DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 15-24 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 03/19/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 15-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 1 recites the laser beam focal column comprising a radius of maximum beam intensity that is variable along a length of the laser beam focal column such that the radius of maximum beam intensity comprises at least two non-zero angles of propagation with respect to a centerline of the laser beam focal column along the length of the laser beam focal column. Claim 15 recites a radius of maximum beam intensity that comprises a non-monotonic variability along the length of the laser beam focal column. Claim 20 recites the laser beam focal column comprising a radius of maximum beam intensity that is variable along a length of the laser beam focal column, tapering at a divergent angle at a first end of the laser beam focal column and tapering at a convergent angle at a second end of the laser beam focal column.
The argument on pages 10-11 of the remarks submitted on 06/11/2026 is persuasive. Courvosier teaches a quasi-stationary beam wherein maximum intensity of the beam increases at the beginning but then kept almost constant. Changing the maximum beam intensity more than once would teach away from Courvosier.
Claims 2-14 are allowed due to their dependency on claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-14 are allowable. Claims 15-24, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement among inventions I, II, and III, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 12/23/2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1 and claim 20. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because replacement sheet of Fig. 3a submitted on 06/11/2026 describes plate 122 is positioned outside of lens 141 and 142. However, paragraph [83] in original disclosure cites "In the optical system 100' of FIG. 3A, the vortex phase plate 122 is positioned between a first lens 141 and a second lens 142 of a lens assembly 140". Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 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.
Claim 15 recites
PNG
media_image1.png
296
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is not clear if there are two transparent workpieces.
Claim 20 recites
PNG
media_image2.png
438
916
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is not clear if there are two transparent workpieces.
Claim 23 depends on claim 20. Claim 20 recites “along a length of the aperture”, claim 23 recites “along a length of the aperture”. It is not clear if there are two lengths of the same aperture.
Dependent claims 16-19, and 21-24 are rejected based on their dependency on claims 15 and 20 respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights