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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 06 November, 2025 has been fully considered and entered. In response to the claim amendments, the previously raised rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-12, 16, 21, and 23-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 6-7, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neilson et al. (US 2020/0200646; hereinafter Neilson).
Regarding claim 1: Neilson discloses A method of determining an optical transform imparted by a multimode optical fibre (see Abstract, Figs. 4-5, paragraphs 0004-0006 and 0049-0090), wherein the multimode fibre comprises a proximal end (see paragraph 0006, first end of optical fiber), a distal end (second end of optical fiber), and at least one modified region between the proximal end and distal end (see paragraph 0004, distributed reflectors are modified regions between the proximal end and the distal end), the modified region configured to transmit light toward the proximal end in response to light propagating through the multimode optical fibre from the proximal end to the distal end (this is what the distributed reflectors do), the method comprising: coupling forward propagating light into the proximal end of the multimode optical fiber (see paragraph 0006); detecting, at the proximal end, backward propagating light transmitted from the at least one modified region in response to the forward propagating light (see paragraph 0006);determining an optical transform from the detected backward propagating light (see paragraph 0006).
Neilson further teaches that image-processing techniques for correcting aberration in a light field that has been transmitting through the fiber utilizing the transfer matrix are known to those skilled in the art (see paragraphs 0015-0018), suggesting a use for their method for obtaining a transfer matrix from one end of the fiber. Based on this suggestion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the optical transform obtained by the Neilson method to correct aberration in a light field that has been transmitted through the optical fiber.
Regarding claim 2: Modified Neilson teachesThe method of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein determining the optical transform comprises: i) determining a transmission matrix of the multimode optical fibre (paragraph 0006, single-direction transfer matrix is a transmission matrix), defining a relationship between an input field at a proximal facet and the resulting output field at a distal facet (paragraph 0006, the interference signal defines a relationship between an input field at a proximal facet and the resulting output field at a distal facet; and/orii) determining a correction matrix for correcting a predetermined transmission matrix.
Regarding claim 3: Modified Neilson teachesThe method of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein the at least one modified region comprises at least one fibre Bragg grating (paragraphs 0096-0097); and/orat least one fluorescent colour centre; and/orwherein the at least one modified region comprises one or more modified regions disposed in the fibre core and/or fibre cladding.
Regarding claim 6: Modified Neilson teachesThe method of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein there are a plurality of modified regions, with at least some of the modified regions at different lateral positions and/or at different longitudinal positions between the proximal and distal end (see paragraph 0096).
Regarding claim 7: Modified Neilson teachesThe method of claim 1 (as applied above), wherein: i) the at least one modified region comprises a plurality of fibre Bragg gratings, and at least some of the fibre Bragg gratings have different: period, reflectivity, and/or orientation/polarization (Fig. 3 shows a different spacing, corresponding to different period among the sections of Bragg gratings, with more space between 310_1 and 310_2 than between 310_(K-1) and 310_K); and/orii) the at least one modified region comprises one or more chirped fibre Bragg gratings.
Regarding claim 21: Neilson disclosesApparatus for obtaining information for correcting an optical transform imparted by a multimode optical fibre (Fig. 1, system 100), comprising: a multimode fibre (Fig. 1, multimode fiber 140) comprisinga proximal end (Fig. 1, end of fiber connected to circulator 134), a distal end (Fig. 1, distal end 146), andat least one modified region between the proximal end and distal end, the modified region configured to transmit light toward the proximal end in response to light propagating through the multimode optical fibre from the proximal end to the distal end (see paragraph 0022, optical reflectors), a light source coupled to the proximal end and configured to transmit forward propagating light into the optical fibre (Fig. 1, tunable light source 104); a detector coupled to the proximal end and configured to detect backward propagating light transmitted from the at least one modified region in response to the forward propagating light (Fig. 1, photodetectors 156); and a processor configured to: determine the optical transform from the detected backward propagating light (Fig. 1, digital signal processor 170).
Neilson further teaches that image-processing techniques for correcting aberration in a light field that has been transmitting through the fiber utilizing the transfer matrix are known to those skilled in the art (see paragraphs 0015-0018), suggesting a use for their method for obtaining a transfer matrix from one end of the fiber. Based on this suggestion, 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 processor to also use the optical transform obtained by the Neilson method to correct aberration in a light field that has been transmitted through the optical fiber based on conventional methods.
Regarding claim 23: Modified Neilson teachesThe apparatus of claim 21 (as applied above), wherein the apparatus is configured to perform a method comprising: coupling forward propagating light into the proximal end of the multimode optical fibre (see paragraph 0006); detecting, at the proximal end, backward propagating light transmitted form the at least one modified region in response to the forward propagating light; and determining an optical transform from the detected backward propagating light (see paragraph 0006).
Claims 9-12 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neilson et al. (US 2020/0200646; hereinafter Neilson) in view of Caravaca-Aguirre et al. (US 2017/0153440; hereinafter Caravaca-Aguirre).
Regarding claim 9: Modified Nielson teaches the method of claim 1, as applied above, wherein the forward propagating light is a first forward propagating light field and the backward propagating light is a first backward propagating light field (as applied above). Nielson further suggests that the fibre for which the transfer matrix is computed is also to be used for endoscopic imaging (see paragraph 0018). In order to image objects at the distal end of an endoscope, it is conventional to illuminate the object to be imaged by transmitting a second propagating light field for sensing/imaging a scene adjacent to the distal end and to detect a second backward propagating light field transmitted through the fibre resulting from the second forward propagating light field. Such an arrangement is taught, for example, by Caravaca-Aguirre (see Fig. 1). As applied to claim 1, Neilson further teaches that image-processing techniques for correcting aberration in a light field that has been transmitting through the fiber utilizing the transfer matrix are known to those skilled in the art (see paragraphs 0015-0018), suggesting a use for their method for obtaining a transfer matrix from one end of the fiber. Based on this suggestion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the optical transform determined from the first backward propagating light field to correct an image formed using the second backward propagating light field.
