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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 10 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1-3 and 5-6 have overcome each and every U.S.C. 112 claim interpretation and U.S.C. 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11 March 2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1-3 and 5-6 do not overcome the U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 10 June 2026, with respect to the U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection has newly cited references teaching the amended claim.
Regarding the previous U.S.C. 112 claim interpretation and U.S.C. 112 rejection, of “predetermined device”, Examiner agrees with Applicant’s remarks and the corresponding U.S.C. 112 claim interpretation and U.S.C. 112 rejection have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 21, in claim 5 line 19 and in claim 6 lines 7-8: “a measured values” should be corrected to say –measured values--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakayama et al. (DMD Measurement of 114-SDM Transmission Fibre Using Low-Coherence Interferometry with Digital Holographic Processing, 2015 European Conference on Optical Communications (ECOC), 03 December 2015) from the IDS, hereinafter Wakayama, in view of Matsushima et al. (Band-Limited Angular Spectrum Method for Numerical Simulation of Free-Space Propagation in Far and Near Fields, OPTICS EXPRESS, 15 October 2009) from the IDS, hereinafter Matsushima, further in view of Hariyama et al. (US11635295B2), hereinafter Hariyama.
As to claims 1, 5 and 6, Wakayama teaches a measurement method performed by a measurement apparatus (fig. 2; abstract; the device and methods of fig. 2, which “observes mode fields… by digital holographic approach”) comprising:
an interference waveform generator that generates an interference waveform signal corresponding to interference light of first light (fig. 2; page 1 col. 2 para. 2; “As a low-coherence light source, broadband ASE light source was used and its spectrum was shaped with a bandpass filter of 2-nm bandwidth. The optical path was divided into an object arm and a reference arm”. Thus, the interference waveform signal corresponds to an object arm and a reference arm) with second light received by an imaging surface (fig. 2; page 2 col. 1 para. 1; “An interferogram was generated by interference between the object light and the reference light on a camera”);
a processor; and a storage medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, when executed by the processor, perform to:
measure a first optical electric- field distribution of an intensity and a phase of the first light at the imaging surface, based on the interference waveform signal (fig. 3; page 2 col. 2 para. 2; “Figure 3 shows processes in data analysis for extracting mode fields based on the holographic reconstruction [5]. At first, the intensity distribution of the reference field f1(x,y) is captured and stored (Fig. 3a). Secondly, interferograms are captured with different stage positions (Fig. 3b). Thirdly, mode fields are obtained, from each interferogram… By using Eq.(3), mode fields are calculated as complex amplitude that includes both spatial intensity and phase”. Thus, the intensity distribution is based on the interference signal).
However, Wakayama does not explicitly disclose the storage medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, when executed by the processor, perform to: simulate second optical electric-field distributions of the intensity and the phase of the first light at a plurality of planes having different distances from the imaging surface in a direction opposite to a propagation direction of the first light propagated from an end surface of an optical waveguide, based on the measured first optical electric-field distribution; from the plurality of planes, select a plane at which an area of a region of the simulated second optical electric-field distributions is minimized; and output information of the simulated second optical electric-field distributions on the selected plane to a predetermined device; wherein the computer program instructions further performs to quantify a beam diameter of the first light based on a variance in a measured values of the intensity and the phase in a region of electric-field distribution of the first light, and simulate an electric- field distribution of the second light based on the quantified beam diameter.
Matsushima, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the storage medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, when executed by the processor, perform to: simulate second optical electric-field distributions of the intensity and the phase of the first light (Matsushima fig. 4; section 2.3 para. 2; “Amplitude distributions computed by the AS, Shifted-FR, and numerical integration of the diffraction integral, are shown in Fig. 4(a)”, inherently simulating based on intensity and phase of the light)
at a plurality of planes having different distances from the imaging surface (Matsushima fig. 3; section 2.3 para. 1; To verify accuracy of the AS, one-dimensional diffraction by a rectangular aperture shown in Fig. 3 is computed by three methods. Here, the sampling interval and the number of samplings are ∆x = 2λ and Nt = 1024, respectively”. The plurality of planes at different distances from the sampling window are described by Matsushima as the source plane and the destination plane) in a direction opposite to a propagation direction of the first light propagated from an end surface of an optical waveguide, based on the measured first optical electric-field distribution (Matsushima section 2.1 para. 1; fig. 3; “Source fields given in the source plane (x, y, 0) are propagated to the destination plane parallel to the source plane”. Thus, the direction of the different distances is the direction from the sampling window to the source plane, i.e. right to left in fig. 3. This is the opposite direction of the light, which is propagated from an end surface of an optical waveguide (fiber) according to Wakayama fig. 2);
from the plurality of planes, select a plane at which an area of a region of the simulated second optical electric-field distributions is minimized (Matsushima fig. 9-10; section 4 para. 2; “A model for estimating the minimum bandwidth necessary for exact numerical propagation is shown in Fig. 10. An aperture with size W1 is placed at the center of a sampling window with size S1”. The aperture is between the source plane and the destination plane. The result is in fig. 9: amplitude images wherein the simulated second optical electric-field distributions is minimized according to the square/circular aperture. Thus, the destination plane is selected at which the area of a region of the simulated second optical electric-field distributions is minimized);
and output information of the simulated second optical electric-field distributions on the selected plane to a predetermined device (Matsushima fig. 9; the amplitude images must be output by a device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wakayama to incorporate the teachings of Matsushima to include the storage medium having computer program instructions stored thereon, when executed by the processor, perform to: simulate second optical electric-field distributions of the intensity and the phase of the first light at a plurality of planes having different distances from the imaging surface in a direction opposite to a propagation direction of the first light propagated from an end surface of an optical waveguide, based on the measured first optical electric-field distribution; from the plurality of planes, select a plane at which an area of a region of the simulated second optical electric-field distributions is minimized; and output information of the simulated second optical electric-field distributions on the selected plane to a predetermined device; for the advantage of increased accuracy via calculating far field propagation as well as near field propagation (Matsushima section 5. Conclusion).
Still lacking the limitation such as wherein the computer program instructions further performs to quantify a beam diameter of the first light based on a variance in a measured values of the intensity and the phase in a region of electric-field distribution of the first light, and simulate an electric- field distribution of the second light based on the quantified beam diameter.
Hariyama, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the computer program instructions further performs to quantify a beam diameter of the first light based on a variance in a measured values of the intensity and the phase in a region of electric-field distribution of the first light (Hariyama fig. 6 and fig. 7; col. 7 ln. 10-21; “As shown in the figure, the intensity distribution of laser 601 with which the object 115 is irradiated is a Gaussian distribution, and the beam diameter on the target object 115 is set to D. Here, when an inclined surface 604 (inclination angle θ) of the target object 115 is irradiated with the laser 601, a distance difference of D·sin θ occurs in abeam irradiation region”. Thus, the beam diameter D is quantified based on a variance in the intensity distribution (including intensity and the phase of the distribution) in a region of the Gaussian distribution, i.e. an electric-field distribution),
and simulate an electric- field distribution of the second light based on the quantified beam diameter (Hariyama fig. 7 and fig. 9; col. 8 ln. 21-33; “FIG. 9 shows a concept of the coping method for the error of the measurement distance value caused by the speckles. As described above with reference to FIG. 7 , the error of the measurement distance value caused by the speckle is generated due to distortion of the distance detection waveform according to a generation position of the speckle. The error of the measurement distance value increases as the distortion of the distance detection waveform increases. Therefore, the feature amount of the shape of the distance detection waveform is calculated, and at least one of the measurement distance value correcting processing and the reliability weighting processing is performed based on the calculated feature amount”. As shown in fig. 7, the Gaussian distribution and intensity distribution is affected by the beam diameter D. Thus, the distance detection waveform 702 is described by Hariyama as the electric- field distribution of the second light based on the beam diameter D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wakayama in view of Matsushima to incorporate the teachings of Hariyama to include wherein the computer program instructions further performs to quantify a beam diameter of the first light based on a variance in a measured values of the intensity and the phase in a region of electric-field distribution of the first light, and simulate an electric- field distribution of the second light based on the quantified beam diameter; for the advantage of higher measurement accuracy (Hariyama col. 1 ln. 49-56).
PNG
media_image1.png
269
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wakayama Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
390
693
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wakayama Fig. 3
PNG
media_image3.png
229
541
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Matsushima Fig. 3
PNG
media_image4.png
426
745
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Matsushima Fig. 4
PNG
media_image5.png
535
680
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Matsushima Fig. 9
PNG
media_image6.png
285
677
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Matsushima Fig. 10
PNG
media_image7.png
416
773
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Hariyama Fig. 6
PNG
media_image8.png
401
777
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Hariyama Fig. 7
PNG
media_image9.png
415
808
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Hariyama Fig. 9
As to claim 2, Wakayama does not explicitly disclose wherein the computer program instructions further perform to output information on a propagation distance from the selected plane to the imaging surface to the predetermined device.
Matsushima, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the computer program instructions further perform to output information on a propagation distance from the selected plane to the imaging surface to the predetermined device (Matsushima fig. 4; section 2.3 para. 3; A composition of accuracy between the AS and Shift-FR is shown as a function of the propagation distance in Fig. 4(b)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wakayama to incorporate the teachings of Matsushima to include wherein the computer program instructions further perform to output information on a propagation distance from the selected plane to the imaging surface to the predetermined device; for the advantage of increased accuracy via calculating far field propagation as well as near field propagation (Matsushima section 5. Conclusion).
As to claim 3, Wakayama teaches wherein the computer program instructions further perform to measure the first optical electric- field distribution, based on the interference waveform signal of digital holography (fig. 3; page 2 col. 2 para. 2; “Figure 3 shows processes in data analysis for extracting mode fields based on the holographic reconstruction [5]. At first, the intensity distribution of the reference field f1(x,y) is captured and stored (Fig. 3a). Secondly, interferograms are captured with different stage positions (Fig. 3b). Thirdly, mode fields are obtained, from each interferogram…” Thus, the measurement of the intensity distribution is based on the interference signal of the holographic reconstruction).
As to claim 4, Wakayama does not explicitly disclose wherein the imaging surface receives the first light propagated from the end surface of the optical waveguide without passing through an imaging optical system.
Matsushima, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the imaging surface receives the first light propagated from the end surface of the optical waveguide without passing through an imaging optical system (Matsushima section 5 para. 1; “method for the exact calculation of field propagation in the free-space”; the light is propagated from an end surface of an optical waveguide (fiber) according to Wakayama fig. 2; Thus, the sampling window where imaging takes place receives the light propagated without passing through an imaging optical system, i.e. in free space).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wakayama to incorporate the teachings of Matsushima to include wherein the imaging surface receives the first light propagated from the end surface of the optical waveguide without passing through an imaging optical system; for the advantage of increased accuracy via calculating far field propagation as well as near field propagation (Matsushima section 5 para. 1).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEMAYA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 5:00pm ET.
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 Chowdhury can be reached on (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.
/KEMAYA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights