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 Election/Restrictions Claims 20-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group , there being no allowable generic or linking claim (where applicant has canceled claims 6-8, 18-19, and 25-31) . Election of Group I and all options 1 was made without traverse in the reply filed on 25 November 2025 . Applicant argues that claims 20-22 should be categorized as being part of Group I because claims 20 and 21 now define the same optical filter in two different manners and because claim 22 depends upon claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. In a unity of invention restriction, claims directed to the same special technical feature may comprise a single group. Applicant has not offered any evidence or argument demonstrating that any of claims 20-22 have the same special technical feature as the claims belonging to Group I. Claim 1 is currently amended; claims 2-5, 9-17, 23-24, and 32-34 have been previously presented; claims 6-8, 18-19, and 25-31 have been canceled by the applicant; and claims 20-22 are withdrawn. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The IDS dated 22 January 2024 has been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are rejected on the basis that they each contain an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch , 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi , 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117. The Markush grouping of claim 2 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the two recited alternatives are not functionally equivalent. One alternative is directed to the radial profile of refractive index of a channel while the other alternative is directed to the image and object planes of the optical filter [and combinations thereof] . The Markush grouping of claim 3 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: One alternative is directed to the radial profile of refractive index of a channel while the other alternative is directed to the image and object planes of the optical filter [and combinations thereof] . The Markush grouping of claim 4 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: one alternative is directed to the channel axis, a reflecting surface, and to the production of a collimating beam while the other alternative is directed to the image and objects planes of the optical filter [and combinations thereof] . The Markush grouping of claim 14 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the first alternative is directed to an optically absorbing sheath, the second alternative is directed to the absorption coefficient of the first element, and the third alternative is directed to the absorption percentage of the optical filter [and combinations thereof] . The Markush grouping of claim 15 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the first alternative is directed to a portion of absorbing or reflective material; the second alternative is directed to an element to fill interspaces between adjacent channels; and the third alternative is directed to an element having a specified absorption coefficient [and combinations thereof]. The Markush grouping of claim 16 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the first alternative is directed to the material comprising the first and second elements; and the second alternative is directed to the glass transition temperature . The Markush grouping of claim 17 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: the first alternative comprises statistically equivalent channels; the second alternative comprises randomly oriented cross-sectional surfaces of channels; the third alternative comprises a standard deviation of the distribution of effective radii for a given channel; and the fourth alternative is direction to a ratio of a circumferences circumscribed and inscribed in a channel surface [an combinations thereof] . To overcome these rejection s , Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent and/ or dependent claims as appropriate; and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use ; and/or applicant may amend the rejected claims to delete the unelected alternative s in accordance with applicant’s election dated 25 November 2025 in response to the restriction requirement dated 03 September 2025. 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 [bold emphasis added]. 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 16 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 16 fails to contain a reference to a claim that is previously set forth ; rather, claim 16 depends upon claim 34, which is set forth after claim 16 . 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 § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 9-11, 13-14, 17, 24, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by DeMeritt (US 20120321 249) . Re: claim 1, DeMeritt discloses a substantially flat entry surface 10 4 (Figs. 4, 8A, 8B disclose flat) - a substantially flat exit surface 10 2 parallel to the entry surface (Figs. 4, 8A, 8B disclose flat & parallel) , - a plurality of channels 10 , 20 (Fig. 4 ; Figs. 8A, 8B disclose plurality) made of a material substantially transparent to light (para. 40 discloses germanium-doped silica, a known transparent material) , wherein the channels of the plurality of channels comprise an entry face 2 4 (Fig. 4, where para. 51 discloses that light can flow from right to left ) , an exit face 2 2 and a lateral surface 26 extending perimetrically between the entry face and the exit face over a length (L) of the channels (Fig. 1 discloses extending) , are arranged side by side and parallel to each other (Fig. 8A discloses arrangement) , so as to define a plurality of interspaces 100 between adjacent channels (Figs. 8A, 8B) , have a channel axis A1 incident to the entry and exit surface (Fig. 1 discloses incident) , and are arranged with the entry face 2 4 substantially overlapping the entry surface 10 4 (overlap disclosed in Figs. 8A, 8B) and with the exit face 2 2 substantially overlapping the exit surface 10 2 (Figs. 8A, 8B) , - at least one optical material 30 configured and arranged with respect to the channels 10, 20 so as to reduce and/or substantially prevent the passage of light between adjacent channels of the plurality of channels and so as to reduce and/or substantially prevent the passage of light parallel to and externally to the channels (para. 56; Fig. 6) ; wherein the channels have a refractive index whose value decreases starting from a maximum refractive index n 0 (Figs. 3A – 3F) along a radially outward direction away from the channel axis A1 passing through a centre of gravity of a section of the respective channel 10, 20 , so as to define a radial profile of refractive index of the channels (Figs. 3A – 3F; para. 34 discloses GRIN) , and wherein the radial profile of refractive index of the channels is configured such that the light rays 70C (Figs. 4, 6) crossing any channel 10, 20 of the plurality of channels and belonging to a beam of rays emerging from any point on an edge of an entry face 2 4 of the channel exit the channel with substantially parallel directions (para. 51 discloses that light 70C is collimated) . Re: claim 2, DeMeritt discloses the limitations of claim 1, and DeMeritt further discloses that wherein the radial profile of refractive index of the channels is configured such that the light rays 70C (Figs. 4, 6) crossing any channel 10, 20 of the plurality of channels and belonging to a beam of rays emerging from any point on an edge of an entry face 24 of the channel exit the channel with substantially parallel directions (para. 51 discloses that light 70C is collimated) . Re: claim 5, DeMeritt discloses the limitations of claim 1, and DeMeritt further discloses that each channel 10, 20 has one or more of a regular polygonal section, a substantially elliptical section, a non-polygonal concave or convex section, an irregular polygonal section, and a convex irregular polygonal section (Figs. 12A, 12B). Re: claim 9, DeMeritt discloses the limitations of claim 1, and DeMeritt further discloses that the channels of the plurality of channels 10, 20 are cylindrical elements having substantially identical conformation between them and having a substantially circular section with a diameter of the cylindrical elements (Figs. 1, 8A, 8B). Re: claim 10, DeMeritt discloses the limitations of claim 1, and DeMeritt further discloses that the channels of the plurality of channels 10, 20 have a channel axis A1 perpendicular to the entry surface 24 and to the exit surface 22 (Fig. 1). Re: claim 11, DeMeritt discloses the limitations of claim 1, and DeMeritt further discloses that a first element of the optical material 30 comprises a cylindrical jacket 30 substantially covering the lateral surface of the cylindrical elements (Figs. 4, 6 disclose substantially covering) , wherein the cylindrical jacket has a thickness significantly lower than the diameter of the cylindrical elements (para. 35 discloses the thickness of cylindrical elements as 100 -210 µm; para. 37 discloses thickness of element 30 as 5–50 µm) and comprises a layer of rigid material selected from a group c omprising glass, quartz, PMMA, polycarbonate, or other polymer resin (para. 38 discloses acrylate, a known polymer resin) . Re: claim 13, DeMeritt discloses the limitations of claim 1, and DeMeritt further discloses that a first element of the optical material 30 comprises a jacket 30 substantially covering the lateral surface of the channels (Figs. 4, 6 disclose substantially covering), and comprises a layer of rigid material (para. 38 discloses acrylate, a known rigid material). Re: claim 14, DeMeritt discloses the limitations of claim 1, and DeMeritt further discloses that a first element of the optical material comprises a sheath or a film or a varnish or a layer of rigid material 30 (para. 38 discloses rigid) made with a first optically absorbing material substantially covering the lateral surface of the channels (para. 56) , wherein the first element of the optical material a refractive index that depends on the distance from the channel axis ( see n c (r) in Figs. 3D, 3F ). Re: claim 17, DeMeritt discloses the limitations of claim 1, and DeMeritt further discloses that the plurality of channels 10, 20 comprises a plurality of statistically equivalent channels (Figs. 3A-3F, 8A, 8B; para. 38). Re: claim 24, DeMeritt discloses the limitations of claim 1, and DeMeritt further discloses a direct light source 410 (Fig. 8B) configured to emit visible light in a non-isotropic manner (para. 67 discloses divergent light) , where the optical filter is positioned downstream of the direct light source so that the entry surface of the optical filter is illuminated by the light emitted by the direct light source (positioning disclosed in Fig. 8B) . Re: claim 3 3 , DeMeritt discloses the limitations of claim 1 3 , and DeMeritt further discloses that the rigid material is selected from the group comprising glass, quartz, PMMA, polycarbonate, or other polymer resin (para. 38 discloses acrylate, a known polymer resin). Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 3 (option 1) , 4 (option 1) , and 15 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 12, 16, 23, 32, and 34 are 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-4819 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET . 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 Jennifer Carruth can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-9791 . 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. /ANGELA M. MEDICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871