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 11/17/2025 has been entered. The applicant has amended the claims 1, 3 and 5-13. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 11/17/2025 are acceptable and have been entered into the file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the new references being used in the current rejection. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant arguments directed to the newly added claimed limitations, which were not previously claimed and were not rejected in previous office action.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1- 6, 9 – 10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudd. (US 4,033,678) in view of Frackiewicz et al. (US 5,228,324, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Rudd teaches a method for forming a mirror system by shaping an optical element (refer to US 4,033,678; “METHOD FOR FORMING THE MIRRORS”, [C-28, L-16]; the mirrors required for a typical two-mirror system made in accordance with my invention are concavely cylindrical, and have cross sectional curves with curvatures which are continuously changing in a controlled manner from point to point, they are not commercially available and must be especially produced. The method which I have developed for use in forming the curves on the mirrors is adaptable for use with any of the variety of curve types which may be required with the different designs, [C-28, L-17-26]; the procedure which I adopted for the making of cylindrically curved glass mirrors accurately, [C-28, L36-37]), the method comprising: providing an optical element (glass with reflective coatings [C-28, L-34-35], selected plate of flat, uniformly thick glass, [C-28, L-38-39]; Fig. 1; “I determined upon the use of glass because of its rigidity, its lack of any tendency towards a memory type of deformation, and the superior quality of the reflective coatings which can be applied to glass surfaces”. [C-28, L-31-35]) comprising a glass body and a light reflective surface (selected plate of flat, uniformly thick glass, [C-28, L-38-39]; use of glass .. superior quality of the reflective coatings which can be applied to glass surfaces, [C-28, L-33-35]),
Rudd teaches “for the making of cylindrically curved glass mirrors accurately to design specifications involves heating a selected plate of flat”, [C-28, L-36-38]) doesn’t explicitly teach, the method for shaping the flat element comprising: heating a first surface of the flat element; and allowing the first surface of the flat element to cool, thereby causing residual stress in the first surface which deforms the light reflective surface of the optical element to a predetermined shape such that the front and back surfaces of the deformed optical element have different surface shapes.
Rudd and Frackiewicz are related as shaping of flat elements.
Frackiewicz teaches a method for shaping an element, the method comprising: providing an element comprising a flat body, a front surface (Figs. 2a-b, 3 and 11a-b show a flat body and a surface of the element) and a back surface opposite to the front surface (back surface of the element shown in Figs. 2a-b, 3 and 11a-b);
heating a first surface of the element (Figs. 2a, 3 show heating by SE a first surface of the element; “During the first phase, the material of the object being bent is subject to heating with concentrated stream of energy SE of laser radiation”, [C-3, L-1-3]. Figs 2a-b, 3 show heating a first surface by stream of energy SE of laser radiation; Fig. 4 shows a sectional view of a heating phase of the plate); and
allowing the first surface of the element to cool (the second phase the material is cooled at ambient temperature or, additionally, in the stream of a blown gas, [C-3, L-23-25].), thereby causing residual stress in the first surface (Figs. 3-5 shows residual stress in the first surface; stresses caused by the effect of thermal expansion, [C-3, L-18-19]) which deforms the light reflective front surface of the optical element (Rudd teaches glass mirror involves heating a selected plate of flat [C-28, L-36-38]); In Fig. 5 Frackiewicz teaches “Due to internal stresses .sigma.sub.t caused by the shrinkage of the cooled material, it becomes shorter along the fibers marked with arrow, which is shown through the stress distribution along the thickness L of the object in FIG. 6.”, [col. 3, lines 31-35], Figs, 5,11a and 11b shows deformed element, also see the abstract, Fig. 2a shows deforms/bends top, bottom and two side surfaces in different ways) to a predetermined shape (Fig. 2a and 2b shows the predetermined bending line “Application of the stream of energy SE of laser radiation, moving at speed V along the bending line AA”, [col. 3, lines 3-5], “control is exercised on the magnitude of the stresses created in the material in order to obtain the desired angle .delta, of bending [FIGS. 1 and 4]”, [col. 3, lines 51-54], “...causing a thermal effect along a predetermined bending line”, [abstract and claim 11]. It is noted that Figs. 2a, 5 show all top, bottom and both side surfaces are deformed and bended for heating by SE) such that the front and back surfaces of the deformed optical element have different surface shapes (Figs. 4-5 show the front surface has stressed area and the back surface has no stress effect, see Fig. 11a and cross section 11b, optically one side is concave and the other side is convex). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of Rudd to provide the method for shaping the flat element comprising: heating a first surface of the flat element; and allowing the first surface of the flat element to cool, thereby causing residual stress in the first surface which deforms the light reflective surface of the optical element to a predetermined shape, as taught by Frackiewic, for the predictable advantage of bending the element without the need of employing external forces and can be done from a distance under the conditions in which the access to that object is impossible, as taught by Frackiewicz in [col. 2, lines 8-13].
Regarding claim 2, the modified Rudd teaches the method according to claim 1 (see above). Frackiewicz teaches wherein heating includes applying a laser to the first surface (Figs. 2a-b, 3, 11, heating with concentrated stream of energy SE of laser radiation, [C-3, L-2-3]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified method of Rudd to use laser heating, as taught by Frackiewicz, for the predictable advantage that is known to the art that laser increases precision, accuracy, and reduces heat-affected zone compare to an ordinary heating source.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Rudd teaches the method according to claim 2 (see above), wherein the first surface comprises the light reflective surface of the optical element (Fig. 2, a reflective element 205 bent into a parabolic shape, [0041]; Rudd teaches optical element reflective glass).
Frackiewicz further teaches the method, wherein applying the laser to the first surface includes controlling one or more characteristics of the laser to produce a predetermined heating effect and corresponding deformation of the front optical element (col. 3, lines 41-50 teaches controlling characteristics of the laser to produce a predetermined heating effect and corresponding deformation by heating and cooling conditions selecting, changing the heating and cooling parameters such as the stream movement speed, steam power; .. may affect the temperature distribution in the heating phase [FIG. 5] and the stress distribution in the cooling phase, [FIG. 6]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified method of Rudd to control one or more characteristics of the laser, such as the stream movement speed, steam power; .. may affect the temperature distribution in the heating phase, to produce a predetermined heating effect and corresponding deformation of the element, as taught by Frackiewicz, for the predictable advantage of getting the higher efficiency, high energy concentrations, low cost and low divergence properties compared to an ordinary heating source.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Rudd teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein controlling one or more characteristics (see above).
Frackiewicz teaches the method, wherein controlling one or more characteristics of the laser comprises controlling at least one of intensity, beam width, scan rate, or exposure time (Frackiewicz teaches exposure time, i.e. stream movement speed; "By changing the heating and cooling parameters, such as the stream movement speed, the stream power'', [col. 3, lines 45-46]; Figs. 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified method of Rudd to control one or more characteristics of the laser includes controlling at least one of intensity, beam width, scan rate, or exposure time, as taught by Frackiewicz, for the predictable advantage of getting the higher efficiency, high energy concentrations, low cost, the shape of the objects can be changed from a distance under the conditions in which the access to that object is impossible and low divergence properties compared to an ordinary heating source.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Rudd teaches the method according to claim 2 (see above), wherein the first surface of the optical element is a back surface of the optical element, (Rudd teaches optical element reflective glass; Frackiewicz the plate with font and back surface).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Rudd teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the first surface of the optical element (first surface of the reflectors 135, Fig. 2) is the front light reflective surface of the optical element (reflective element 205, [0041]; Fig. 2). Frackiewicz teaches applying laser to the first surface, [Fig. 2a]),
Regarding claim 9, the modified Rudd teaches the method according to claim 2 (see above), and the reflective surface (reflective coatings which can be applied to glass surfaces, [C-28, L-34]) of optical element (glass mirror, [C-28, L-37]).
Frackiewicz teaches, wherein applying the laser to the first surface comprises applying the laser to predetermined portions of the first surface (Fig. 11a shows applying the laser SE to the first surface includes applying the laser to predetermined portions of the middle line, of the first surface) to cause a predetermined non-uniform deformation of the surface of the element (figure 11a shows one end portion of the second surface is without bending, the other end bended, and also the stressed portion is wider in one side and becoming narrower towards the other side, which makes the opposite side to have non-uniform deformation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified method of Rudd to apply the laser to the first surface comprises applying the laser to predetermined portions of the first surface to cause a predetermined non-uniform deformation of the light reflective surface of the optical element, as taught by Frackiewicz, for the predictable advantage of bending the portion of the surface according to the requirement and leaving the other areas as it was as Frackiewicz shows in Fig. 11a.
Regarding claim 10, Rudd teaches an optical element (refer to US 4,033,678; “METHOD FOR FORMING THE MIRRORS”, [C-28, L-16]; the mirrors required for a typical two-mirror system made in accordance with my invention are concavely cylindrical, and have cross sectional curves with curvatures which are continuously changing in a controlled manner from point to point, they are not commercially available and must be specially produced. I have developed for use in forming the curves on the mirrors is adaptable for use with any of the variety of curve types which may be required with the different designs, [C-28, L-17-26]; the procedure which I adopted for the making of cylindrically curved glass mirrors accurately, [C-28, L36-37]), comprising:
a glass body (selected plate of flat, uniformly thick glass, [C-28, L-38-39]),
a front light reflective surface (glass with reflective coatings [C-28, L-34-35]), and a back surface opposite the front surface (back surface of the flat plate, opposite to light reflective surface); Frackiewicz bellow shows the surfaces.
