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 § 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 16-28 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.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "such as (of lines 1-2: ‘such as a multi-mode optical fiber’)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 17-28 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "such as (of line 2: ‘such as a multi-core optical fiber...’)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 19-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 18.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the eigenmodes" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the virtual images" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 23, the phrase "for example (for example using a least means squares algorithm)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the relative phase" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 26, the phrase "such as (of line 6: ‘such as a multi-core optical fiber...’)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 26.
As for claim 29, ‘according to claim 11’ of line 3 is indefinite, for it is unclear how the claim can depend from a cancelled claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the light signal reflected by a sample" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 is rejected by virtue of its dependency from claim 29.
When treating claim 29 further on its merits, the examiner will be interpreting ‘a first optical fiber according to claim 11’ as reading as -an optical fiber according to claim 26-.
The term “substantially (of substantially changes of the last two lines)” in claim 30 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. Substantially renders the degree of configuration change indefinite.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Papadopoulos et al. (9,871,948).
As for claim 26, Papadopoulos in methods and apparatus for imaging with multimode optical fibers discloses/suggests the following: an optical fiber (Fig. 20: 2070), the optical fiber comprising a proximal section comprising a proximal end and a distal end and a distal section comprising a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the distal end of the proximal section is connected to the proximal end of the distal section by means of a fiber-to-fiber coupler, and the fiber-to-fiber coupler being configured to receive an end of a second optical fiber (Fig. 20: treating the end nearest 2065 as the proximal end of the proximal section and the distal end of the proximal section meeting at a coupler with 2015; col. 20, lines 15-19; with the proximal end of the distal section coupling with 2015 at the coupler; wherein, the distal section appears to be a single mode fiber with a double clad multimode fiber (Fig. 20(b)-(c)).
As for ‘for which the transmission matrix is determined by the method according to claim 16,’ "even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
As for claim 27, Papadopoulos discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 26). In addition, Papadopoulos suggests wherein the fiber-to-fiber coupler is placed between 1 mm and 5 cm from the distal end of the distal section of the first fiber (col. 23: lines 15-20: the multimode fiber has a length between 5-20 cm).
As for claim 28, Papadopoulos discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 26). In addition, Papadopoulos suggests the transmission matrix of the proximal section of the optical fiber is known for a reference configuration (col. 6, lines 3-13 and lines 60-62; col. 14, lines 30-55; col. 24, lines 29-48).
As for claim 29, Papadopoulos discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 26). In addition, Papadopoulos discloses/suggests a device for endomicroscopic imaging (col. 1, lines 43-50 with FIG. 20: 20a), comprising: - a light source for emitting light beams (Fig. 20: 2000, 2005), an optical fiber according to claim 26 (see claim 26 above), for conveying and controlling light beams emitted by the light source (see claim 26 above with FIG. 20: 20a), where the proximal section of the first optical fiber is in any configuration (FIG. 20a: proximal section of 2070 closes to 2065), - a detection channel intended for measuring the light signal reflected by a sample and traveling through the distal section and proximal section of the first fiber (FIG. 20: arrows going through 2020 toward 2060, 2065, to 2070).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-25 and 30 appear to be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please refer to the attached PTO-892.
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
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, Kara Geisel, can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877