Regarding claim 10: Modified Neilson teaches the method of claim 9, as applied above. Caravaca-Aguirre further teaches that correcting the image comprises controlling an active optical element to modify the second forward propagating light field (see paragraphs 0045 and 0074; Fig. 1, DMD 112). Since Neilson focuses on a method for computing a transfer matrix with access to only one side of a fiber and suggests that methods for using the transfer matrix to correct images are known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use known means of correcting an image after obtaining the transfer matrix using the Neilson method, such as the method employed by Caravaca-Aguirre, wherein correcting the image comprises controlling an active optical element to modify the second forward propagating light field, in order to correct for image blurriness.
Regarding claim 11: Modified Neilson teachesThe method of claim 10 (as applied above), wherein the active optical element comprises a spatial light modulator configured to modify the spatial distribution of phase of the second forward propagating light field (see Caravaca-Aguirre paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 12: Modified Neilson teachesThe method of claim 10 (as applied above), wherein the method comprises performing point scanning microscopy using a plurality of second forward propagating light fields (see Caravaca-Aguirre paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 24: Modified Neilson teachesAn apparatus according to claim 23 (as applied above), , wherein the forward propagating light is a first forward propagating light field and the backward propagating light is a first backward propagating light field (as applied above). Nielson further suggests that the fibre for which the transfer matrix is computed is also to be used for endoscopic imaging (see paragraph 0018). In order to image objects at the distal end of an endoscope, it is conventional to illuminate the object to be imaged by transmitting a second propagating light field for sensing/imaging a scene adjacent to the distal end and to detect a second backward propagating light field transmitted through the fibre resulting from the second forward propagating light field. Such an arrangement is taught, for example, by Caravaca-Aguirre (see Fig. 1). As applied to claim 1, Neilson further teaches that image-processing techniques for correcting aberration in a light field that has been transmitting through the fiber utilizing the transfer matrix are known to those skilled in the art (see paragraphs 0015-0018), suggesting a use for their method for obtaining a transfer matrix from one end of the fiber. Based on this suggestion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the optical transform determined from the first backward propagating light field to correct an image formed using the second backward propagating light field.
Regarding claim 25: Modified Neilson teachesThe apparatus of claim 24 (as applied above), wherein the apparatus is configured to use an optical transform determined from the detected first backward propagating light field to correct the image formed using the second backward propagating light field (as applied in the rejection of claim 24).
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neilson et al. (US 2020/0200646; hereinafter Neilson) in view of Fells et al. (WO 2019/030521; hereinafter Fells; copy attached to previous office action).
Neilson discloses the method of claim 1, as applied above. Neilson further discloses that the modified region comprises gratings formed in the fiber (see Figs. 2-3). Neilson fails to teach that the modified region is formed by laser machining performed using adaptive optics, which modify wavefront properties of a laser system to counteract the effects of aberration on laser focus. However, Fells teaches a method of forming a Bragg grating in a fiber using laser machining performed using adaptive optics, which modify wavefront properties of a laser system to counteract the effects of aberration on laser focus (see Abstract and Field). In order to more precisely pattern a Bragg grating in the optical fiber disclosed by Neilson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the gratings by laser machining using adaptive optics, wherein the wavefront properties are modified to counteract the effects of aberration on laser focus, since it had previously been taught by Fells. The method of claim 1, wherein the modified region is formed by laser machining performed using adaptive optics, which modify wavefront properties of a laser system to counteract the effects of aberration on laser focus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 are allowed.
Claims 13-14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Regarding claim 13: It was indicated in the Office Action mailed on 07 August, 2025 that the closest found prior art (Froggatt and Caravaca-Aguirre) fails to teach or suggest “wherein correcting the image comprises computationally reconstructing an image from the results of detecting the second backward propagating light field” in combination with the other method steps required by the claim. Neilson fails to remedy these deficiencies. Therefore, claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 14: It was indicated in the Office Action mailed on 07 August, 2025 that the closest found prior art (Froggatt and Caravaca-Aguirre) fails to teach or suggest “the first forward propagating light field and the second forward propagating light field and/or the first backward propagating and the second backward propagating light field are multiplexed, so that the optical transform can be updated without interrupting imaging of the scene”, in combination with the other method steps required by the claim. While Neilson teaches multiplexing the first forward and backward propagating light field, there is no suggestion to multiplex the second forward and/or backward propagating light field in Neilson or Caravaca-Aguirre or for updating the optical transform without interrupting imaging of the scene. Therefore, claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 20: It was indicated in the Office Action mailed on 07 August, 2025 that the closest found prior art (Froggatt and Caravaca-Aguirre) fails to teach or suggest “correcting the transmission matrix for temperature determined from a modified region that comprises a fibre Bragg grating”, in combination with the other method steps required by the claim. Neilson fails to remedy these deficiencies. Therefore, claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 18: It was indicated in the Office Action mailed on 07 August, 2025 that the closest found prior art (Froggatt and Caravaca-Aguirre) fails to teach or suggest “wherein determining the optical transform comprises multiplying the correction matrix with an uncorrected transmission matrix”, in combination with the other method steps recited in the claim. Neilson fails to remedy these deficiencies. Therefore, claim 18 is allowed.
Regarding claim 19: Due at least to the allowable features of claim 18, dependent claim 19 is also allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kirsten D Endresen whose telephone number is (703)756-1533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday.
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 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.
/KIRSTEN D. ENDRESEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights