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 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 limitations are:
“distribution measurer”, “distribution simulator”, “selector” and “outputter” in claims 1 and 5;
and “a predetermined device” in claims 1 and 6.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-6 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 1, claim limitations “distribution measurer”, “distribution simulator”, “selector”, “outputter” and “predetermined device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. From Specification para. [0048], these claim limitations are identified as “distribution measurement unit 31 (distribution measurer)”, “distribution simulation unit 32 (distribution simulator)”, “selection unit 33 (selector)” and “output unit 34 (output unit)”. In fig. 1, these elements are shown as boxes, or elements of a box diagram, which do not connote to structures. Specification para. [0015]-[0017] does not specify the structure of the “predetermined device”. There is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 5, claim limitations “distribution measurer”, “distribution simulator”, “selector” and “outputter” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. From Specification para. [0048], these claim limitations are identified as “distribution measurement unit 31 (distribution measurer)”, “distribution simulation unit 32 (distribution simulator)”, “selection unit 33 (selector)” and “output unit 34 (output unit)”. In fig. 1, these elements are shown as boxes, or elements of a box diagram, which do not connote to structures. There is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 6, “predetermined device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specification para. [0015]-[0017] does not specify the structure of the “predetermined device”. There is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-4 are rejected due to their dependencies.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As above, claims 1-6 are indefinite for failure to disclose adequate structure in the specification. Because there is inadequate disclosure of the claimed invention, the inventor has also not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. Correction is required.
Claims 2-4 are rejected due to their dependencies.
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.
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 distribution measurer that measures 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 a distribution simulator that simulates 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; a selector that selects, from the plurality of planes, a plane at which an area of a region of the simulated second optical electric-field distributions is minimized; and an outputter that outputs information of the simulated second optical electric-field distributions on the selected plane to a predetermined device.
Matsushima, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a distribution simulator that simulates 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);
a selector that selects, from the plurality of planes, 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 an outputter that outputs 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 a distribution simulator that simulates 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; a selector that selects, from the plurality of planes, a plane at which an area of a region of the simulated second optical electric-field distributions is minimized; and an outputter that outputs 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).
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
As to claim 2, Wakayama does not explicitly disclose wherein the outputter outputs 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 outputter outputs 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 outputter outputs 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 distribution measurer measures 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
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 11 am – 8 pm ET.
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 571-270-4211.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, 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