Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/441,765

WAVELENGTH-RESOLVED PHOTONIC LANTERN WAVEFRONT SENSOR

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Feb 14, 2024
Examiner
YAZBACK, MAHER
Art Unit
2877
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC.
OA Round
2 (Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
39 granted / 53 resolved
+5.6% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
77
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.9%
-35.1% vs TC avg
§103
58.2%
+18.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
§112
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 53 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amended independent claim 1 to recite “wherein the one or more spectrometers generate separate spectral measurements of light from the two or more output waveguides to provide a wavelength-resolved modal decomposition of the input light” and “determine wavelength-resolved measurements of amplitudes and phases associated with modes of the input light based on the separate spectral measurements from the one or more spectrometers”. Applicant argues that Bland-Hawthorn explicitly discloses an optical manipulation device in the form of an array waveguide grating which selectively combines single-mode signals into a continuous spectrum and further argues that combining single-mode signals into a continuous spectrum at a detector represents a different technical approach than the claimed invention. Applicant further notes that Bland-Hawthorn fails to determine wavelength-resolved measurement of amplitudes and phases associated with modes of the input light and particularly “based on the separate spectral measurements from the one or more spectrometers” as recited in amended claim 1. In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner acknowledges that Bland-Hawthorn discloses a system of stacked arrays of single-mode fibers which output light into a stacked array of waveguide gratings where the waveguide gratings are configured to disperse the single-mode signals where one such measurement involves detecting a continuous spectrum at a detector. However, Bland-Hawthorn also discloses in paragraph [0095] measurements suggesting the measurement system comprises other elements (53, 55) where “these elements act to cross-disperse the optical signal thereby spatially separating different spectral bands that may be present within the incident radiation field”, which is interpreted as generating separate spectral measurements. As far as the emphasis on measurements of the amplitudes and phases associated with modes of the input light, paragraphs [0058]-[0063] describes the propagation of LP modes along optical fibers in Bland-Hawthorn’s system, where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such modes as inherently comprising amplitude and phase information. Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained. The rejections of claims are maintained due to their dependence on claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 4, 8-10, 13-14, 16, 18-19, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bland-Hawthorn et al. (US 2012/0200854 A1). Regarding claim 1, Bland-Hawthorn discloses a sensor comprising: one or more photonic lanterns (9), each of the one or more photonic lanterns including a waveguide structure (see Fig. 4, 6a-c) with an input waveguide (25) at an input end (33) and two or more output waveguides (29) at an output end (Fig. 1-5; [0046]; [0065]-[0068]; [0074], lines 1-9), wherein the two or more output waveguides of each of the one or more photonic lanterns are optically decoupled (Fig. 5; [0069] – Figure 5 shows the mode propagation principle inside the photonic lantern, in a reverse orientation to that of the embodiment, where m uncoupled single-mode fiber sections 29 are described as each supporting a single spatial mode), wherein a distribution of intensities of light (represented by spatial modes) exiting the two or more output waveguides of each of the one or more photonic lanterns corresponds to a modal decomposition of input light coupled into the input waveguide of a corresponding one of the one or more photonic lanterns (Fig. 5; [0069]; where the modal decomposition of input light is an inherent function of photonic lanterns); and one or more spectrometers (interpreted as the spectrograph comprising a dispersing optical element and a detector 15) coupled to the two or more output waveguides of the one or more photonic lanterns, wherein the one or more spectrometers generate separate spectral measurements of light from the two or more output waveguides to provide a wavelength-resolved modal decomposition of the input light (Fig. 1, 3; [0068], last 4 lines; [0090]; [0094]-[0095]); and a controller communicatively coupled to the one or more spectrometers, the controller including one or more processors configured to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to determine wavelength-resolved measurements of amplitudes and phases associated with modes of the input light based on the separate spectral measurements from the one or more spectrometers (Fig. 8; [0063]; [0068], last 4 lines; [0069]; [0090]; [0094]-[0095] – “These elements act to cross-disperse the optical signal thereby spatially separating different spectral bands that may be present within the incident radiation field”; also, see paragraphs [0058]-[0063] which describes the propagation of LP/spatial modes in optical fibers where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as inherently comprising amplitude and phase information; [0099]-[0100]). Regarding claim 4, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the sensor of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the