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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9, filed 4-29-26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made (see below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5 and 7 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. These claims are indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. MPEP 2173.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-10, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antrag (DE 102017007837 A1).
Re claims 1 and 8, Antrag (Fig 2) discloses a method of creating a visual impairment zone, the method comprising: producing at least one beam of intense light (via 20); and modulating (via at least 30 and 40) the at least one beam of intense light to produce a spatial array by splitting the at least one beam of intense light into a plurality of beams to produce a pattern of light beams (22) illuminating the visual impairment zone, wherein the pattern of light beams has the requisite irradiance to cause visual impairment.
Antrag does not disclose that the bandwidth of the light bean is less than 50 nm. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the bandwidth to be less than 50 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claim 3, Antrag (as modified) discloses the method of claim 1 the method of claim 1, wherein the modulating further comprises moving the pattern of light beams across a space in a predetermined temporal pattern.
Re claims 4 and 6, Antrag (as modified) discloses the method of claim 1 where the modulating comprises using a diffractive optical element (Fig 2, 40).
Re claim 5, Antrag (as modified) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the modulating comprises a mirror.
Re claim 7, Antrag discloses the claimed invention with the exception of modulating via a light valve. It is commonly known in the art, however, that light valves are used for modulating the intensity of light passing through it. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system in Antrag to include a light. The motivation (as is commonly known in the art) would be to modulate the intensity of light passing though the light valve. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made.
Re claims 9, 10, and 14, Antrag (as modified) discloses the claimed invention with the exception the result effective variables of these claims. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the result effective variables to be as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claims 12, 13, 15, and 16, Antrag (as modified) discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the parameter comprises intensity or wavelength.
Re claims 17-20, Antrag (as modified) discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: producing a second beam of intense light having a bandwidth of less than 50 nm and a peak wavelength that is different from a peak wavelength of the at least one beam of intense light; and modulating the second beam of intense light so that the pattern of light beams comprises light produced from the at least one beam of intense light and light produced from the second beam of intense light.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merlaku (DE 20 2006 010 661 U1).
Re claim 1, Merlaku (Fig 1) a method of creating a visual impairment zone, the method comprising: producing at least one beam of intense light (2); and modulating the at least one beam of intense light to produce a spatial array by splitting the at least one beam of intense light into a plurality of beams to produce a pattern of light beams illuminating the visual impairment zone (43), wherein the pattern of light beams has the requisite irradiance to cause visual impairment (via x-rays; see claims).
Merlaku does not disclose that the bandwidth of the light bean is less than 50 nm. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the bandwidth to be less than 50 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7010. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830-530.
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, Troy Chambers can be reached at 571-272-6874. 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.
/REGINALD S TILLMAN, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights