plate 814, such as a quarter wave plate”); and the quarter-wave plate (814) and one of the reflective plates (816) are sequentially attached to a side surface of the first polarizing beam splitter (808) adjacent to the half-wave plate (822, [0079], “wave plate 822, such as a half wave plate”, as shown in Fig. 8B, 814 and 816 are sequentially attached to a side of 808 adjacent to 822), and the other reflective plate (824) is arranged on a side surface of the second beam splitter (806) adjacent to or opposite to the Faraday rotating plate (820, [0074], “garnet 820”, as shown in Fig. 8B, 824 is on a side of 806 adjacent to 820).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the integrated free space circulator of Tai with the quarter-wave plate; and the quarter-wave plate and one of the reflective plates are sequentially attached to a side surface of the first polarizing beam splitter adjacent to the half-wave plate, and the other reflective plate is arranged on a side surface of the second beam splitter adjacent to or opposite to the Faraday rotating plate as taught by Huang, for the purpose of providing bidirectional communication ([0013]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tai teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the first polarizing beam splitter comprises a polarizing splitting film.
However Huang, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a free space circulator, teaches wherein the first polarizing beam splitter (808) comprises a polarizing splitting film ([0078], “The light beam 832 is split into two beams, beam 832A and beam 832B with orthogonal SOPs by PBS 808”, as shown in Fig. 8, 808 splits light based on polarization using a film in the center).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the integrated free space circulator of Tai in view of Huang with the wherein the first polarizing beam splitter comprises a polarizing splitting film as taught by Huang, for the purpose of providing bidirectional communication ([0013]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tai teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Tai further discloses wherein the second beam splitter (1265) is a second polarizing beam splitter ([0083], “birefringent assembly 1265”, birefringent materials will split light based on polarization).
Regarding claim 7, modified Tai teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Tai further discloses wherein an optical axis of the half-wave plate (1251) forms an angle of 22.5 degrees with the Faraday rotating plate ([0083], “the polarization rotations caused by the half wave plate 1251 and the Faraday rotator 1252 cancel each other out”, examiner interprets this to mean the two elements are arranged 22.5 degrees relative to one another).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tai teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the Faraday rotating plate is a magnetic Faraday rotating crystal plate or a Faraday rotating crystal plate with an externally applied magnetic field, and in the case of a Faraday rotating crystal plate with an externally applied magnetic field, a peripheral side of the Faraday rotating plate is provided with a magnetic ring.
However Huang, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a free space circulator, teaches wherein the Faraday rotating plate is a magnetic Faraday rotating crystal plate or a Faraday rotating crystal plate with an externally applied magnetic field ([0045], “Rotator 344 may be fabricated from a magneto-optic material, such as a YIG crystal”), and in the case of a Faraday rotating crystal plate with an externally applied magnetic field, a peripheral side of the Faraday rotating plate is provided with a magnetic ring (first condition is satisfied).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the integrated free space circulator of Tai in view of Huang with the wherein the Faraday rotating plate is a magnetic Faraday rotating crystal plate or a Faraday rotating crystal plate with an externally applied magnetic field, and in the case of a Faraday rotating crystal plate with an externally applied magnetic field, a peripheral side of the Faraday rotating plate is provided with a magnetic ring as taught by Huang, for the purpose of providing bidirectional communication ([0013]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Tai teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Tai further discloses further comprising a receiver (1210) optically connected to the third beam splitter (1270) on a side surface of the second beam splitter adjacent to the Faraday rotating plate (as shown in Fig. 12a, 1210 is located off to a side of 1265 adjacent to 1252), and the receiver is configured to receive a reflected light by the third beam splitter (as shown in Fig. 12a, 1210 receives light from 1270).
Regarding claim 10, modified Tai teaches as is set forth in claim 9 rejection above and Tai further discloses wherein the receiver (1210) is optically connected to the fourth port (as shown in Fig. 12a, 1210 is connected to 1204).
Regarding claim 12, modified Tai teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Tai further discloses wherein the third port (1204) is offset from an optical center of the Faraday rotating plate (as shown in Fig. 12a, 1204 is offset from a center of 1252).
Regarding claim 13, modified Tai teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Tai further discloses wherein the third port (1204) is optically offset from the first port (as shown in Fig. 12a, 1204 is offset from 1201).
Regarding claim 15, modified Tai teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the first polarizing beam splitter, the half-wave plate, the Faraday rotating plate, the beam splitter, the quarter-wave plate, and the pair of reflective plates are integrally fixed by means of optical bonding, diffusion bonding, or glue bonding.
However Huang, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a free space circulator, teaches wherein the first polarizing beam splitter, the half-wave plate, the Faraday rotating plate, the beam splitter, the quarter-wave plate, and the pair of reflective plates are integrally fixed by means of optical bonding, diffusion bonding, or glue bonding ([0060], “Generally, the physical construction of a circulator such as the ones described above is accomplished by attaching discrete optical components onto a substrate material such as glass or polysilicon. The attachment can be accomplished by using epoxy or some other type of glue”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the integrated free space circulator of Tai in view of Huang with the wherein the first polarizing beam splitter, the half-wave plate, the Faraday rotating plate, the beam splitter, the quarter-wave plate, and the pair of reflective plates are integrally fixed by means of optical bonding, diffusion bonding, or glue bonding as taught by Huang, for the purpose of providing bidirectional communication ([0013]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Tai teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Tai further discloses an optical device ([0033], “Optical device 350 can be, for example, a channel equalizer, a filter, a repeater, an Erbium-Doped Fiber Amplifier (EDFA), a Semiconductor Optical Amplifier (SOA), a Rare Earth Doped Fiber Amplifier (REDFA) or other optical device”), comprising the integrated free space circulator (Fig. 12).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai (US 2002/0076144) in view of Huang (US 2005/0018967), further in view of Yun (US 2020/0319389).
Regarding claim 6, modified Tai teaches as is set forth in claim 5 rejection above but does not specifically disclose the polarizing splitting films on the first polarizing beam splitter and the second polarizing beam splitter are parallel to each other.
However Huang, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a free space circulator, teaches the polarizing splitting films ([0105], “the optical components described herein may include one or more coatings or films to provide the polarization shifting properties”) on the first polarizing beam splitter and the second polarizing beam splitter are parallel to each other (as shown in Fig. 8, the two beam splitters 806 and 808 have their reflecting faces parallel to one another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the integrated free space circulator of Tai in view of Huang with the polarizing splitting films on the first polarizing beam splitter and the second polarizing beam splitter are parallel to each other as taught by Huang, for the purpose of providing bidirectional communication ([0013]).
Modified Tai does not specifically disclose wherein the first polarizing beam splitter and the second polarizing beam splitter both comprise a pair of right-angled prisms having inclined surface, the inclined surfaces of the right-angled prisms are attached and fixed together, the attached and fixed inclined surfaces are provided with polarizing splitting films.
However Yun, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a free space circulator, teaches wherein the first polarizing beam splitter and the second polarizing beam splitter (Fig. 4, element 450) both comprise a pair of right-angled prisms (430 and 440) having inclined surface (a shown in Fig. 4, 430 and 440 are inclined), the inclined surfaces of the right-angled prisms are attached and fixed together ([0065], "An optical film 400 is disposed between and adhered to the first and second hypotenuses 432 and 442"), the attached and fixed inclined surfaces are provided with polarizing splitting films ([0065], “optical film 400 may be adhered to the first and second hypotenuses 432 and 442”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the integrated free space circulator of Tai in view of Huang with the wherein the first polarizing beam splitter and the second polarizing beam splitter both comprise a pair of right-angled prisms having inclined surface, the inclined surfaces of the right-angled prisms are attached and fixed together, the attached and fixed inclined surfaces are provided with polarizing splitting films as taught by Yun, for the purpose of improving the optical properties of the beam splitter ([0029]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Tai teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein incident surfaces of the first polarizing beam splitter and the second beam splitter are further provided with a wedge, or the incident surfaces are set to be an inclined surface structure.
However Yun, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a free space circulator, teaches wherein incident surfaces of the first polarizing beam splitter and the second beam splitter (Fig. 6, examiner interprets the hypotenuses of 630 and 640 to be the incident surfaces ) are further provided with a wedge, or the incident surfaces are set to be an inclined surface structure (as shown in Fig. 6, the hypotenuses of 630 and 640 are inclined surfaces).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the integrated free space circulator of Tai in view of Huang with the wherein incident surfaces of the first polarizing beam splitter and the second beam splitter are further provided with a wedge, or the incident surfaces are set to be an inclined surface structure as taught by Yun, for the purpose of improving the optical properties of the beam splitter ([0029]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
Specifically, regarding claim 2, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein the reflective plate is arranged on the side surface of the second beam splitter opposite to the Faraday rotating plate and the reflective plate at least partially covers the side surface of the second beam splitter opposite to the Faraday rotating plate.
Claim 3 is objected to due to dependency upon claim 2.
Specifically, regarding claim 11, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein the reflected light is about 3% of a signal light input to the third beam splitter from the third port.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Li (US 2002/0186914), Chang (US 2002/0168128), Ducellier (US 2002/0024730), Carlsen (US 4,566,761), teach an integrated free space circulator, comprising a first polarizing beam splitter in optical communication with a first port and second port; a half-wave plate; a Faraday rotating plate; a second beam splitter; and a third beam splitter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270 - 1284. 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 11 September 2026
Prosecution Insights