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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/10/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Response to Amendment Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 11/17/2025. Claims 1 and 16-19 are amended and claims 1-14 and 16-20 are currently pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 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. Claim 1 is drawn to “a non-mechanical device f or correcting for astigmatism over a range of resulting power and angle of a phase gradient axis, the device comprising … a first liquid crystal based cylindrical lens comprising a first plurality of liquid crystal cells; a second liquid crystal based cylindrical lens … the second liquid crystal based cylindrical lens comprising a second plurality of liquid crystal cells; and a third liquid crystal based cylindrical lens … the third liquid crystal based cylindrical lens comprising a third plurality of liquid crystal cells ”. In the Specifications, Applicant describes astigmatism correction accordingly: “[c] ontrolling the voltages on the electrodes controls the orientation of the liquid crystal material, which results in a tunable parabolic phase profile of each cylindrical lens on the device stack ” [0053], “ The tunable optical phase profile of each lens is controlled by the gradient in the index of refraction for each of the three cylindrical lenses, which is created by controlling the orientation of the liquid crystal director. The effective extraordinary index of refraction of a liquid crystalline material is a function of the angle of the director with respect to the direction of light propagation as given by equation 10. It can be seen that the effective value of, n e , effective varies from n o to n e . As is also well known, this angle can be controlled by the application of an electric field applied across the thickness of the liquid crystal layer ” [0067]. Further, Applicant contrasts the inventive concept in [0006]: “t here has been a broad range of work done over the past decade to replace conventional mechanically controlled rigid lenses by tunable lenses ”. Further, dependent Claim 9 recites “the device has no mechanically moving parts” and Claim 20 recites “the three cylindrical lenses are rotated relative to each other about an axis perpendicular to the plane of the lenses…” . The metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined as the disclosed and claimed system requires the system to be mechanical to be operable. Applicant appears to intend for the claim to exclude movement of rigid lenses or other unrecited elements. While it is clear that the disclosed invention does not rely on movement of rigid lenses to correct for astigmatism and effectuates refractive index adjustments by electrooptical means , the scope of invention defined by “non-mechanical” cannot be determined. Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20 are rejected on the above ground of indefiniteness for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim. Additionally, for dependent claim 9 to be properly dependent o n claim 1, the language “the device has no mechanically moving parts” must provide further limitations on the invention. If the language “non-mechanical” does not already require “the device has no mechanically moving parts” then the meaning of “non-mechanical” remains unclear. For the purpose of examination, “non-mechanical” will not be understood to define the structure of the invention beyond the limitations imposed in the body of the claim (i.e. liquid crystal lenses) and merely require a function (any function) that is not mechanical . Claim 18 recites the limitation "the correction is based on optical phase retardation versus voltage of a liquid crystal device" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the base claim recites “for correction” and three distinct liquid crystal devices, it is unclear if Claim 18 further limits the base claim by referencing the preceding phrasing or expands the metes and bounds of the invention with a reference that is not included in the preceding claim. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 substantially duplicates limitations on the cylindrical lenses in Claim 1 . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. Claims 1 -11 , 13 -14, and 16 -20 a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2023/0194897 to Van Heugten (hereinafter Heugten ) in view of US Pat. 10,678,057 to Lu et al. (hereinafter Lu) . Regarding claim 1 , Heugten discloses a non-mechanical device for correcting for astigmatism over a range of resulting power and angle of a phase gradient axis (Fig. 3A) , the device comprising: a first liquid crystal based cylindrical lens (lens 200a of “ cylinder electro-active lens elements 200a-200d ” , Fig. 3A-3C; [0043]-[0052] ) comprising a first liquid crystal cell (Fig. 3A; [0043]) ; a second liquid crystal based cylindrical lens (lens 200 b of “ cylinder electro-active lens elements 200a-200d ”, Fig. 3A -3C ; [0043] -[0052] ) aligned with the first liquid crystal based cylindrical lens with its center lying on a common center axis perpendicular to the plane of the lenses and rotated about that axis by 45⁰ in a first direction relative to the first liquid crystal based cylindrical lens (Figs. 3B-3C) , the second liquid crystal based cylindrical lens comprising a second liquid crystal cel l (Fig. 3A-3C; [0043]-[0052]) ; and a third liquid crystal based cylindrical lens (lens 200c of “ cylinder electro-active lens elements 200a-200d ”, Fig. 3A-3C; [0043]-[0052]) aligned with the first liquid crystal based cylindrical lens and the second liquid crystal based cylindrical lens so that the center of the third lens lies along a common center axis perpendicular to the plane of the lenes and is rotated by 90⁰ about that axis relative to the first liquid crystal based cylindrical lens (Figs. 3B-3C) , the third liquid crystal based cylindrical lens comprising a third liquid crystal cell (Fig. 3A-3C; [0043]-[0052]) . Heugten discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a lens comprises a plurality of liquid crystal cells. Lu discloses a lens comprises a plurality of liquid crystal cells (Fig. 3- 5 ; col. 4, ln. 59-col. 10 , ln. 41 ). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide plural LC cells per lens as taught by Lu with the system as disclosed by Heugten . The motivation would have been to “be optimized for narrow band wavelength and a narrow incident angle for different application cases” (Abstract). Regarding claims 9, 13, 18, and 20 , Heugten discloses a non-mechanical device for correcting for astigmatism over a range of resulting power and angle of a phase gradient axis (Fig. 3A) , the device comprising: a first liquid crystal based cylindrical lens (lens 200a of “ cylinder electro-active lens elements 200a-200d ”, Fig. 3A-3C; [0043]-[0052]) comprising a first liquid crystal cell (Fig. 3A; [0043]) ; a second liquid crystal based cylindrical lens (lens 200b of “ cylinder electro-active lens elements 200a-200d ”, Fig. 3A-3C; [0043]-[0052]) aligned with the first liquid crystal based cylindrical lens with its center lying on a common center axis perpendicular to the plane of the lenses and rotated about that axis by 45⁰ in a first direction relative to the first liquid crystal based cylindrical lens (Figs. 3B-3C) , the second liquid crystal based cylindrical lens comprising a second liquid crystal cel l (Fig. 3A-3C; [0043]-[0052]) ; and a third liquid crystal based cylindrical lens (lens 200c of “ cylinder electro-active lens elements 200a-200d ”, Fig. 3A-3C; [0043]-[0052]) aligned with the first liquid crystal based cylindrical lens and the second liquid crystal based cylindrical lens so that the center of the third lens lies along a common center axis perpendicular to the plane of the lenes and is rotated by 90⁰ about that axis relative to the first liquid crystal based cylindrical lens (Figs. 3B-3C) , the third liquid crystal based cylindrical lens comprising a third liquid crystal cell (Fig. 3A-3C; [0043]-[0052]). Heugten discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a lens comprises a plurality of liquid crystal cells. Lu discloses a lens comprises a plurality of liquid crystal cells (Fig. 3-5; col. 4, ln. 59-col. 10, ln. 41). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide plural LC cells per lens as taught by Lu with the system as disclosed by Heugten . The motivation would have been to “be optimized for narrow band wavelength and a narrow incident angle for different application cases” (Abstract). Claims 9, 13, 18, and 20 do not further limit the invention beyond that which is required in Claim 1. Regarding claim s 2-4 , Heugten discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the first plurality of liquid crystal cells comprises two liquid crystal cells with anti-parallel surface alignment , the second plurality of liquid crystal cells comprises two anti-parallel surface aligned liquid crystal cells , and the third plurality of liquid crystal cells comprises two anti-parallel rubbed liquid crystal cells . Lu discloses a plurality of liquid crystal cells comprises two anti-parallel rubbed liquid crystal cells ( Fig. 3-4; col. 4, ln. 59-col. 9, ln. 3). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide plural LC cells per lens as taught by Lu with the system as disclosed by Heugten . The motivation would have been to “be optimized for narrow band wavelength and a narrow incident angle for different application cases” (Abstract). Regarding claim 5 , Heugten discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose each cell is filled with a nematic liquid crystal with a positive dielectric anisotropy . Lu discloses each cell is filled with a nematic liquid crystal with a positive dielectric anisotropy ( Fig. 5; col. 9, ln. 21-col. 10, ln. 41). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide nematic LCs with positive dielectric anisotropy in cells as taught by Lu with the system as disclosed by Heugten . The motivation would have been to “be optimized for narrow band wavelength and a narrow incident angle for different application cases” (Abstract). Regarding claim 6 , Heugten discloses a plurality of electrodes (“a n array of parallel linear electrodes 205 a - 205 n ”; [0037]) ; wherein the electrodes and the liquid crystal layer are located between a first transparent substrate and a second transparent substrate (“ a single layer of electro-active material, such as bistable liquid crystal material, that is sandwiched between a pair of transparent substrates (e.g., made of glass or polymer) ”; [0037]) . Regarding claim 7 , Heugten discloses the electrodes comprise stripe electrodes (“a n array of parallel linear electrodes 205 a - 205 n ”, Fig. 2; [0037]). Regarding claim 8 , Heugten discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the electrodes comprise indium tin oxide (ITO). Lu discloses the electrodes comprise indium tin oxide (ITO) (col. 6, ll. 44-52). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide ITO electrodes as taught by Lu with the system as disclosed by Heugten . The motivation would have been to utilize an optically transparent and ubiquitous material with old and well-known manufacturing techniques and properties. Regarding claim 10 , Heugten discloses a driving voltage of the device is less than 5 volts (“ the center electrode could have zero volts applied to it, the immediately adjacent electrodes on both sides of the center electrode could have 0.5 volts applied to them, the next electrodes adjacent to them have a slightly higher voltage ’’ [0039]) . Regarding claim 11 , Heugten discloses wherein the device is flat (Fig. 3A). Regarding claim 14 , Heugten discloses the article is selected from the group consisting of eyeglasses, telescopes, and imaging lenses (Fig. 8). Regarding claim 16 , Heugten discloses the range of power is between -10 and+ 10 Diopters (Fig. 3C). Regarding claim 17 , Heugten discloses the range in the phase gradient axis angle is between 0 and 360 degrees (Fig. 3C). Regarding claim 19 , Heugten discloses the three cylindrical lenses stacked in optical series such that light passes through each lens sequentially (Fig. 3) . Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heugten in view of Lu as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US Pat. No. 8,028,473 to Galstian et al. (hereinafter Galstian ) . Heugten discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a device thickness. Galstian discloses element thicknesses (i.e. electrode layers, cover layers, and LC layers) that would amount to a device a thickness of about 5 mm (col. 15, ll. 26- 58) . Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed device thickness as taught by Glastian with the system as disclosed by Heugten . The motivation would have been to provide small, relatively light tunable lenses for wearable optics applications. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3337 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8AM-4PM PST 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ricky Mack can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2333 . 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. /CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872