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 .
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the length exceeds 150 words, and abstract will be read as follows.
“[[
A light intensity distribution of collimated light including components of a fundamental mode and a first-order mode is acquired by a light intensity distribution acquisition section. A light intensity line corresponding to a predetermined light intensity lower than a maximum intensity of light intensity is acquired by a light intensity line acquisition section in reference to the light intensity distribution. The ratio of inclusion of the light intensity line in an annular region between a first circle and a second circle larger than the first circle with an optical axis of the collimated light in a center in an entire circular region centered on the optical axis of the collimated light is calculated by a ratio calculation section. Further, it is determined by a determination section whether or not the [[
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of informalities indicated in an attached, marked-up copy of the specification showing tracking of changes, wherein each change indicates an informality.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, the last para will be read as “a determination section that determines whether or not a [[
In Claim 13, the last para will be read as “a step of determining whether or not a [[
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a light intensity distribution acquisition section" in claim 1; "a light intensity line acquisition section" in claim 1; "a ratio calculation section" in claim 1; "a determination section" in claim 1; "an imaging device" in claim 7; "a moving mechanism" in claim 8; "a reception section" in claim 10; "a reception section" in claim 11; and "a reporting section" in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention(s) is/are 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 light intensity distribution acquisition section, a light intensity line acquisition section, a ratio calculation section, a determination section – and is therefore a machine.
2A – Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites “acquires a light intensity distribution of collimated light”. Light intensity distribution is a graph, and a graph represents a mathematical relationship between variables.
The claim recites “calculates a ratio of inclusion of the light intensity line”. Calculating a ratio is a mathematical step.
The claim recites “determines whether or not a diameter of the collimated light is within a defined range, in reference to the ratio”. Determining whether a quantity falls within a range is both a mental process and a mathematical step.
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 “acquires a light intensity line corresponding to a predetermined light intensity lower than a maximum intensity of light intensity, in reference to the light intensity distribution”. This is interpreted as drawing a line whose length is proportional to a quantity of predetermined light intensity, i.e., the length of the line has a mathematical relationship to another quantity. Further, “a predetermined light intensity lower than a maximum intensity of light intensity, in reference to the light intensity distribution” is another mathematical relationship wherein a quantity of predetermined 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 larger than the first circle with an optical axis of the collimated light in a center 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 an imaging device 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 an optical connector that has a moving mechanism for enabling a position of the imaging device 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.
Claims 9-12 are dependent on Claim 1, and in addition to reasons applied to Claim 1, are directed to structural elements which are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, without amounting to significantly more than the judicial exceptions themselves, thus rendering the claims 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 “a step of acquiring a light intensity distribution of collimated light”. Light intensity distribution is a graph, and a graph represents a mathematical relationship between variables.
The claim recites “a step of calculating a ratio of inclusion of the light intensity line”. Calculating a ratio is a mathematical step.
The claim recites “a step of determining whether or not a diameter of the collimated light is within a defined range, in reference to the ratio”. Determining whether a quantity falls within a range is both a mental process and a mathematical step.
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 “a step of acquiring a light intensity line corresponding to a predetermined light intensity lower than a maximum intensity of light intensity in reference to the light intensity distribution”. This is interpreted as drawing a line whose length is proportional to a quantity of predetermined light intensity, i.e., the length of the line has a mathematical relationship to another quantity. Further, “a predetermined light intensity lower than a maximum intensity of light intensity in reference to the light intensity distribution” is another mathematical relationship wherein a quantity of predetermined 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 larger than the first circle with an optical axis of the collimated light in a center 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
No. The claim preamble recites “A program”, which is a subset of software. A computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) is not directed to any of the statutory categories.
However, Examiner notes that even if the claim was directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, the claim would still be ineligible for reasons outlined below.
2A – Prong One: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites “a step of acquiring a light intensity distribution of collimated light”. Light intensity distribution is a graph, and a graph represents a mathematical relationship between variables.
The claim recites “a step of calculating a ratio of inclusion of the light intensity line”. Calculating a ratio is a mathematical step.
The claim recites “a step of determining whether or not a diameter of the collimated light is within a defined range, in reference to the ratio”. Determining whether a quantity falls within a range is both a mental process and a mathematical step.
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 “a step of acquiring a light intensity line corresponding to a predetermined light intensity lower than a maximum intensity of light intensity in reference to the light intensity distribution”. This is interpreted as drawing a line whose length is proportional to a quantity of predetermined light intensity, i.e., the length of the line has a mathematical relationship to another quantity. Further, “a predetermined light intensity lower than a maximum intensity of light intensity in reference to the light intensity distribution” is another mathematical relationship wherein a quantity of predetermined 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 larger than the first circle with an optical axis of the collimated light in a center 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 a program 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 1-7 and 9-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but deemed eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, and would be allowable if the base claim is rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-2025/0012973-A1 discloses that an amount of optical loss in spatial coupling can be properly reduced. Provided are optical members, each constituting a light emitter or a light receiver, and a lens member having lens portions. A high-transmittance portion having a higher transmittance than the lens member is disposed between the optical member and the lens member. For example, a light emitter is an optical waveguide that emits an optical signal from one end of the optical waveguide or a light-emitting element that converts an electric signal into an optical signal and emits the signal, and a light receiver is an optical waveguide that receives an optical signal on one end of the optical waveguide or a light-receiving element that converts the received optical signal into an electric signal.
US-2024/0069273-A1 discloses that to mitigate the accuracy of misalignment to reduce costs, and to suppress an inter-mode propagation delay difference to enable high-quality transmission of signals, an optical waveguide is configured to propagate only a fundamental mode at a first wavelength and propagate at least a first-order mode as well as the fundamental mode at a second wavelength. The optical waveguide is configured such that a refractive index distribution of a core and a cladding is controlled so that the inter-mode propagation delay difference is within a predetermined threshold, for example, the inter-mode propagation delay difference is zero, when communication is performed using light of the second wavelength. For example, the first wavelength is in a 1310-nm band and the second wavelength is in an 850-nm band.
US-2022/0149942-A1 discloses that to relax the accuracy with respect to a positional deviation, and thus to reduce costs, an optical waveguide is included that performs propagation only in a reference mode at a first wavelength. Communication is performed using light that has a second wavelength and includes a component of at least a first order mode in addition to a component of the reference mode. Here, the second wavelength is a wavelength that enables the optical waveguide to perform propagation in at least the first order mode in addition to the reference mode. For example, a light path adjuster that adjusts a light path such that input light is guided to a core of the optical waveguide, is further included.
Conclusion
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