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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2023, 02/21/2023, 09/05/2023 and 05/31/2024.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restriction requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (claims 28-43) in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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:
Claim 28 recites the limitations:
“an all optical writing and erasing sub-system configured to write, erase, and rewrite a plurality of optical patterns in the optical liquid crystal beam shaper” uses a generic placeholder “an all optical writing and erasing sub-system” that is coupled with functional language “write, erase, and rewrite a plurality of optical patterns in the optical liquid crystal beam shaper” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“a beam steering mechanism configured to control the position of the projected laser beam optical patterns on to the unprocessed material layer” uses a generic placeholder “a beam steering mechanism” that is coupled with functional language “control the position of the projected laser beam optical patterns on to the unprocessed material layer” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 40 recites the limitations:
fixed optical elements to control beam divergence, beam direction and beam polarization state and/or,
(ii) adaptive optical elements to reduce or eliminate beam wavefront distortions and/or,
(iii) active optical elements to control the location of beam direction or compensate for drifting during system operation
use generic placeholders “fixed optical elements”, “adaptive optical elements” and active optical elements that are coupled with functional languages “control beam divergence, beam direction and beam polarization state”, “reduce or eliminate beam wavefront distortions” and “control the location of beam direction or compensate for drifting during system operation” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “all optical writing and erasing sub-system” recited in claim 28, Applicant’s Specification, para.0130 discloses: “the writing and erasing sub-system may include a coherent or incoherent light source with operating wavelength less than 500 nm and matched to the peak absorption wavelength of the photo-switchable alignment material, the light source coupled to either (i) a spatial light modulator configured to write an optical pattern on the photo-switchable alignment layer; or (ii) an optical system that provides a raster-scanned light spot configured to write the optical pattern on the photo-switchable alignment layer. The writing and erasing sub-system may erase the optical pattern written into the optical light valve by: (i) application of incident light of wavelength less than 500 nm having a polarization state that is different from the polarization state used to write the optical pattern, or (ii) application of visible light.”
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “beam steering mechanism” recited in claim 28, no corresponding structure is disclosed in the current application.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “fixed optical elements”, “adaptive optical elements” and “active optical elements” recited in claim 40, no corresponding structures are disclosed in the current application.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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.
Claims 28-43 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.
Claim(s) 28 contains subject matter “a beam steering mechanism configured to control the position of the projected laser beam optical patterns on to the unprocessed material layer” 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. The specification does not provide a disclosure of the structure(s) of the “beam steering mechanism” in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function.
Similarly, claim 40 recites the limitations:
fixed optical elements to control beam divergence, beam direction and beam polarization state and/or,
adaptive optical elements to reduce or eliminate beam wavefront distortions and/or,
(iii) active optical elements to control the location of beam direction or compensate for drifting during system operation
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. The specification does not provide a disclosure of the structure(s) of the “fixed optical elements”, “adaptive optical elements” and “active optical elements” in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function.
Claim 29-39 and 41-43 are rejected by the virtue of the dependency upon claim 28.
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 28-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
In claim 28, claim limitation “a beam steering mechanism configured to control the position of the projected laser beam optical patterns on to the unprocessed material layer” 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure of the claimed “beam steering mechanism” that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim 28 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For examination purposes, the “beam steering mechanism” can have any structure that performs the claimed function.
Similarly, claim 40 recites the limitations:
“fixed optical elements to control beam divergence, beam direction and beam polarization state and/or,
adaptive optical elements to reduce or eliminate beam wavefront distortions and/or,
(iii) active optical elements to control the location of beam direction or compensate for drifting during system operation”
The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. The disclosure is devoid of any structures that perform the functions in the claim. Therefore, the claim 40 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For examination purposes, the “fixed optical elements”, “adaptive optical elements” and “active optical elements” can have any structures that perform the claimed functions.
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.
Claim 36 recites the limitations “the photo-switchable alignment layer” and “the liquid crystals” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear if the limitations “the photo-switchable alignment layer” and “the liquid crystals” correspond to the “first alignment layer that is photo-switchable” (recited in claim 29) and the liquid crystals (recited in claim 34), respectively. If so, claim 36 should be depended upon claim 34. For examination purposes, claim 36 is construed as being depended upon claim 34.
Claim 41 recites the limitations “the optically transparent substrates”, “the photo-switchable alignment layer”, “the fixed alignment layer”, and “the liquid crystal mixture”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear if they refer to the “transparent substrates”, “first alignment layer that is photo-switchable”, “second alignment layer having a fixed alignment state” and “liquid crystal material” recited in claim 29, respectively. If so, claim 41 should be depended upon claim 29 and the limitation “the liquid crystal mixture” should be amended as “the liquid crystal material”. For examination purposes, claim 41 is construed as being depended upon claim 29.
Claim 42 recites the limitations “the photo- switchable alignment layer” and “the fixed alignment layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear if they refer to the “first alignment layer that is photo-switchable” and “second alignment layer having a fixed alignment state” recited in claim 29. If so, claim 42 should be depended upon claim 29. For examination purposes, claim 42 is construed as being depended upon claim 29.
Claim 43 recites the limitation “the liquid crystals” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it refers to the “liquid crystals” recited in claim 34. If so, claim 43 should be depended upon claim 34. For examination purposes, claim 43 is construed as being depended upon claim 34.
Claims 29-35, 37-39 are rejected by the virtue of the dependency upon claim 28.
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 28 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMuth (US 20180326664 A1) in view of Rottmiller (US 3667830 A)
Regarding claim 28, DeMuth discloses
A laser additive manufacturing system (300, see figs.3A-B and para.0056), comprising:
(a) an all optical liquid crystal beam shaper ( optically addressed light valve 380, see fig.3A and para.0037: “the pixel addressable light valve includes both a liquid crystal module having a polarizing element and a light projection unit providing a two-dimensional input pattern”. Notes: In the current application, Pub. Para.0137 discloses: “For the all-optical near IR LC laser beam shaper (light valve)”. Therefore, the “an all optical liquid crystal beam shaper” is interpreted as “light valve”);
(b) an all optical writing andlight projector 378, see fig.3A) configured to write,(combo 380 and 382, see fig,3A-B and para.0060: “The optically addressed light valve 380…is stimulated by the patterned light beam 309/311”, “mages formed from the projector 378 are recreated and overlaid on light valve 380”. Therefore, light projector 378 configured to write and rewrite the plurality of optical patterns309/311 in the optical liquid crystal beam shaper 380);
(c) a laser beam source (312, see figs.3A-B) that produces a known and repeatable intensity profile (see para.0056: “The multiple lasers 312 can emit a beam 301 of light at a 1000 nm wavelength”) on the locations of the all optical liquid crystal beam (380, see fig.3A-B and para.0056: “Beams 307 and 309 overlay in beam 311, and both are imaged onto optically addressed light valve 380 in a 20 mm wide, 20 mm tall image”);
(d) laser beam transport and imaging optics (combo 320 and 310, see fig.3A) configured to project the image of the optical patterns (317, 319) in the optical liquid crystal beam shaper (380) onto an unprocessed material layer (344, see fig.3A and para.0057: “ Beam 317 enters the final imaging assembly 320 which includes optics 384 that resize the patterned light. This beam reflects off of a movable mirror 386 to beam 319, which terminates in a focused image applied to material bed 344 in an article processing unit 340”); and
(e) a beam steering mechanism (control processor 350, see fig.3A) configured to control the position of the projected laser beam optical patterns (317, 319) on to the unprocessed material layer (344, see fig.3A, para.0056: control processor 350 can be connected to variety of sensors, actuators, heating or cooling systems, monitors, and controllers to coordinate operation of …, as well as any other component of system 300”. Thus, the processor can control the movement of the movable mirror 386. See 112 rejections above) .
DeMuth does not expressly disclose the all optical erasing sub-system configured to erase a plurality of optical patterns in the optical liquid crystal beam shaper.
Rottmiller discloses a large scale display system utilizing light valve, comprising:
the all optical writing and erasing sub-system (34, see fig.4) configured to erase a plurality of optical patterns in the optical liquid crystal beam shaper (see col.4, lines 7-9: “Flood gun 34 is provided to permit quick erasure of charge patterns formed on light valve 12 by light beam 15”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the all optical writing sub-system of DeMuth to become the all optical writing and erasing sub-system so as it is “configured to erase a plurality of optical patterns in the optical liquid crystal beam shaper” as taught by Rottmiller. Doing so allows “to erase previous charge patterns before the formation of new charge patterns” which enables consistent new charge patterns (see col.4 lines 18-19 of Rottmiller).
Regarding claim 39, DeMuth further discloses the laser beam source is operating at a wavelength that is larger than 500 nm (see para.0056: “The multiple lasers 312 can emit a beam 301 of light at a 1000 nm wavelength”).
Regarding claim 40, DeMuth further discloses the laser beam transport and imaging optics (combo 320 and 310, see fig.3A) include:(iii) active optical elements (combo 320 and 310) to control the location of beam direction during system operation (see fig.3A, see 112 rejections above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-38 and 41-43 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent claim to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)-(b) set forth in this Office Action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200198060 A1 discloses a method of additive manufacture is disclosed. The method may include providing a powder bed and directing a shaped laser beam pulse train consisting of one or more pulses and having a flux greater than 20 kW/cm.sup.2 at a defined two dimensional region of the powder bed. This minimizes adverse laser plasma effects during the process of melting and fusing powder within the defined two dimensional region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights