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
Applicant’s response to amendments filed on 08/04/26 has been acknowledged and considered. Claim 8 has been canceled. Claims 1-7 have been appending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments on the Prior Art Rejections:
Applicant argued pages 8-9 that the Hayashi et al (US 2019/0011623 hereinafter “Hayashi”)
does not teach the feature "one or more processors; and a computer readable medium including a program that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to acquire a mode field diameter of a freely-selected spatial mode using a near field pattern of the spatial mode, and a mathematical expression based on a variational expression of a propagation constant for the spatial mode" as recited in claims 1 and 7.
Examiner's answer:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
a) The Office Action has shown clearly that the asserted Hayashi reference teach or suggest "each and every element" of claimed invention (See below OA, amended claims 1 and 7).
It is respectfully pointed out to applicant that, as stated in the previous Office action, Hayashi discloses clearly the claimed language of the present invention recited as in amended claims 1 and 7 with feature "one or more processors; and a computer readable medium including a program that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to acquire a mode field diameter of a freely-selected spatial mode using a near field pattern of the spatial mode, and a mathematical expression based on a variational expression of a propagation constant for the spatial mode" as required by the present claims (See below OA, amended claims 1 and 7).
In this case, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because the teachings or suggestions of the prior art that have been used as evidence within a rejection of the claimed invention in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, as set forth by the Court, are to be evaluated and determined not just from one or more specifically identified quotes to individual sections of the text of the prior art document but are in fact to be evaluated and determined from all that the prior art document teaches or suggests, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 17 (CCPA, 1977), with some reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 16 (CCPA, 1977).
In view of the above set forth by the Court, the Office respectfully pointed out to applicant that the argument “one or more processors; and a computer readable medium including a program that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to acquire a mode field diameter of a freely-selected spatial mode using a near field pattern of the spatial mode, and a mathematical expression based on a variational expression of a propagation constant for the spatial mode” is anticipated by the description in Hayashi teaches clearly the claimed language of the present invention, in figures 2-5 and 7-8, that one or more processors; and a computer readable medium including a program that, when executed by the one or more processors (30 @ figure 7), cause the one or more processors to acquire a mode field diameter (paragraphs [0023] and [0045]-[0047]: e.g., to evaluate the mode field diameter MFD and Aeff of the RC-MCF, the NFP and FFP need to be measured while light is output from only one of the modes that is to be evaluated) of a freely-selected spatial mode using a near field pattern (figures 2 and 8 and paragraphs [0043] and [0064]: e.g., When the optical fiber 2 is a 4-core RC-MCF, the average near-field-pattern NFP of light intensity of all of the supermodes is as shown in FIG. 8. When four quadrants are defined around the center of the output end of the optical fiber 2, each quadrant has a peak light intensity) of the spatial mode (paragraphs [0048] and [0057]-[0058]: e.g., the optical fiber 2, which is an RC-MCF, at the input end thereof in one or more of the spatial modes of the optical fiber 2. The one or more of the spatial modes of the optical fiber 2 in which the light is input are set based on an optical coupling state between the input optical fiber 3 and the optical fiber 2 at the connecting point 4), and a mathematical expression (paragraphs [0039]-[0054] and equations (1)-(8)) based on a variational expression of a propagation constant for the spatial mode (paragraph [0059]: e.g., the analysis unit 30 calculates output beam evaluation indices (MFD, Aeff) of the optical fiber 2 based on the result of measurement of the sum of the light intensity profiles obtained by the measurement unit 20. The analysis unit 30 may include a computing element, such as a central processing unit (CPU), and a storage element, such as a memory). Therefore, Hayashi's limitation met the limitation in the claimed language of the Present Invention as recited in claims 1 and 7.
For the reasons set forth above the arguments, it is believed that the rejection of the claims 1 and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is proper.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim is directed to "A computer readable medium including a program, when executed by one or more processor", not one of the statutory subject matter categories. See MPEP 2016. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 72 (1972).
This rejection may be overcome by amending the claims to read "A non-transitory computer readable medium including a program, when executed by one or more processors " or the like.
Claims, which are dependent from rejected claims inherit the problem of these claims and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al (US 2019/0011623 hereinafter "Hayashi") in view of Nakamura et al (US 2022/0276123 hereinafter “Nakamura”).
Regarding claims 1 and 7; Hayashi discloses a mode field diameter acquisition device (1 @ figure 7) for acquiring a mode field diameter (paragraphs [0045]-[0047]: e.g., The MFD and Aeff are performance indices for quantifying the electric field amplitude distribution in each mode of the optical fiber. Therefore, to evaluate the MFS and Aeff of the RC-MCF, the NFP and FFP need to be measured while light is output from only one of the modes that is to be evaluated) of each spatial mode (paragraph [0048]: e.g., spatial modes of four cores coupled in an RC-MCF serve as so-called supermodes. The supermodes spread over all of the cores. FIG. 3 shows examples of electric field distributions of NFPs of the RC-MCF. FIG. 4 shows examples of intensity distributions of NFPs of the RC-MCF) of an optical fiber (2 @ figures 2 and 7) having a core (paragraph [0064]: e.g., the optical fiber 2 is a 4-core RC-MCF), through which a plurality of spatial modes (paragraph [0048]) can propagate, from a near field pattern (figures 2 and 8 and paragraphs [0043] and [0064]: e.g., When the optical fiber 2 is a 4-core RC-MCF, the average NFP of light intensity of all of the supermodes is as shown in FIG. 8. When four quadrants are defined around the center of the output end of the optical fiber 2, each quadrant has a peak light intensity), the mode field diameter acquisition device (1 @ figure 7) comprising:
one or more processor (20, 30 @ figure 7); and
a computer readable medium including a program that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processor (20, 30 @ figure 7 and paragraph [0059]: e.g., The analysis unit 30 may include a computing element, such as a central processing unit (CPU), and a storage element, such as a memory) to acquire a mode field diameter of a freely-selected spatial mode using a near field pattern of the spatial mode (figures 6-7 and paragraphs [0057]-[0058]: e.g., The one or more of the spatial modes of the optical fiber 2 in which the light is input are set based on an optical coupling state between the input optical fiber 3 and the optical fiber 2 at the connecting point 4 in measurement step S11, the measurement unit 20 measures the sum of intensity profiles of individual light components output from the respective spatial modes by averaging the component of interference between the spatial modes in the beam profile of combined light output from the plurality of spatial modes at the output end of the optical fiber 2), and a mathematical (paragraphs [0040] and equation 1) expression based on a variational expression of a propagation constant for the spatial mode (paragraph [0062]: e.g., the measurement unit 20 measures an NFP as the sum of the intensity profiles of the individual light components output from the respective spatial modes of the optical fiber 2. Then, the analysis unit 30 calculates the beam evaluation indices of each core by assuming that the measured NFP is the NFP of each of the cores included in regions divided from each other so that each region includes one of the cores). See figures 1-10
Regarding claim 6; Hayashi discloses program that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processor (20, 30 @ figure 7 and paragraph [0059]: e.g., The analysis unit 30 may include a computing element, such as a central processing unit (CPU), and a storage element, such as a memory) configured to acquire the near field pattern (figure 2 and paragraph [0025] and [0043]: e.g., a conceptual diagram illustrating an NFP measurement system).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a mode field diameter acquisition device comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the mode field diameter acquisition unit calculates a mode field diameter using Expression C1 [Math C1] MFDvµ = … (C1), where MFD represents a mode field diameter, V and µ represent mode orders in an azimuthal direction and a radial direction of the spatial mode targeted for acquisition, φᵥµ represents an electric field distribution of the LPᵥµ mode depending on a radial coordinate, and r represents a coordinate in a radial direction in set forth of claim 2.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a mode field diameter acquisition device comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the mode field diameter acquisition unit calculates a mode field diameter using Expression C2, [Math.C2] MFDvµ = … (C2) where MFDvµ represents a mode field diameter, V and µ represent mode orders in an azimuthal direction and a radial direction of the spatial mode targeted for acquisition, φᵥₚ represents an electric field distribution of the LPvµ mode depending on a radial coordinate, and r represents a coordinate in a radial direction in set forth of claim 3.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a mode field diameter acquisition device comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the mode field diameter acquisition unit calculates connection loss using Expression C3, [Math.C3] αᵥµ = [10/In(10]xd2/( MFDvµ/2)/2)2 (C3) where d represents an axial deviation amount in set forth of claim 4.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a mode field diameter acquisition device comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the mode field diameter acquisition unit calculates connection loss using Expression C4, [Math.C4] αᵥµ = [10/In(10)]x[(v + 2µ-1)d2]/( MFDvµ /2)2] (4) where d represents an axial deviation amount in set forth of claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Nakamura et al (US 2022/0276123) discloses a test method and a test device for a mode field diameter of an optical fiber capable of propagating a plurality of modes.
2) Hayashi (US 2018/0100782) discloses an optical-fiber-characteristic-evaluating apparatus includes a measuring unit and an analyzing unit. A method and an apparatus of evaluating optical characteristics of each of spatial modes propagating through a multimode optical fiber.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
August 22, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights