DETAILED ACTION
Restriction/Election Requirement
In response to the claims filed 05/16/2023, the Office issued a Restriction/Election Requirement on 01/07/2026. The Office required restriction between the invention of Group I (Claims 1-7), the invention of Group II (Claims 8-13) and the invention of Group III (Claims 14-20). Applicant’s election of Group III in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 with traverse is acknowledged.
The Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to certain common features such as the AOD across Groups I-III that allegedly render the groups as the same invention (see pgs. 2-3 of Response filed 03/09/2026 wherein Applicant states “the scanning mirror of Group III and the AOD configurations of Groups I and II can serve equivalent functions in the orbital angular momentum generation system”). However, such common features shared across the groups of inventions do not preclude the requirement for a restriction. Applicant’s arguments do not appear to address the mutually exclusive and non-obvious variant features along with the materially different designs evidenced within each distinct product invention of Groups I-III (see pgs. 2-3 of Restriction on 07/01/2024). Additionally, the presence of any common features across patentably distinct inventions does not appear to be a factor in the criteria/test for establishing a search burden as cited in MPEP § 808.02. As detailed before, the limitations of Claims 1-7 evidence that the combination does not rely upon the details of the invention of the Group II, including: details directed to a frequency generator adapted to apply different types of waveforms to the acousto-optic deflector, a pulsed laser source, and a second laser; and the limitations of Claims 8-13 evidence that the combination does not rely upon the details of the invention of Group I, including: details directed to four generated beams, a radio frequency generator, and a second acousto-optic deflector; the limitations of Claims 1-7 evidence that the combination does not rely upon the details of the invention of the Group III, including: details directed to a frequency generator adapted to apply different types of waveforms to the acousto-optic deflector, and a second laser; and the limitations of Claims 14-20 evidence that the combination does not rely upon the details of the invention of Group I, including: details directed to an acousto-optic deflector adapted for radio frequency, a second optics assembly configured to generate four beams, and a scanning mirror; the limitations of Claims 8-13 evidence that the combination does not rely upon the details of the invention of the Group III, including: details directed to a radio frequency generator and a second acousto-optic deflector; and the limitations of Claims 14-20 evidence that the combination does not rely upon the details of the invention of Group II, including: details directed to a second optics assembly and a scanning mirror. Thus, Applicant’s arguments directed to the inventions not being mutually exclusive by virtue of the specification disclosing that "[t]he AOD can be replaced with a scanning mirror and configured to add a linear phase gradient" (pg. 2 of Remarks) appear to bear no relevance to the issue at hand and also do not appear to address the mutually exclusive features evidenced within each of the distinct inventions of Groups I-III as discussed above. Furthermore, such a feature of adding a linear phase gradient is only recited in the (elected) invention of Group III.
The Office has also met the requirements of establishing burden as set forth in as set forth in MPEP § 808.02. As stated in MPEP § 808.02, only one of three listed reasons (A, B, or C) must be shown:
The examiner must show by appropriate explanation one of the following:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained
recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though
they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate
subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries), a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
In the present case, the Restriction Requirement on 01/07/2026 (see pgs. 2 & 4) showed not just one, but two of the above-listed reasons. Specifically, the Office showed that items (A) and (C) above are met. Applicant’s arguments that there is no serious search burden on the Examiner to examine the claims directed to inventions of Groups I-III because “the classifications cited all relate to optical systems” and “A search for orbital angular momentum generators would necessarily encompass all three groups” (pgs. 2-3 of Remarks) is insufficient to rebut the Office’s findings, as these assertions appear to be conclusory statements unaccompanied by evidentiary support. Furthermore, these arguments do not appear to address the Examiner’s clearly delineated reasons for establishing that a search burden is met, namely that (1) each invention requires a different field of search for the claims (see pg. 4 of Restriction showing examples of different fields of search), and (2) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their separate classifications, as detailed in the Restriction requirement (see pg. 2 of Restriction). Thus, the Office has met the requirements of establishing burden as set forth in MPEP § 808.02. Since Applicant has not persuasively rebutted the Office’s establishment of search burden along with particular reasons for distinctness between the groups, and consequently, the restriction requirement of 01/07/2026 is still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
Accordingly, Claims 14-20 will be examined herein on the merits. Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/09/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner notes that an information disclosure statement has not yet been filed. The Examiner has searched and considered legible copies of all corresponding foreign patent documents including search reports and office actions by foreign patent offices.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/342,865 (filed on 05/17/2022), fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application, namely the details of the first, second, third and fourth beam, as recited in Claim 14.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the coherent spiral beam and the elliptical beam must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) 15-16. No new matter should be entered.
