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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claims recite a method and system provided to design a freeform lens. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claim 1 recites a series of steps for a light focusing method which is provided to designing a freeform lens. Thus, the claims are to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 5 recites a light focusing system. Thus, the claims are to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Representative claim 1 recites:
A light focusing method, which is provided to design a freeform lens for creating an LED-based focused light source to generate prescribed target irradiance distribution with the micrometer-scale dimension, the method comprising:
calculating, by a processor, a surface of the freeform lens by finding a solution for the immediate wavefront through numerical analysis by using the Monge-Ampere equation and calculating a surface of the freeform lens by applying the Snell's law
calculating, by the processor, a surface of the freeform lens by finding a solution for the intermediate wavefront through numerical analysis by using the Monge-Ampere equation and by applying the Snell's law to the solution (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: (a) a mental process (i.e. an abstract idea) including observation and evaluation because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); (b) mathematical concepts); and
calculating, by the processor, an outgoing ray sequence from the calculated surface of the freeform lens and updating the intermediate wavefront based on the outgoing ray sequence (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: (a) a mental process (i.e. an abstract idea) including observation and evaluation because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); (b) mathematical concepts), wherein the calculating of the surface of the freeform lens, the calculating of the outgoing ray sequence, and the updated are repeated in association with the updated intermediate wavefront; and
generating, by the processor, an optimized freeform lens surface based on repeatedly calculating outgoing ray sequences, (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: (a) a mental process (i.e. an abstract idea) including observation and evaluation because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); (b) mathematical concepts),
wherein the calculating of the surface of the freeform lens includes:
finding the solution for the intermediate wavefront by discretizing the intermediate wavefront into a uniform grid using a finite difference scheme (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: (a) a mental process (i.e. an abstract idea) including observation and evaluation because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); (b) mathematical concepts); and
applying the Monge-Ampere equation to each grid point to establish a vector equation and solving the vector equation using a Newton-Krylov algorithm to find the solution numerically (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: (a) a mental process (i.e. an abstract idea) including observation and evaluation because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); (b) mathematical concepts);
wherein the generating comprises determining whether newly calculated outgoing ray sequence satisfies the Snell's law to decide whether to terminate the repetition (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: (a) a mental process (i.e. an abstract idea) including observation and evaluation because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method); (b) mathematical concepts).
Representative claim 5 recites:
A light focusing system, the system comprising:
a processor (generic computer or component configured to perform the method and to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data), comprising:
an initial information generation part (generic computer components to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and/or insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system) that calculates an initial condition for an intermediate wavefront from input ray vector of an incident light source and prescribed irradiance on target plane (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: (a) a mental process (i.e. an abstract idea) including observation and evaluation because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); (b) mathematical concepts);
a data analysis part (generic computer components and/or insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system) configured to calculate a surface of the freeform lens by finding a solution for the intermediate wavefront through numerical analysis by using the Monge-Ampere equation and by applying the Snell's law (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: (a) a mental process (i.e. an abstract idea) including observation and evaluation because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); (b) mathematical concepts); and
a freeform lens reconstruction part (generic computer components and/or insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system) configured to calculate an outgoing ray sequence from the calculated surface of the freeform lens and updating the intermediate wavefront based on the outgoing ray sequence, wherein the calculating of the surface of the freeform lens, the calculating of the outgoing ray sequence, and the updating are repeated in association with the updated intermediate wavefront, and generates an optimized freeform lens surface based on repeatedly calculated outgoing ray sequences, (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: (a) a mental process (i.e. an abstract idea) including observation and evaluation because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); (b) mathematical concepts)
wherein the data analysis part of the processor (generic computer or component) is further configured to calculate the surface of the freeform lens by:
finding the solution for the intermediate wavefront by discretizing the intermediate wavefront into a uniform grid using a finite difference scheme (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: (a) a mental process (i.e. an abstract idea) including observation and evaluation because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); (b) mathematical concepts);
applying the Monge-Ampere equation to each grid point to establish a vector equation and solving the vector equation using a Newton-Krylov algorithm to find the solution numerically (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: (a) a mental process (i.e. an abstract idea) including observation and evaluation because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); (b) mathematical concepts), and
calculating the surface of the freeform lens based on the solution (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: (a) a mental process (i.e. an abstract idea) including observation and evaluation because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); (b) mathematical concepts), and
wherein the freeform lens reconstruction part (generic computer or component) determines whether newly calculated outgoing ray sequence satisfies the Snell's law to decide whether to terminate the repetition (the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined elements recite: (a) a mental process (i.e. an abstract idea) including observation and evaluation because they can be performed in the human mind (or generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); (b) mathematical concepts).
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements.
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a processor (a generic computer to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer), or merely uses a processor (a generic computer or component configured to perform the method, to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer) as a tool to perform the abstract idea:
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea:
The examiner finds that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use [because it/they is/are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of claim 1 and the system of claim 5 are performed]:
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a processor/computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the inclusion of a processor which performs the steps of the method is deemed as a generic computer component that is claimed to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the method and system which is provided to design a freeform lens. The recitation of the processor limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Furthermore, independent claim 5 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 5 discloses a processor, an initial information generation part, a data analysis part and a freeform lens reconstruction part, which are generic computer components and/or insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a system. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a processor/computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the inclusion of a processor which performs the steps of the method is deemed as a generic computer component that is claimed to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the method and system which is provided to design a freeform lens. The recitation of the processor limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and the inclusion of a processor which performs the steps of the method and system is deemed as a generic computer component that is claimed to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the method and system which is provided to design a freeform lens. For the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recitation of the processor limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that the claims as amended are directed to patentable subject matter because (1) it is not directed to a judicial exception; and (2) it is directed to an improvement of existing freeform lens design methods and devices. Applicant respectfully submits the newly amended features do not constitute an abstract idea because the "determining" step of the method requires action by a processor. The patent-eligible claims in Example 37 of the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Examples are instructive in this regard. (See Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, Example 37 – Relocation of Icons on a Graphical User Interface). Claim 2 of Example 37 was not found to contain a judicial exception, because the “determining” step required action by a processor that cannot be practically applied in the mind. Id. Similarly, claim 1 of the present application require a processor to determine whether newly calculated outgoing ray sequence satisfies the Snell's law to decide whether to terminate the repetition-another step that cannot be practically applied in the mind. Accordingly, the Sec. 101 rejection for claim 1 should be withdrawn.
In the Examiner’s opinion, the applicant’s claimed invention is not analogous to Example 37 of the 35 USC 101 Alice Subject matter eligibility analyses of claims under the USPTO’s eligibility guidance. The Examiner points out that the amended claims now incorporate the inclusion of a processor which performs the steps of the method and system. The processor is deemed as a generic computer component that is claimed to perform its basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the method and system which is provided to design a freeform lens. The recitation of the processor limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Taking the additional element individually and in combination, the processor (computer component) at each step of the method perform purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, the claim encompasses the user manually calculating the amount of use of each icon. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: NO). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible. The claims are directed to an abstract idea and has an additional element (processor) that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 03/04/2026