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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, see Page 11, OBJECTIONS TO THE SPECIFICATION, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to specification in Office Action of 02/11/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, see Page 11, OBJECTION TO THE ABSTRACT, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to abstract in Office Action of 02/11/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, see Page 11, OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to said claims in Office Action of 02/11/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, see Page , filed 05/11/2026, with respect to claims 1, 7-8 and 10-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The interpretation of said claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, in Office Action of 02/11/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, see Pages 11-15, REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to claims 1-7 and 9-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-7 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Office Action of 02/11/2026 is maintained. The rejection of claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Office Action of 02/11/2026 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Applicant submits that the features "a connector configured to acquire a first light intensity distribution of collimated light including components of a fundamental mode and a first-order mode'' of amended independent claim 1 do not describe an abstract concept, or a concept similar to those found by the Courts to be Abstract, such as mental processes. Amended independent claim 1 describes a system in which the connector monitors the light intensity distribution of the emitted collimated light, and acquires the light intensity distribution of the collimated light. Thus, the features of amended independent claim 1 do not describe an abstract concept, or a concept similar to those found by the Courts to be Abstract, such as mental processes.
In response to the above argument, it is respectfully pointed out to Applicant that the core of independent claims 1, 13, and 14 is not an improvement to a physical device, but rather the evaluation of measured light data to determine whether a beam diameter falls within a range. The claim requires: acquiring a light intensity distribution, acquiring a light intensity line at a particular intensity, calculating a ratio of inclusion in an annular region, and determining whether the diameter is within a specific range. This is properly characterized as mathematical processing of measurement data. Courts and the USPTO have consistently treated claims focused on collecting information and applying mathematical relationships to that information as abstract. Further, The term “connector configured to acquire” is functional and result-oriented. A connector is not itself a technological improvement; it is merely the claimed point of data acquisition. The claim still centers on the subsequent calculation and determination, which are abstract. Also, although the claims refer to collimated light, fundamental mode, first-order mode, and annular regions, those features merely define the subject matter of the data being analyzed. They do not recite a specific technological improvement in sensing, calibration, alignment, beam shaping, or optical communication. The claims do not require: a particular beam profiling technique, a particular sensor architecture, a novel optical arrangement, a specific algorithm that improves the functioning of the sensor itself, or any technical modification to the underlying measurement hardware. Instead, the claims merely use optics as the context for performing the abstract analysis. It is also respectfully pointed out to applicant that eligibility under § 101 must be based on the claimed invention, not on isolated disclosure in the specification that is not actually recited in the claims. Even if the specification discloses a particular implementation, the claims at issue are not limited to that implementation. The claims remain broad enough to read on ordinary data acquisition plus computation. Thus, the claim language itself still reflects an abstract idea.
Argument 2: Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Applicant submits that even if one were to arrive at a conclusion satisfying the Prong One of such analysis, assuming arguendo, to which the Applicant does not concede, the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical implementation. Applicant has shown teachings in the Specification that describes a practical implementation of the claimed features and has thus established a clear nexus between the claim language and the practical implementation of the alleged judicial exception.
In response to the above argument, it is respectfully pointed out to Applicant that the practical result of determining beam diameter does not itself make the claim eligible. The relevant question is whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a specific technological solution. Here, the claims do not solve a technical problem in the functioning of a computer, sensor, or optical system in a concrete way. Rather, they use generic acquisition and processing steps to reach a conclusion about beam diameter. That is insufficient under Step 2A, Prong Two. The claims’ recitation of optical terminology does not by itself create a practical application. The USPTO has made clear that merely limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not make the claim eligible. Here, the optical setting is simply the field of use. The claim still amounts to: measuring a physical parameter, mathematically manipulating that measurement, and outputting a pass/fail style determination. This relates to an abstract analytical process applied to a particular type of data.
Applicant cites paragraphs describing position-restricting portions, movement of a monitoring element, and multiple Z-axis positions. Those features may describe embodiments, but they are not recited in independent claims 1, 13, or 14. Because the claims are missing those structural limitations, they cannot be relied upon to establish a practical application. The claim remains broadly directed to data analysis of light intensity information.
Argument 3: Regarding Step 2B, Applicant submits that amended independent claim 1 recites the features "a connector configured to acquire a first light intensity distribution of collimated light including components of a fundamental mode and a first-order mode'' and "determine, based on the ratio of inclusion, whether a diameter of the collimated light is within a specific range," that describe an unconventional activity using conventional elements to provide a solution to "determine whether or not the light diameter of collimated light is within a defined range in the double mode."