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
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.
Claim 15 is 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 the limitation: “a log polar optic assembly”. It is unclear what is meant by this term, as such an optic does not appear to be a term of the art or a recognized optical element in the field of optics. Furthermore, the as-filed specification fails to elucidate the term beyond an ipsis verbis appearance of the generic claim language, thereby rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear and indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as inherent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 14-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogura (US 2002/0114081 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Ogura discloses: An orbital angular momentum generator (¶0016) comprising a laser source adapted to provide a first beam (¶0016: A laser beam issuing from the laser 1…a first deflector 4 steers the laser beam); an acousto-optic deflector adapted to receive a radio frequency and the first beam and emit a second beam (¶0026: the AOD constituting the first deflector 4 can modulate the intensity of the laser beam by amplitude modulation at preselected frequency and can modulate the angle of the laser beam by modulating radio frequency); a first optics assembly adapted to shape the second beam to emit a third beam; and, a scanning mirror adapted to direct the third beam to a second optics assembly adapted to shape the third beam and emit a fourth beam (¶0016-17: The laser beam being steered is incident to a second deflector 8 via a cylindrical lens 5, a collimator lens 6, and a mirror 7 [first optics assembly]…The second deflector 8 steers the incident laser beam in the direction x…The laser beam being steered in the main scanning direction x scans a scanning plane 12 with a preselected beam configuration via focusing optics 9 [second optics assembly]. A 45.degree. mirror, not shown, intervenes between the second deflector 8 and the scanning plane 12 [scanning mirror]; ¶0022: In the focusing optics 9, the f/.theta. lens 11 focuses the laser beam in both of the main scanning direction x and subscanning direction y while the cylindrical lens 11 focuses it only in the subscanning direction y. As a result, the laser beam forms an elliptical beam spot [fourth beam] having a substantially Gaussian intensity distribution in both of the directions x and y, as shown in FIG. 2; ¶0025: second deflector 8 can be driven at high speed and a galvanometer mirror having a wide scanning angle. Further, as for the deflector 8, use may be made of a polygonal mirror).
Regarding Claim 15, as best understood, Ogura discloses the orbital angular momentum generator according to Claim 14, as above. Ogura further discloses: wherein the second optics assembly is a log polar optic assembly (¶0022; FIG. 1: 9-11).
Regarding Claim 16, Ogura discloses the orbital angular momentum generator according to Claim 14, as above. Ogura further discloses: wherein the first beam is an elliptical beam (FIG. 2; ¶0022: the laser beam forms an elliptical beam spot having a substantially Gaussian intensity distribution in both of the directions x and y).
Regarding Claim 18, Ogura discloses the orbital angular momentum generator according to Claim 14, as above. Ogura further discloses: wherein the acousto-optic deflector is adapted to include a linear phase gradient into the second beam (¶0028: the first deflector 4 corrects bending or waving in the main scanning direction x for thereby enhancing linearity in the main direction x; see FIG. 1 showing second beam with phase as claimed).
Regarding Claim 19, Ogura discloses the orbital angular momentum generator according to Claim 14, as above. Ogura further discloses: wherein the first optics assembly is adapted to include a linear phase gradient into the second beam (¶0021-22: The beam expander 3 cooperates with the cylindrical lens 5 [first optics assembly] and collimator lens 6, which will be described later specifically, to control the beam spot… the cylindrical lens 11 focuses it only in the subscanning direction y; see FIG. 1 showing second beam with phase as claimed).
Claims 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fahrbach (US 2019/0391375 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Fahrbach discloses: An orbital angular momentum generator (¶0011) comprising a laser source adapted to provide a first beam (¶0038, 0131: laser); an acousto-optic deflector adapted to receive a radio frequency and the first beam and emit a second beam (¶0070, 0132: illumination beam bundle 7 is injected into an acousto-optic element (AOE) 86. The AOE 86 for example can be an acousto-optic modulator (AOM) 87 (and in particular an acousto-optic deflector (AOD)); ¶0074: a beat that occurs with the frequency of the soundwaves, that is to say in the range of several 10 to 100 MHz); a first optics assembly adapted to shape the second beam to emit a third beam (see e.g., FIG. 5 showing first optics assembly 101 to emit a third beam; ¶0151: density gratings 101); and, a scanning mirror adapted to direct the third beam to a second optics assembly adapted to shape the third beam and emit a fourth beam (¶0031, 0152-53: a scanning mirror that tilts all beams of a reflection beam path in the rear focal plane of the objective…tilt mirror 109; ¶0110: The telescope 53, which is arranged downstream of the light source 5, furthermore has a cylindrical lens 57; see FIG. 5 showing second optics assembly (after 109) adapted to shape the third beam and emit fourth beam).
Regarding Claim 18, Fahrbach discloses the orbital angular momentum generator according to Claim 14, as above. Fahrbach further discloses: wherein the acousto-optic deflector is adapted to include a linear phase gradient into the second beam (¶0068-69: density grating should consequently be understood to be a pure phase grating, that is to say that an optical wave that is incident on the density grating merely undergoes a phase change).
Regarding Claim 20, Fahrbach discloses the orbital angular momentum generator according to Claim 14, as above. Fahrbach further discloses: wherein a scan rate associated with the scanning mirror is equal to or greater than one Khz (¶0076: light sheet produced by a resonant scanning mirror (scanning frequency for example 16 kHz) is thus possible).
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahrbach (US 2019/0391375 A1) in view of Ashrafi et al. (US 9,998,187 B2).
Regarding Claim 17, Fahrbach discloses the orbital angular momentum generator according to Claim 14, as above. wherein the laser source is an ultrashort pulsed laser (¶0037-38, 0043: short laser pulses). Fahrbach does not appear to explicitly disclose: the orbital angular momentum generator is adapted to provide multiple coherent spiral beams.
Ashrafi is related to Fahrbach with respect to an orbital angular momentum generator comprising a laser source and optical assemblies (c. 11, c. 26; c. 33-34), and Ashrafi teaches: the orbital angular momentum generator is adapted to provide multiple coherent spiral beams (c. 15-16: the wave vector spirals around the beam axis 1006, leading to a helical phase front 1008, as shown in FIGS. 10C and 10D… a unique orbital angular momentum is applied to a signal as described here and above, the Poynting vector S 1010 will spiral about the direction of propagation of the signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orbital angular momentum generator of Fahrbach in view of Ashrafi to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a laser source and the generation of coherent spiral beams allow differing type of information to be transmitted on the same frequency, since these signals are separately detectable and do not interfere with each other, as taught in col. 18 of Ashrafi.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura (US 2002/0114081 A1) in view of Konno et al. (US 2008/0239252 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Ogura discloses the orbital angular momentum generator according to Claim 14, as above. Ogura does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein a scan rate associated with the scanning mirror is equal to or greater than one Khz.
Konno is related to Ogura with respect to an orbital angular momentum generator comprising a laser source, an acousto-optic deflector adapted for radio frequency, optical assemblies and a scanning mirror (¶0054, 0088, 0161), and Konno teaches: wherein a scan rate associated with the scanning mirror is equal to or greater than one Khz (¶0052: the deflection scan mirror has to perform turns corresponding to the horizontal scan at a frequency of about 48 KHz (=60.times.806) considering also pixels in a so-called blanking period. In the case of performing drawing using both of the forward path and the backward path in the horizontal scan, the deflection scan mirror has to perform turns corresponding to the horizontal scan at a frequency of about 24 KHz which is the half of 48 KHz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orbital angular momentum generator of Ogura in view of Konno to satisfy the claimed condition, because such a scan rate achieves high resolution and bright images wherein fluctuations in scan speed are suppressed, as taught in ¶0048-50, 0052-53 of Konno.
Other Relevant Documents Considered
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Tan et al. (US 2006/0262179 A1) discloses an orbital angular momentum generator comprising a laser source, an acousto-optic deflector adapted for radio frequency, optical assemblies and a scanning mirror, and further satisfying some of the additional conditions as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-1800 (EST).
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.
/SAMANVITHA SRIDHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872