one or more photonic lanterns comprise a single photonic lantern (Fig. 2; [0049]). Regarding claim 8, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the sensor of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the one or more spectrometers comprise a single spectrometer (interpreted as the spectrograph comprising a dispersing optical element and a detector) with a single two-dimensional detector (15), wherein the sensor further comprises: two or more optical fibers (37) coupled with the two or more output waveguides of the one or more photonic lanterns (Fig. 2-3; [0078]), wherein output ends of the two or more optical fibers are arranged in a linear distribution along a first direction at an input of the single spectrometer, wherein the single spectrometer includes a dispersive element (13) to disperse the light from the two or more optical fibers along a second direction orthogonal to the first direction ([0081]-[0084]; [0094]; see [0100] describes a arranging outputs of the photonic lanterns along a vertical direction and dispersing spectral orders horizontally on the 2D detector). Regarding claim 9, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the sensor of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the waveguide structure of at least one of the one or more photonic lanterns comprises a fiber waveguide structure (Fig. 4, 6a-c; [0046]; [0074]). Regarding claim 10, Bland-Hawthorn discloses an imaging system comprising: an imaging sub-system including optics configured to image one or more objects onto a field plane; a sensor at the field plane comprising: one or more photonic lanterns (9), each of the one or more photonic lanterns including a waveguide structure (see Fig. 4, 6a-c) with an input waveguide (25) at an input end (33) and two or more output waveguides (29) at an output end (see Fig. 4, 6a-c), wherein the two or more output waveguides of each of the one or more photonic lanterns are optically decoupled (Fig. 5; [0069] – Figure 5 shows the mode propagation principle inside the photonic lantern, in a reverse orientation to that of the embodiment, where m uncoupled single-mode fiber sections 29 are described as each supporting a single spatial mode), wherein a distribution of intensities of light (represented by spatial modes) exiting the two or more output waveguides of each of the one or more photonic lanterns corresponds to a modal decomposition of input light coupled into the input waveguide of a corresponding one of the one or more photonic lanterns (Fig. 5; [0069]; where the modal decomposition of input light is an inherent function of photonic lanterns); and one or more spectrometers (interpreted as the spectrograph comprising a dispersing optical element and a detector 15) coupled to the two or more output waveguides of the one or more photonic lanterns, wherein the one or more spectrometers generate separate spectral measurements of light from the two or more output waveguides to provide a wavelength-resolved modal decomposition of the input light (Fig. 1, 3, 8; [0068], last 4 lines; [0069]; [0090]; [0094]-[0095] – “These elements act to cross-disperse the optical signal thereby spatially separating different spectral bands that may be present within the incident radiation field”; also, see paragraphs [0058]-[0063] which describes the propagation of LP/spatial modes in optical fibers where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as inherently comprising amplitude and phase information; [0099]-[0100]); and a controller communicatively coupled to the one or more spectrometers, the controller including one or more processors configured to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to: receive the separate spectral measurements providing the wavelength-resolved modal decomposition of the input light; and generate an image of the one or more objects based on the separate spectral measurements (Fig. 1, 3, 8; [0063]; [0068], last 4 lines; [0069]; [0090]; [0094]-[0095]; [0099]-[0100] – see citations noted above). Regarding claim 13, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the imaging system of claim 10, wherein the image has a resolution below a diffraction limit of the imaging sub-system ([0091]; [0106]). Regarding claim 14, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the imaging system of claim 10, wherein the imaging sub-system comprises: a telescope ([0106]). Regarding claim 16, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the imaging system of claim 10, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the program instructions further cause the one or more processors to: determine wavelength-resolved measurements of an amplitude and a phase associated with modes of the input light (Fig. 1, 3, 8; [0063]; [0068], last 4 lines; [0069]; [0090]; [0094]-[0095] – “These elements act to cross-disperse the optical signal thereby spatially separating different spectral bands that may be present within the incident radiation field”; also, see paragraphs [0058]-[0063] which describes the propagation of LP/spatial modes in optical fibers where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as inherently comprising amplitude and phase information; [0099]-[0100]). Regarding claim 18, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the imaging system of claim 10, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the one or more photonic lanterns comprise a single photonic lantern (Fig. 2; [0049]). Regarding claim 19, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the imaging system of claim 18, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the program instructions further cause the one or more processors to: determine wavelength-resolved measurements of at least one of amplitudes and phases associated with modes of the input light ([0090]; [0063]; where measurement of spatial modes in waveguides imply amplitude measurements). Regarding claim 22, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the imaging system of claim 10, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the one or more spectrometers (interpreted as the spectrograph comprising a dispersing optical element and a detector) comprise a single spectrometer with a single two-dimensional detector (15), wherein the imaging system further comprises: two or more optical fibers (37) coupled with the two or more output waveguides of the one or more photonic lanterns (Fig. 2-3; [0078]), wherein output ends of the two or more optical fibers are arranged in a linear distribution along a first direction at an input of the single spectrometer, wherein the single spectrometer includes a dispersive element (13) to disperse the light from the two or more optical fibers along a second direction orthogonal to the first direction ([0081]-[0084]; [0094]; see [0100] describes arranging outputs of the photonic lanterns along a vertical direction and dispersing spectral orders horizontally on the 2D detector). Regarding claim 23, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the imaging system of claim 10, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the waveguide structure of at least one of the one or more photonic lanterns comprises a fiber waveguide structure (Fig. 4, 6a-c; [0046]; [0074]). 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. Claim(s) 6-7, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bland-Hawthorn et al. (US 2012/0200854 A1) in view of Vuong et al. (US 2021/0349324 A1). Regarding claim 6, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the sensor of claim 4, as outlined above wherein determining the wavelength-resolved measurements of the amplitudes and the phases associated with the modes of the input light based on the separate spectral measurements from the one or more spectrometers ((Fig. 8; [0063]; [0068], last 4 lines; [0069]; [0090]; [0094]-[0095] – “These elements act to cross-disperse the optical signal thereby spatially separating different spectral bands that may be present within the incident radiation field”; also, see paragraphs [0058]-[0063] which describes the propagation of LP/spatial modes in optical fibers where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as inherently comprising amplitude and phase information; [0099]-[0100])) but does not disclose determining the wavelength-resolved measurements of the amplitudes and the phases associated with the modes of the input light using a machine learning algorithm. However, Vuong, in the field of endeavor of imaging utilizing spatial encoding reconstruction mehtods, discloses a method for determining wavelength-resolved measurements of amplitudes and phases associated with modes of an input light using a machine learning algorithm ([0098]; [0109]; [0121]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bland-Hawthorn with a generalized machine learning method to identify individual spatial modes in a spectrometer in order to allow for increased automation and enhanced accuracy and processing speed, compared to conventional detection methods. Regarding claim 7, Bland-Hawthorn in view of Vuong discloses the sensor of claim 6, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the machine learning algorithm is trained on wavelength-resolved modal decompositions associated with a plurality of configurations of the input light with known values of at least one of amplitudes or phases of associated modes (Vuong: [0109]). Regarding claim 20, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the imaging system of claim 19, as outlined above, and further discloses determining the wavelength-resolved measurements of amplitudes and phases associated with the modes of the input light ([0090]; [0063]) but does not disclose determining the wavelength-resolved measurements of at least one of amplitudes or phases associated with the modes of the input light using a machine learning algorithm. However, Vuong, in the field of endeavor of imaging utilizing spatial encoding reconstruction methods, discloses determining wavelength-resolved measurements of amplitudes and phases associated with modes of an input light using a machine learning algorithm ([0098]; [0109]; [0121]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bland-Hawthorn with a generalized machine learning method to identify individual spatial modes in a spectrometer in order to allow for increased automation and enhanced accuracy and processing speed, compared to conventional detection methods. Regarding claim 21, Bland-Hawthorn in view of Vuong further discloses the imaging system of claim 20, as outlined above, wherein the machine learning algorithm is trained on wavelength-resolved modal decompositions associated with a plurality of configurations of the input light with known values of at least one of amplitudes or phases of associated modes (Vuong: [0109]). Claim(s) 3, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bland-Hawthorn et al. (US 2012/0200854 A1) in view of Labroille et al. (US 2024/0151962 A1). Regarding claim 3, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the sensor of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the one or more photonic lanterns comprise two or more photonic lanterns, wherein base modes associated with the modal decomposition of each of the two photonic lanterns are different (Fig. 3; [0049]; [0069]). Bland-Hawthorn does not disclose wherein the sensor further comprises one or more beamsplitters to receive the input light and direct portions of the input light to the input waveguides of the two photonic lanterns. However, Labroille, in the field of endeavor of imaging using adaptive optics, discloses a detection system including one or more beamsplitter (2 - mode splitter) to receive input light (I’) and direct portions of the input light (I1-IN) to the input of a photonic device (3) (Fig. 3A-C; [0058]-[0060]; [0072]; [0077]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bland-Hawthorn with the system and methods of Labroille, allowing for a system which can compensate for any distortion in the wavefront of a portion of an incident beam, improving the stability and signal to noise ratio of the imaging system. Regarding claim 15, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the imaging system of claim 10, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the imaging sub-system comprises a microscope. However, Labroille, discloses a system that may be used in the field of microscopy ([0099]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the imaging sub-system of Bland-Hawthorn, including the modification of Labroille, to the field of microscopy, where disturbances in a propagation medium are also present, increasing the overall functionality and accuracy of such imaging systems. Regarding claim 17, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the imaging system of claim 10, as outlined above, wherein the one or more photonic lanterns comprise two photonic lanterns, wherein base modes associated with the wavelength-resolved modal decompositions of the two photonic lanterns are different (Fig. 3; [0049]; [0069]), but does not disclose wherein the imaging system further comprises at least one of a beamsplitter or a lenslet array to receive the input light and direct portions of the input light to the input waveguides of the two photonic lanterns. However, Labroille, in the field of endeavor of imaging using adaptive optics, discloses a detection system including a beamsplitter (2 - mode splitter) to receive input light (I’) and direct portions of the input light (I1-IN) to the input of a photonic device (3) (Fig. 3A-C; [0058]-[0060]; [0072]; [0077] – where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the detection system to direct light to a plurality of photonic devices). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bland-Hawthorn with the system and methods of Labroille, allowing for a system which can compensate for any distortion in the wavefront of a portion of an incident beam, improving the stability and signal to noise ratio of the imaging system. Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Bland-Hawthorn et al. (US 2012/0200854 A1) in view of Wu et al. (US 2022/0171204 A1). Regarding claim 11, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the imaging system of claim 10, as outlined above, and constructing the image of the one or more objects based on the wavelength-resolved modal decomposition (Fig. 3; [0049]; [0069]), but does not explicitly disclose that generating the image of the one or more objects based on the wavelength-resolved modal decomposition of the input light comprises: solving for phase variations for a particular timeframe (Abstract); constructing a turbulence-corrected image based on the phase variations (Abstract); and constructing the image of the one or more objects based on the wavelength-resolved modal decomposition and the turbulence-corrected image. However, Wu, in the field of endeavor of light detection systems and methods, discloses solving for phase variations for a particular timeframe (Abstract); constructing a turbulence-corrected image based on the phase variations (Abstract; [0044]); and constructing the image of the one or more objects based on the wavelength-resolved modal decomposition and the turbulence-corrected image (Abstract; [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bland-Hawthorn with an imaging system that uses a method that corrects for disturbances in the propagation medium, improving the accuracy and signal to noise ratio of the system. Regarding claim 12, Bland-Hawthorn discloses the imaging system of claim 10, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the imaging sub-system further comprises adaptive optics configured provide that the image is a turbulence-corrected image. However, Wu discloses an imaging sub-system that further comprises adaptive optics configured provide that the image is a turbulence-corrected image (Abstract; [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bland-Hawthorn with an imaging system that uses a method that corrects for disturbances in the propagation medium, improving the accuracy and signal to noise ratio of the system. 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 MAHER YAZBACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571)270-5789. 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. /MAHER YAZBACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 14, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 23, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601588
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL GEOMETRY OF AN INDIVIDUAL OBJECT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601632
Auto-focus for Spectrometers
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591061
OBJECT RECOGNITION SYSTEM AND OBJECT RECOGNITION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584786
DETECTING VIBRATION OF A CABLE OF AN INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12560754
Wavelength Reference Having Repeating Spectral Features and Unique Spectral Features
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+24.8%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 53 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month