In response to the above argument, it is respectfully pointed out to Applicant that the only structural elements recited in claim 1 are a connector and a CPU. These are generic components performing their ordinary functions: the connector acquires data, and the CPU processes the data and makes a determination. This is conventional computer-implemented functionality. Reciting generic hardware does not supply an inventive concept. The steps of: acquiring data, calculating a ratio, and determining whether a value falls within a range are ordinary analytical operations. The claim does not recite any nonconventional algorithm, specialized hardware interaction, or unusual computational architecture. Further, it is also respectfully pointed out to applicant that unconventionality cannot be established merely by asserting that the idea is new or useful. The claim must recite the unconventional features with enough particularity. The current claims do not require: the specific connector-body structure, the monitoring element configuration, the alignment/position restricting portions, sequential movement of the sensor, or multi-position Z-axis measurements. Therefore, the alleged unconventional features are not commensurate with the claim scope.
In conclusion, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the § 101 rejection. The claims are still directed to the abstract idea of acquiring measurement data, mathematically analyzing that data, and determining a result based on the analysis. The claims do not recite a specific technological improvement to optical measurement, nor do they include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, as shown below.
Claim 1 Analysis
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category
Yes. The claim recites a series of structural elements – a connector, and a central processing unit (CPU) – and is therefore a machine.
2A – Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites “acquire a first light intensity distribution of collimated light”. Light intensity distribution is a graph, and a graph represents a mathematical relationship between variables.
The claim recites “calculate a ratio of inclusion of the first light intensity line”. Calculating a ratio is a mathematical step.
The claim recites “determine, based on the ratio of inclusion, whether a diameter of the collimated light is within a specific range”. Determining whether a quantity falls within a range, based on a ratio, is both a mental process and a mathematical comparison.
2A – Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites an additional element “a connector”, which is a conventional optical component with standard image sensors (CCD/CMOS).
The claim recites an additional element “components of a fundamental mode and a first-order mode”. Modes are properties of collimated light such that, e.g., intensity of a fundamental mode is higher than intensity of a first-order mode.
The claim recites an additional element “a central processing unit (CPU)”, which is generic computational hardware with no novel architecture or specialized configuration, with no claimed recitation about how the CPU is specially programmed, configured, or designed differently from any general-purpose computer.
The claim recites an additional limitation “acquire a first light intensity line corresponding to a specific light intensity lower than a maximum light intensity, wherein the maximum light intensity is based on the first light intensity distribution”. This is interpreted as drawing a line whose length is proportional to a specific quantity of light intensity, i.e., the length of the line has a mathematical relationship to another quantity. Further, “a specific light intensity lower than a maximum light intensity, wherein the maximum light intensity is based on the first light intensity distribution” is another mathematical relationship wherein a specific quantity of light intensity is less than a quantity of maximum light as seen on a graph of the light intensity distribution.
The claim recites an additional element “an annular region, between a first circle and a second circle, with an optical axis of the collimated light in a center, wherein the second circle is larger than the first circle, and the annular region is in an entire circular region centered on the optical axis of the collimated light”. A two-dimensional region between the circumferences of two concentric circles is a geometrical concept. An optical axis of collimated light is a line at the center of a beam of light, and is also a geometrical concept.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
The claim is directed to the abstract ideas.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole merely describes using structural elements to arrive at a calculation, does not recite any additional element or combination of elements that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions themselves, and thus is ineligible.
Claims 2-5 are dependent on Claim 1, and in addition to reasons applied to
Claim 1, are directed to mathematical concepts without amounting to significantly more
than the judicial exceptions themselves, thus rendering the claims ineligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on Claim 1, and in addition to reasons applied to Claim 1,
is directed to mere data gathering without amounting to significantly more than the
judicial exceptions themselves, thus rendering the claim ineligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on Claim 6, and directed to a camera for obtaining
an imaging signal, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, without
amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions themselves, thus rendering
the claim ineligible.
Claim 8 is dependent on Claim 7, and directed to a connector that has a
position-shiftable jig to enable a position of the camera to move in a direction along the optical axis of the collimated light, which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions themselves, thus rendering the claim eligible.
Claim 9 is dependent on Claim 1, and directed to a collimating lens and an optical waveguide which propagates only the fundamental mode at a second wavelength, and propagates at least the first-order mode along with the fundamental mode, at the first wavelength, which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions themselves, thus rendering the claim eligible.
Claim 10 is dependent on Claim 9, and directed to a connector that receives collimated light through a collimating lens, and the collimating lens is a portion of a receptacle of an electronic device, which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions themselves, thus rendering the claim eligible.
Claim 11 is dependent on Claim 9, and directed to a connector that receives collimated light through a collimating lens, and the collimating lens is a portion of a plug of an optical cable, which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions themselves, thus rendering the claim eligible.
Claim 12 is dependent on Claim 1, and in addition to reasons applied to
Claim 1, is directed to a structural element which is well-understood, routine, and
conventional in the art, without amounting to significantly more than the judicial
exceptions themselves, thus rendering the claim ineligible.
Claim 13 Analysis
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps, and is therefore a process.
2A – Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites “acquiring a first light intensity distribution of collimated light”. Light intensity distribution is a graph, and a graph represents a mathematical relationship between variables.
The claim recites “calculating a ratio of inclusion of the first light intensity line”. Calculating a ratio is a mathematical step.
The claim recites “determining, based on the ratio of inclusion, whether a diameter of the collimated light is within a specific range”. Determining whether a quantity falls within a range, based on a ratio, is both a mental process and a mathematical comparison.
2A – Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites an additional element “components of a fundamental mode and a first-order mode”. Modes are properties of collimated light such that, e.g., intensity of a fundamental mode is higher than intensity of a first-order mode.
The claim recites an additional limitation “acquiring a first light intensity line corresponding to a specific light intensity lower than a maximum light intensity, wherein the maximum light intensity is based on the first light intensity distribution”. This is interpreted as drawing a line whose length is proportional to a specific quantity of light intensity, i.e., the length of the line has a mathematical relationship to another quantity. Further, “a specific light intensity lower than a maximum light intensity, wherein the maximum light intensity is based on the first light intensity distribution” is another mathematical relationship wherein a specific quantity of light intensity is less than a quantity of maximum light as seen on a graph of the light intensity distribution.
The claim recites an additional element “an annular region, between a first circle and a second circle, with an optical axis of the collimated light in a center, wherein the second circle is larger than the first circle, and the annular region is in an entire circular region centered on the optical axis of the collimated light”. A two-dimensional region between the circumferences of two concentric circles is a geometrical concept. An optical axis of collimated light is a line at the center of a beam of light, and is also a geometrical concept.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
The claim is directed to the abstract ideas.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole merely describes how to arrive at a calculation via a series of steps, does not recite any additional element or combination of elements that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions themselves, and thus is ineligible.
Claim 14 Analysis
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category
Yes. The claim preamble recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”, which is considered a manufactured item.
2A – Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites “acquiring a first light intensity distribution of collimated light”. Light intensity distribution is a graph, and a graph represents a mathematical relationship between variables.
The claim recites “calculating a ratio of inclusion of the first light intensity line”. Calculating a ratio is a mathematical step.
The claim recites “determining, based on the ratio of inclusion, whether a diameter of the collimated light is within a specific range”. Determining whether a quantity falls within a range, based on a ratio, is both a mental process and a mathematical comparison.
2A – Prong Two: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites an additional element “components of a fundamental mode and a first-order mode”. Modes are properties of collimated light such that, e.g., intensity of a fundamental mode is higher than intensity of a first-order mode.
The claim recites an additional limitation “acquiring a first light intensity line corresponding to a specific light intensity lower than a maximum light intensity, wherein the maximum light intensity is based on the first light intensity distribution”. This is interpreted as drawing a line whose length is proportional to a specific quantity of light intensity, i.e., the length of the line has a mathematical relationship to another quantity. Further, “a specific light intensity lower than a maximum light intensity, wherein the maximum light intensity is based on the first light intensity distribution” is another mathematical relationship wherein a specific quantity of light intensity is less than a quantity of maximum light as seen on a graph of the light intensity distribution.
The claim recites an additional element “an annular region, between a first circle and a second circle, with an optical axis of the collimated light in a center, wherein the second circle is larger than the first circle, and the annular region is in an entire circular region centered on the optical axis of the collimated light”. A two-dimensional region between the circumferences of two concentric circles is a geometrical concept. An optical axis of collimated light is a line at the center of a beam of light, and is also a geometrical concept.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
The claim is directed to the abstract ideas.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole merely describes how to arrive at a calculation using computer-executable instructions to cause a computer to execute a series of steps [which is well-understood, routine, and conventional], does not recite any additional element or combination of elements that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exceptions themselves, and thus is ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but deemed eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akbar H Rizvi whose telephone number is (571) 272-5085. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:30 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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/AKBAR H. RIZVI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights