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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on February 18, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1, 3 and 13.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 remain pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1, 3-12, 13 and 15-20 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. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended to include the phrase “M is a positive integer that is greater than or equal to two and M multiplied a design wavelength, l0, is equal to an optical path difference in units of length of steps in the M-order diffractive pattern” that is not fully and explicitly supported by the specification of originally filed. The specification of originally filed only discloses that step height at transition of the adjacent zones corresponds to the MOD number M times height h corresponds to one wave of OPD at the design wavelength l0, (please see the paragraph [0060] of the specification). If the M assumes integer values of two or greater, then the step height is at least two design wavelength, as stated in the amended phrase. This phrase therefore is not supported by the specification of originally filed.
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, 3-13 and 15-20 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.
The phrase “M-order diffractive pattern” recited in claims 1-3 and 13-15 are confusing and indefinite. It is not clear what considered to be the “M-order”. It is not clear M is referred to diffraction order or not. If M-order is referred to M diffraction order, then it is not clear if this referred to that the MODE lens is to diffract light into M orders or not? If this is not referred to M diffraction order, then what does M-order refer to?
Claims 3 and 15 have been amended to recite the phrase “ a pth MOD zone surface profile has an effective axial vertex that is set forward in an axial direction parallel to a central optical axis by a distance equal to (p-1)Mh-s” is confusing and indefinite, since it is really not clear with respect to what reference is the distance is defined and measured. As shown in Figure 4B of the instant application the distance “Mh-s” is referred to a distance in the direction that is perpendicular to the “direction toward the Npth MOD zone from the center MOD zone. The applicant being one skilled in the art must have the basic knowledge that an axial vertex is usually perpendicular to the MODE lens not in the translational direction (i.e. from the first MOD zone lens toward the Npth MOD zone lens).
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Ando et al (US 2012/0300301 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Ogawa (US 2005/0117221 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Ando et al teaches a diffractive grating lens serves as the segmented optical component that is comprised of a multi-order diffractive engineered surface MODE lens, (please see Figure 1), that is comprised of a curved front MODE lens surface having an M-order diffractive pattern (please see Figures 30(a) to 30(c)) formed therein that extends from a center of the MODE lens to a periphery of the MODE lens, wherein M is a positive integer that is greater than or equal to two, (please see Figures 1 and 30(a)-30(c)), the M-order diffractive pattern segmenting the MODE lens into Np multi-order diffractive zones, (Figure 1).
Ando et al also teaches that each MOD zone comprises a respective MOD surface profile, wherein Np is a positive integer greater than or equal to two. The Np radial MOD surface profile comprise a first MOD surface profile and an Npth MOD surface profile, wherein the first MOD surface profile is a central radial MOD surface profile of the MODE zone lens that includes the center of the MODE lens and the Npth MOD surface profile is an outermost radial MOD surface profile of the Np MOD zones that includes the periphery of the MODE lens (please see Figure 1 Ando et al), with each radial MOD surface profile separated from an adjacent radial MOD surface profile by a transition having a step height.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that the back of the MODE lens surface also having a preselected back surface profile. Claim 1 further includes the phrase “the first MOD surface profile having a center thickness, t, along an axial direction with respect to the front MOD surface profile and subsequent radial MOD surface profile also having a thickness at the transition along the axial direction equal to the cent4ral thickness, t, the thickness extending in the axial direction between a tip of the transition and the back MODE lens surface opposite the tip of the transition”.
Ogawa in the same field of endeavor teaches a diffractive optical element that is comprised of a front MODE lens and a back MODE lens, (please see Figure 5). Ogawa teaches that the first MOD surface profile has a center thickness along an axial direction with respect to the front MOD surface profile and subsequent radial MOD surface profile also has a thickness at the transition along the axial direction equal to the center thickness the thickness extending in the axial direction between the tip of the transition and the back MODE lens surface opposite the tip of the transition, (please see Figure 5). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings Ogawa to modify the diffractive surface lens of the Ando et al to make the thickness at the transition along the axial direction equal to the central thickness for the benefit of allowing the diffractive surface lens to have desired optical properties.
Claim 1 also has been amended to include the phrase “M multiplied by a design wavelength is equal to an optical path difference in in units of length of steps in the M-order diffractive pattern at a design wavelength, l0 of the segmented optical component”. This phrase is rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. It is noted that in light of the diffraction theory, the optical path difference between the optical paths of lights pass through the MOD surface profile and air is OPD = h(n-1), with h being step height of the transition and n being refractive index of the MOD surface profile. For the OPD to allow constructively interference between the lights, the OPD has to be an integer multiple of the design wavelength (l0), that is OPD= m*l0= h(n-1), which means the optical path is equal to M multiplied by design wavelength (m*l0). This is implicitly included the diffractive lens taught by both Ando et al and Ogawa.
Claim 1 further has been amended to include the phrase “the front and back MOD surface profiles of each radial MOD zone operate to focus incoming light along the axial direction at a distance equal to an Mth-order focus of the radial MOD zones”. The diffractive lens taught by Ando et al in light of Ogawa teaches that the incoming light is focused along the axial direction at a distance equal to an Mth-order focus of the radial MOD zones.
With regard to claims 6-9, Ando et al in light of Ogawa teach an identical MODE lens as the instant application, which means it also implicitly defines the same zonal field shift. It is either implicitly true or obvious matters of design choices to one skilled in the art to make the zonal field shift ratio assumes the claimed values as desired for the benefit of making MODE lens having the desired properties.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al and Ogawa as applied to claim above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Ota et al (PN. 6,429,972).
The segmented optical component taught by Ando et al in combination with the teachings of Ogawa as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 3-5, Ando et al teaches that the curved front MODE lens surface is either a spherical profile or an aspherical profile, (please see paragraph [0061]). It is implicitly true that the curved surface front may be a function s. Ota et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a segmented diffractive lens that has a curved front surface, B, (Figure 1). Ota et al teaches that the profile of the diffractive lens is defined as x(h), with h as a distance from the center of the lens to the peripheral of the lens and the x being the direction of the height of the diffractive lens. Ota et al teaches that each zone has an effective axial vertex that has a height of Ml/(n1(l)-1), (please see equation (2) of Ando et al, Figure 30(c)), with respect to the adjacent axial vertex. It is known in the art that l/(n1(l)-1) is the optical path difference. The actual height x(h) of each vertex with respect to the h axis is (p-1)*M l/(n1(l)-1). Ota et al teaches that the diffractive lens is deviated from the curved surface xB(h), by a distance xD(h). The distance xD(h) is equal to x(h) - xB(h), and for an axial vertex it is (p-1)*M l/(n1(l)-1)- xB(h), or (p-1)*M l/(n1(l)-1)- s, for xB(h) = s. With regard to claims 4 and 5, Ota et al also teaches that the curved front s function is either an aspherical surface or a spherical surface, (please see column 2, lines 44-45). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Ota et al to obtain the deviation distance of the axial vertex of the diffractive lens from the curved front of the lens.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al and Ogawa as applied to claim above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Francis (US 2007/0247715 A1).
The segmented optical component taught by Ando et al in combination with the teachings of Ogawa as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 10-12, these references do not teach explicitly that the back MODE lens surface comprises a segmented diffractive Fresnel lens. Francis in the same field of endeavor teaches refractive Fresnel lens (308-L1, Figure 3a) and a diffractive Fresnel lens (308-L2, Figure 3b). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Francis to make the back MODE lens surface to comprise a diffractive Fresnel lens for the benefit of allowing the segmented optical component to have specific optical lens function.
With regard to claims 11 and 12, the diffractive Fresnel lens is either a single or multiple harmonic diffractive Fresnel lens and it is within general level skilled in the art to design the diffractive Fresnel lens to be either single or multiple harmonic diffractive Fresnel lens.
Claim(s) 13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent issued to Hyde (PN. 6,219,185) in view of the US patent application publication by Ando et al (US 2012/0300301 A1) and the US patent application publication by Yun et al (US 2004/0131785 A1).
Claim 13 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Hyde teaches a telescope that is comprised of a Fresnel lens (11, Figure 5) wherein the Fresnel lens serves as the segmented component comprising multi-order diffractive engineered surface lens, (please see Figure 4A and 4B). It is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to use the Fresnel lens to remove off-axis aberration of the telescope.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach the Fresnel lens comprises a curved front.
Ando et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a diffractive grating lens serves as the segmented optical component that is comprised of a multi-order diffractive engineered surface MODE lens, (please see Figure 1), that is comprised of a curved front MODE lens surface having an M-order diffractive pattern (please see Figures 30(a) to 30(c)) formed therein that extends from a center of the MODE lens to a periphery of the MODE lens, wherein M is a positive integer that is greater than or equal to two, (please see Figures 1 and 30(a)-30(c)), the M-order diffractive pattern segmenting the MODE lens into Np multi-order diffractive zones, (Figure 1).
It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Ando et al to modify the Fresnel lens to further have a curved front for the benefit of allowing the Fresnel lens has desired optical power and properties.
Ando et al also teaches that each MOD zone comprises a respective MOD surface profile, wherein Np is a positive integer greater than or equal to two. The Np radial MOD surface profile comprise a first MOD surface profile and an Npth MOD surface profile, wherein the first MOD surface profile is a central radial MOD surface profile of the MODE zone lens that includes the center of the MODE lens and the Npth MOD surface profile is an outermost radial MOD surface profile of the Np MOD zones that includes the periphery of the MODE lens (please see Figure 1 Ando et al), with each radial MOD surface profile separated from an adjacent radial MOD surface profile by a transition having a step height.
These references also do not teach explicitly to include a back MODE lens surface having a preselected surface profile. Claim 13 also includes the phrase “the first MOD surface profile having a center thickness, t, along an axial direction with respect to the front MOD surface profile and subsequent radial MOD surface profile also having a thickness at the transition along the axial direction equal to the cent4ral thickness, t, the thickness extending in the axial direction between a tip of the transition and the back MODE lens surface opposite the tip of the transition”.
Both Hyde and Ando et al however do not teach explicitly that the back of the MODE lens surface also having a preselected back surface profile. Ogawa in the same field of endeavor teaches a diffractive optical element that is comprised of a front MODE lens and a back MODE lens, (please see Figure 5). Ogawa teaches that the first MOD surface profile has a center thickness along an axial direction with respect to the front MOD surface profile and subsequent radial MOD surface profile also has a thickness at the transition along the axial direction equal to the center thickness the thickness extending in the axial direction between the tip of the transition and the back MODE lens surface opposite the tip of the transition, (please see Figure 5). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings Ogawa to modify the diffractive surface lens of the Ando et al to make the thickness at the transition along the axial direction equal to the central thickness for the benefit of allowing the diffractive surface lens to have desired optical properties.
Claim 13 also has been amended to include the phrase “M multiplied by a design wavelength, l0 is equal to an optical path difference in units of length of steps in the M-order diffractive pattern at a design wavelength, l0 of the segmented optical component”. This phrase is rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. It is noted that in light of the diffraction theory, the optical path difference between the optical paths of lights pass through the MOD surface profile and air is OPD = h(n-1), with h being step height of the transition and n being refractive index of the MOD surface profile. For the OPD to allow constructively interference between the lights, the OPD has to be an integer multiple of the design wavelength (l0), that is OPD= m*l0= h(n-1), which means OPD equal to design wavelength multiplied by integer m. This is implicitly included the diffractive lens taught by both Ando et al and Ogawa.
Claim 13 further includes the phrase “the front and back MOD surface profiles of each radial MOD zone operate to focus incoming light along the axial direction at a distance equal to an Mth-order focus of the radial MOD zones”. The diffractive lens taught by Ando et al in light of Ogawa teaches that the incoming light is focused along the axial direction at a distance equal to an Mth-order focus of the radial MOD zones.
With regard to claims 18-20, Hyde teaches the lens may be a diffractive Fresnel lens, (please see the abstract). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the MODE lens comprise diffractive Fresnel lens for the benefit of allowing the lens to have specific optical properties. With regard to claims 19 and 20, the diffractive Fresnel lens is either a single or multiple harmonic diffractive Fresnel lens and it is within general level skilled in the art to design the diffractive Fresnel lens to be either single or multiple harmonic diffractive Fresnel lens.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde, Ando et al and Ogawa as applied to claims 13 and 14 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Ota et al (PN. 6,429,972).
The telescope with Fresnel lens taught by Hyde in combination with the teachings of segmented optical component taught by Ando et al and Ogawa as described in claim 13 and 14 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 15-17, Ando et al teaches that the curved front MODE lens surface is either a spherical profile or an aspherical profile, (please see paragraph [0061]). It is implicitly true that the curved surface front may be a function s. Ota et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a segmented diffractive lens that has a curved front surface, B, (Figure 1). Ota et al teaches that the profile of the diffractive lens is defined as x(h), with h as a distance from the center of the lens to the peripheral of the lens and the x being the direction of the height of the diffractive lens. Ota et al teaches that each zone has an effective axial vertex that has a height of Ml/(n1(l)-1), (please see equation (2) of Ando et al, Figure 30(c)), with respect to the adjacent axial vertex. It is known in the art that l/(n1(l)-1) is the optical path difference. The actual height x(h) of each vertex with respect to the h axis is (p-1)*M l/(n1(l)-1). Ota et al teaches that the diffractive lens is deviated from the curved surface xB(h), by a distance xD(h). The distance xD(h) is equal to x(h) - xB(h), and for an axial vertex it is (p-1)*M l/(n1(l)-1)- xB(h), or (p-1)*M l/(n1(l)-1)- s, for xB(h) = s. With regard to claims 16 and 17, Ota et al also teaches that the curved front s function is either an aspherical surface or a spherical surface, (please see column 2, lines 44-45). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Ota et al to obtain the deviation distance of the axial vertex of the diffractive lens from the curved front of the lens.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above. Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended features that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
In response to applicant’s arguments concerning the cited Ogawa reference, the applicant is respectfully reminded that Ogawa indeed teaches diffractive lens comprises a front and a back lens surfaces on the same lens material (DG, Figure 5). In light of the teachings of Ogawa it is within general level skilled in the art to modify the MOD lens to include a back lens.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872