Rudd doesn’t explicitly teach the element comprising, a residual stress layer having a layer thickness less than a thickness of the optical element, wherein the residual stress layer causes and maintains a deformation of the light reflective layer of the optical element.
Rudd and Frackiewicz are related to deforming metal objects.
Frackiewicz teaches a residual stress layer (G in Fig. 4) having a layer thickness less than a thickness of the element (thickness of the element is L; Figs. 4 and 5 shows the residual stress layer of the surface of the optical element; “first zone S1 and plasticised in the second zone S2, with the boundary of the area encompassing the melting and plasticising zones shown with the line U.”, [col. 3, lines 26-30]; “Due to internal stresses .sigma..sub.t caused by the shrinkage of the cooled material, it becomes shorter along the fibres marked with arrow, which is shown through the stress distribution along the thickness L of the object in FIG. 6.”, [col. 3, lines 31-35]. Fig. 4 and 5 shows thickness of element L is less than thickness of stress layer G; Fig. 5 shows residual stress layer; "The boundary of the region encompassing the plasticising and melting zone in the heating phase has been marked with line U", [col. 4, lines 1-2]), wherein the residual stress layer causes and maintains a deformation of the light reflective layer of the element (Figs. 1-5; "During the first phase, the material of the object being bent is subject to heating with concentrated stream of energy SE of laser radiation .... During the second phase the material is cooled at ambient temperature or, additionally, in the stream of a blown gas ... Due to internal stresses .sigma .. sub.t caused by the shrinkage of the cooled material", [col. 3, lines 1-35]; "In the above-mentioned manner, control is exercised on the magnitude of the stresses created in the material in order to obtain the desired angle delta. of bending [FIGS. 1 and 4] during one cycle of heating and cooling along the bending line", [col. 3 lines 50-55]); deformation such that the front and back surface of the deformed optical element have different surface shapes (Figs. 4-5 show the front surface has stressed area and the back surface has no stress effect, see Fig. 11a and cross section 11b, optically one side is concave and the other side is convex). Rudd teaches a light reflective layer surface of the optical element (selected plate of flat, uniformly thick glass, [C-28, L-38-39], glass with reflective coatings [C-28, L-34-35]), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the optical element of Rudd comprising, a residual stress layer having a layer thickness less than a thickness of the optical element, wherein the residual stress layer causes and maintains a deformation of the optical element [light reflective surface according to Rudd], as taught by Frackiewicz, for the predictable advantage of deforming the optical element without the need of employing external forces and can be done from a distance as taught by Frackiewicz in [col. 2, lines 8-13].
Regarding claim 12, the modified Rudd teaches optical element according to claim 10 (see above), a glass body (selected plate of flat, uniformly thick glass, [C-28, L-38-39]),
a front light reflective surface (glass with reflective coatings [C-28, L-34-35]),
Frackiewicz teaches, wherein the residual stress layer forms at least a portion of the light reflective surface of the optical element (Figs. 4-5, 11a show residual stress layer forms at least a portion of the front surface of the element; Rudd teaches optical element light reflective surface, glass with reflective coatings). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the optical element of wherein the residual stress layer forms at least a portion of the light reflective surface of the optical element, as taught by Frackiewicz, for the predictable advantage of bending the element without the need of employing external forces and can be done from a distance as taught by Frackiewicz in [col. 2, lines 8-13].
Regarding claim 14, the modified Rudd teaches the optical element according to claim 10 (see above), wherein the optical element is a mirror (selected plate of flat, uniformly thick glass, [C-28, L-38-39], glass with reflective coatings [C-28, L-34-35]),
Claim 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudd. in view of Frackiewicz et al. as applied to claim 1 and 10, and further in view of Cavallaro et al. (US 2008/0202167, of record).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Rudd teaches the method for shaping an optical element according to claim 2 (see above), the first surface and the light reflective surface (surface with reflective coatings, “glass with reflective coatings”, [C-28, L-34-35]); Frackiewicz teaches first surface with residual stress).
The modified Rudd doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein the first surface is a lateral surface of the optical element oriented at an angle to the front light reflective surface of the optical element.
Rudd and Cavallaro are related because both work on optical elements.
Cavallaro teaches, the first surface is a lateral surface of the optical element oriented at an angle to the front light reflective surface of the optical element (see Fig. 2; a laser pattern/spot 56 is positioned orthogonal to the edge of the glass sheet 50, with edges of the laser spot 56 extending beyond the edge of the glass sheet 50, [0028], Figs. 1-2, a glass sheet 50, edge 51; having sharp corners 52 and 53, [0027], Figures show that the laser beam 55 is applied along the side and edge 51 of the glass sheet 50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified method of Rudd to provide wherein the first surface is a lateral surface of the optical element oriented at an angle to the front light reflective surface of the optical element, as Cavallaro disclosed, for the predictable advantage of edge finishing by rounding the edge for safety of using.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Rudd teaches the optical element according to claim 10 (see above). Frackiewicz teaches wherein the residual stress layer forms at least a portion of at least one surface (see one portion in Figs. 11a; Fig. 5, “Due to internal stresses .sigma.sub.t caused by the shrinkage of the cooled material, it becomes shorter along the fibers marked with arrow, which is shown through the stress distribution along the thickness L of the object in FIG. 6.”, [col. 3, lines 31-35], Figs, 5,11a and 11b shows deformed element)
The modified Rudd doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein the residual stress layer forms a portion of at least one lateral surface of the optical element oriented at an angle to the front light reflective surface.
Rudd and Cavallaro are related as optical elements. Cavallaro teaches the residual stress layer forms a portion of at least one lateral surface of the optical element oriented at an angle to the front light reflective surface (Figs. 2, 4 and 7 show that laser on front surface makes mushrooming of edge adjacent to at least one of the fronts). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified the optical element of Rudd wherein the residual stress layer forms a portion of at least one lateral surface of the optical element oriented at an angle to the front light reflective surface, as Cavallaro disclosed for the predictable advantage of edge finishing by rounding the edge for safety of using.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudd, in view of Frackiewicz et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bisson (US 8,816,252, of record).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Rudd teaches the method according to claim 2, light reflective surface “glass with reflective coatings”, [C-28, L-34-35]); wherein applying the laser to the first surface (Frackiewicz teaches in Fig. 2a and 3, applying the laser SE to the first surface). Frackiewicz also teaches applying the laser to the first surface to cause a deformation (Frackiewicz, Fig. 2a, 2b and 11a show the predetermined bending line "Application of the stream of energy SE of laser radiation, moving at speed V along the bending line AA', [col. 3, lines 3-5]) of the optical element (Rudd teaches glass with reflective coatings).
The modified Rudd do not explicitly teach applying the laser uniformly across the entire surface to cause a uniform deformation of the optical element.
Rudd, Frackiewicz and Bisson are related to deformation of elements.
Bisson teaches applying the heat to the first surface comprises applying the heat uniformly across the entire surface to cause a uniform deformation of the optical element (Fig. 2 shows "exposure of the major surface of the glass sheet 10 to the heat from the heating element 104 is generally uniform (e.g., by constant conveyance of the glass sheet 10 past the heating element 10), then the heating profile of the glass sheet
10 would likewise be uniform over the entire sheet', [col. 5, line 64 to col. 6, line 2]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified method of Rudd to apply the laser uniformly across the entire surface to cause a uniform deformation of the optical element as taught by Bisson, for the predictable advantage of having the heating profile of the sheet uniform over the entire sheet', as Bisson teaches in [col. 5, line 64 to col. 6, line 2]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudd, in view of Frackiewicz et al. as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Luten et al. (US 2016/0199936, of record).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Rudd teaches the optical element according to claim 10 (see above), glass with reflective coatings [C-28, L-34-35], selected plate of flat, uniformly thick glass, [C-28, L-38-39]; Frackiewicz teaches receive laser incident radiation (SE) from front, Figs. 4, 5, 8, 11a-b; Fig. 5, and residual stress layer forms at least at a portion of a front surface of the optical element. “Due to internal stresses. sigma. sub.t caused by the shrinkage of the cooled material, it becomes shorter along the fibers marked with arrow, which is shown through the stress distribution along the thickness L of the object in FIG. 6.”, [col. 3, lines 31-35], Figs, 5,11a and 11b shows deformed element, also see the abstract)
The modified Rudd doesn’t explicitly teach the residual stress layer forms at least a portion of a back surface of the optical element opposite the light reflective surface.
Rudd and Luten are related as optical element.
Luten teaches front surface configured to receive incident radiation during use wherein the laser beam heats the back surface of the optical element (Fig. 8, laser beam 100 is configured with a focal plane at or near a second surface 20 of the substrate 12 and generally parallel with the x-y reference plane to define a laser spot 104 at the second surface, [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified device of Rudd to incorporate the residual stress layer forms at least a portion of a back surface of the optical element opposite the light reflective surface, as Luten teaches, for the predictable advantage of working on back side surface through the front side when back surface is not directly reachable.
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 RAHMAN ABDUR whose telephone number is (571)270-0438. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5:30.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/R.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872