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
This office action is in response to the communication filed 2/5/2026.
Amendments to the specification and to claims 1-4, 14, 17-18, 22-23, filed 2/5/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Withdrawal of claims 26-28, filed 3/17/2025, remains in effect.
Due to the claim amendments, all previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are now withdrawn. However the recent amendments raise new 112(b) issues as discussed below. Despite amendments to the specification, the objections to the specification are maintained due to persisting issues described below.
Response to Arguments
On pgs. 10-17 of the Remarks, filed 2/5/2026, Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered are mostly moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 2/5/2026, not the Non-Final Rejection, filed 9/5/2025. Newly amended claims are argued below.
Aside from arguments largely directed to newly amended features, Examiner will now address some more specific issues raised in the Remarks for completeness and clarity of record.
On pg. 11 of the Remarks, Applicant acknowledges Examiner’s rationale that plasmonic implementations, as applied in the Non-Final Rejection, implicitly involve dielectric-metal nanocomposites, and that accompanying gradient indices automatically produce gradient dielectric functions. However, Applicant then argues that
“no further details of the composition of a gradient index material or a plasmonic or of how such materials provide a complex dielectric-function gradient are disclosed” – Remarks, pg. 11
which is not a persuasive argument. To be clear, refractive indices and dielectric functions are material-dependent properties. This is a simple scientific fact. And it is necessarily the case that a material’s composition directly affects the dielectric function’s gradient – regardless of whether the Suleski reference chooses to belabor such basic details.
From pgs. 11-12, Applicant also argues that Suleski ‘does not form "a solidified heterogeneous coalescence"’ However, if Applicant accepts even just the implicit disclosure of nanocomposite gradient-index materials, they should also consider that such systems are most certainly heterogeneous, as it makes little physical sense for gradients to present in uniform systems. Now, while Examiner notes Applicant’s reference to the PMMA material that Suleski describes in their illustrative examples, Applicant is reminded that this is not the only aspect of Suleski’s disclosure – nor was it purely relied on in the rejection – as further discussed below.
Applicant is also advised that Suleski’s optical elements are certainly solid(ified), and that they may also be considered to be a union or “coalescence” of smaller elements. The term "solidified heterogeneous coalescence" thus does little in the way of providing much physical distinction. And Examiner remains unconvinced by Applicant’s assertion of this apparently broadly applicable term.
On pg. 12-13 of the Remarks, Applicant also argues that the newly amended “volumetric” description for the dielectric function (gradient) avoids Suleski, whose gradient-driven beam steering was largely described with respect to optical element surface shapes. Examiner disagrees, however. As noted in the rejection of claim 1 below, and as Applicant themselves have acknowledged in their Remarks,
“Suleski provides several exemplary designs for a disclosed beam shaper” – Remarks, pg. 12
with emphasis added to again highlight the fact that Suleski adopted surface shape control parameters for largely exemplary/illustrative purposes.
In addition to such surface shapes – and as was already noted in the Non-Final Rejection (¶ 14), in the Remarks (pg. 11), and again in the rejection below – Suleski explicitly provides alternative/additional control mediums (e.g. “gradient index materials”) which are certainly accompanied by “volumetric” qualities and support gradients in kind. Applicant appears to have mistook Suleski as limiting their gradients purely to surface effects, despite Suleski’s explicit disclosure of options otherwise (as cited in the Rejection). Applicant’s arguments have thus failed to properly address the basis of the rejection, and the mere insertion of “volumetric” adjectives are found to provide no substantive distinction over the complete contents of Suleski’s disclosure.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The disclosure is objected to because the specification remains replete with informalities and terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some informalities and unclear, inexact, or verbose terms used in the specification are listed as follows:
In ¶ 4, lines 2-3, it is technically awkward and unclear to state “[the optic may] include refraction, permittivity, and permeability”. Refraction is an optical phenomenon, while permittivity and permeability are material parameters. It makes little sense to say the system/optic “include[s]” them
The specification contains various terms that are unclear and that do not comply with formal writing standards. For example, lines 1-2 of ¶ 6 recite “nanocomposite-ink gradient refractive-index variable focus optic”, combining irregular hyphenation with an excessive and unpunctuated chain of modifiers that is ungrammatical, nonstandard, and unclear. The resulting language is stylistically improper and it obscures the relationships among the recited concepts, which are improperly mixed together throughout the specification in an apparently inconsistent manner; compare, for example, with –
¶ 3, line 2: “composite, gradient refractive-index optic”
¶ 38, lines 1-2: “nanocomposite refractive gradient variable focus optic”
¶ 38, lines 2-3: “nanocomposite-ink refractive gradient optic with variable focus
optic”
¶ 40, lines 1-2: “nanocomposite-ink gradient refractive-index optic with variable focus optic 10”
In ¶ 18, line 2, “free form” appears as two words despite apparently being one word throughout the remaining specification – e.g. ¶ 4, line 1, ¶ 40, line 11, ¶ 70 line 3
In ¶ 40, line 7, an Oxford comma is missing after “second surface 28”, despite one being included in the previous line (“a second surface 18,”). It is improper to use commas inconsistently across a document, and even more so within the same sentence
Examiner notes that this list is not exhaustive, and reiterates that the specification should
be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant’s specification should be provided in clear and proper idiomatic English and contain no new matter.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-25 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 3-6 and 7-11 each recite
“a solid dielectric body formed by additive deposition and curing of a heterogeneous coalescence of nanocomposite voxels… material composition of the nanocomposite voxels”
overloading the recited features with multiple introductions and causing ambiguity as to whether each “solid dielectric body”, each “heterogeneous coalescence”, or each “[material composition of the] nanocomposite voxels” refers to a common object or to distinct ones. For examination purposes, each instance shall be treated as an independent object corresponding to either the first (lines 3-6) of second (lines 7-11) optical elements.
Further regarding claim 1, lines 5 and 9 recite “the body” which lack proper antecedent bases and are further unclear due to the ambiguities identified in the rejection above. For examination purposes, the limitations on lines 5 and 9 shall be read as “the solid dielectric body” of the first and second optical elements, respectively.
Further regarding claim 1, lines 14-16 are amended to recite
“arising from interaction of the first complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient and the second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient”
which is loosely appended to the limitation spanning lines 12-16. It is currently unclear what aspect of the limitation the quoted phrase is intended to modify (i.e. the wavefront shaping, the displacement dependence, or the dependence variation). Of the possible options, it is not particularly clear or meaningful for any of them to “aris[e] from interaction” of the dielectric function( gradient)s – as these simply describe the distribution of some physical quantities, rather than any structures that actually interact with one another. For examination purposes, the limitation will simply be interpreted to mean that the dielectric function( gradient)s each have some generic effect on the resultant wavefront shaping.
Regarding claim 3, lines 1-3 recite
“a first and/or second complex dielectric-function that varies according to the first and/or second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient varies radially and axially, relative to the optical axis”
which introduces “a first and/or second complex dielectric-function” after the claims have introduced “a first complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient” (claim 1, lines 5-6) and “a second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient” (claim 1, lines 5-6). The limitation thus creates ambiguity regarding antecedence and relationships between recited features – making it unclear as to whether the “first and/or second complex dielectric-function” represents structures that are separate or distinct from those already introduced. Also at issue is the double “and/or” construction of the limitation. The amended claim is further ungrammatical to the point of indefiniteness due to the stacking of “varies…” modifiers without any constructive punctuation.
For examination purposes, the quoted limitation shall be read as “a first and/or second complex volumetric dielectric function, respectively defining the first and/or second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient, varies radially and axially relative to the optical axis” (where the gradient may now be identified as a vector differential)
Regarding claim 23, lines 7-8 and 10 recite “the first optical element”, “the second optical element”, and “the first and second optical elements” – all of which lack a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes:
“the first optical element” shall be read as “the first complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient optical element”
“the second optical element” shall be read as “the second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient optical element”
“the first and second optical elements” shall be read as “the first and second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient optical elements”'
as introduced in lines 3-4 of the claim.
Further regarding claim 23, lines 15-16 and 18 recite “the third optical element”, “the fourth optical element”, and “the third and fourth optical elements” – all of which lack a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes:
“the third optical element” shall be read as “the third complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient optical element”
“the fourth optical element” shall be read as “the fourth complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient optical element”
“the third and fourth optical elements” shall be read as “the third and fourth complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient optical elements”.
as introduced in lines 11-12 of the claim.
Further regarding claim 23, lines 4-6 and 12-14 each recite
“a solid dielectric body formed by additive deposition and curing of a heterogeneous coalescence of nanocomposite voxels… material composition of the nanocomposite voxels”
while lines 6 and 14 each recite “an optical power”. Similarly to claim 1, claim 23 fails to clearly identify how certain features are associated with different elements (i.e. in the hierarchy of optics, optical elements) – the issue largely due to overloading of recited features with multiple introductions, causing ambiguity as to whether each “solid dielectric body”, “heterogeneous coalescence”, “[material composition of the] nanocomposite voxels”, and “optical power” refer to common objects or distinct ones. For examination purposes, the claim shall be understood to assign a distinct “solid dielectric body”, “heterogeneous coalescence”, and “[material composition of the] nanocomposite voxels” to each of the first-fourth optical elements. Furthermore, each “optical power” shall be read to independently correspond to either the first (line 6) or second (line 14) optic.
Further regarding claim 23, lines 20-22 recite
“wherein wavefront shaping provided by the first and second optics along the optical axis arises from interaction of the complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient of each of the first, second, third, and fourth optical elements”/
However, it is not clear how wavefront the shaping “arise[s] from interaction” of the dielectric function( gradient)s – as these simply describe the distribution of some physical quantities, rather than any structures that actually interact with one another. For examination purposes, the limitation will simply be interpreted to mean that the dielectric function( gradient)s each have some generic effect on the resultant wavefront shaping.
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejection above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 12, 14, 19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suleski et al (US 20150009583, hereinafter “Suleski”) in view of Li et al (US 20170044327 A1, hereinafter “Li1”).
Regarding claim 1, Suleski discloses (see FIG. 2, ¶ 23) an optic (laser beam shaping system 10) configured for variable wavefront shaping of electromagnetic radiation (“laser beam shaping”, i.e. of laser light 16), the optic (laser beam shaping system 10) comprising:
a first optical element (12) comprising a solid body formed by a heterogeneous coalescence of voxels, the body providing a first complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient determined by material composition of the voxels;
a second optical element (14) comprising a solid body formed by a heterogeneous coalescence of voxels, the body providing a second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient determined by material composition of the voxels,
(Regarding items A and B above, note from ¶ 23: “optical elements 12 and 14 may have predetermined surface shapes (either regular or freeform), …., gradient index materials, …, etc., all suitable for modifying a wavefront”.
Thus, while much of Suleski’s disclosure may appear to use surface features as their primary means for wavefront shaping, it is also apparent that this is mainly for illustrative purposes – as evidenced by their explicit support for more bulk/volumetric wavefront shaping means, i.e. with gradient index materials as another functional option.
Note the square of (position-dependent/heterogeneous) refractive index gives the dielectric function. Note also that one is always free to partition/voxelate any three-dimensional object.)
wherein the first and second optical elements (12 and 14) are arranged in tandem along an optical axis (26) and together provide wavefront shaping (“laser beam shaping”) that varies in dependence on a displacement of the first optical element (12) relative to the second optical element (14), arising from interaction of the first complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient and the second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient.
Suleski does not disclose a solid dielectric body formed by additive deposition and curing of a heterogeneous coalescence of nanocomposite voxels.
Suleski and Li1 commonly relate to gradient-index optical elements.
Li1 discloses a solid dielectric body formed by additive deposition and curing of a heterogeneous coalescence of nanocomposite voxels. (See ¶s 16-17: "nanocomposites of the present disclosure... can be easily obtained using molding, 3D printing [i.e. additive deposition] ...", "The cross-linkable nanocomposite... can subsequently be cured using heat or photon excitation"; ¶ 70: “depositing the nanocomposite in a controlled fashion with varying component fraction can effectively form printed-in-place gradient-index (GRIN) lenses”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine teachings of Suleski and Li1, in order to provide polymer nanocomposites with high nanoparticle/nanofiller concentrations and precisely controllable optical properties for light management (Li1 ¶s 4-13, 70).
Regarding claim 2, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Suleski further discloses wherein the first and/or second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient (i.e. of optical elements 12 and/or 14) is a freeform gradient, a non-radially symmetric gradient, a non-axially symmetric gradient, or an anamorphic gradient. (See ¶ 23: “optical elements 12 and 14 may have predetermined surface shapes (either regular or freeform), …., gradient index materials, …”. Note that optical element surface shapes directly influence the real-space profile/gradients of the refractive index, and hence dielectric function. Notice again also that ¶ 23 provides explicit support for more bulk/volumetric wavefront shaping means, i.e. with gradient index materials as another functional option.)
Regarding claim 4, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Suleski further discloses (see FIG. 2, ¶ 23) wherein the first and/or second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient (i.e. of optical elements 12 and/or 14) is modified by laser radiation (laser light 16). (As is generally known, dielectric functions are frequency-dependent and will always be modified by laser radiation.)
Regarding claim 5, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Suleski further discloses wherein the displacement (lateral shift d) changes a focal length of the optic (laser beam shaping system 10). (See FIGs. 3, 7, and 10; ¶s 23-31; output diameter depends on lateral shift d, indicating a change in focusing power.)
Regarding claim 6, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Suleski further discloses wherein the displacement (lateral shift d) changes a direction of a beam exiting the second optical element (14) relative to the direction of the beam entering the first optical element (12). (See FIGs. 3, 7, and 10; ¶s 23-31; output diameter depends on lateral shift d, indicating a change in focusing power. Naturally this implies that exit rays/beams change directions with respect to those of fixed entry rays.)
Regarding claim 12, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Suleski further discloses (see FIG. 2, ¶ 23) wherein the first and second optical elements (12 and 14) are configured for time varying spatial radiance. (Note, per ¶ 23, Suleski is generally directed towards “dynamic”, i.e. time varying, laser beam shaping.)
Regarding claim 14, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Suleski further discloses (see FIG. 2, ¶ 23) wherein dispersive properties of the voxels of the first and second optical elements (12 and 14) impart a wavelength dependence to the variable wavefront shaping (“laser beam shaping”). (As is generally known, dielectric functions have frequency-dependent dispersion profiles. As is also known, frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength.)
Li1 further discloses the nanocomposite voxels. (As earlier established for claim 1, Li1 enables 3D printing of nanocomposites for manufacturing GRIN lenses; see again ¶s 16-17, 70).
Regarding claim 19, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Suleski further discloses wherein the optic (laser beam shaping system 10) is configured to emit a light field or hologram. (See FIG. 2, ¶ 23; Examiner notes that any light emissive process produces a light field, which is generally understood to be a multi-dimensional function in parameter space that describes the light’s distribution. Thus the radiation source (i.e. laser light 16) of laser beam shaping system 10 is understood to emit a light field.)
Regarding claim 21, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Suleski also discloses (see FIGs. 2-3) the further configured to transmit the electromagnetic radiation (i.e. laser light 16) only through an area of overlap between the first and second optical elements (12 and 14). (See also ¶s 28-36 and FIGs. 5-14 detailing simulated embodiments of the laser beam shaping system; reported are lens (i.e. optical element) diameters of 12mm, lateral shifts of <1mm, and input/output beam diameters ranging anywhere from 3-7mm. Thus all laser light is transmitted through (an area of overlap between) both first/second optical elements 12/14.)
Regarding claim 22, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Suleski further discloses (see FIGs. 2, ¶ 23) wherein the first and second optical elements (12 and 14) are arranged in an array of analogously configured optical elements (FIG. 2 shows a 1x2 array of optical elements; see also ¶ 23: “It should be noted that odd numbers of optical elements may be used, or multiple pairs of optical elements”), and wherein a complex dielectric-function gradient of the optic (i.e. the of the total set of all optical elements) varies in dependence on a position of each optical element (12, 14, etc.) in the array. (Examiner notes that the effective dielectric function produced by “optical elements 12 and 14 [having]… gradient index materials…” will naturally have some spatial dependence due to characteristic heterogeneities. Moreover, one generally expects such spatial profiles to vary as “One or both of the plurality of optical elements 12 and 14 [is] translated laterally…”. ¶ 23)
Regarding claim 23, Suleski discloses (see FIG. 2, ¶ 23) a system of optics (laser beam shaping system 10) configured for variable focus, the system comprising:
a first optic including first and second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient optical elements (optical elements 12 and 14 which, per ¶ 23, “may have…. gradient index materials”. Note the square of refractive index gives the dielectric function]), each comprising a solid body formed by a heterogeneous coalescence of voxels (note that one is always free to partition/voxelate any three-dimensional object), arranged in tandem along an optical axis (26), which together provide an optical power that varies according to a displacement (d) of the first optical element (12) relative to the second optical element (14) (see also FIGs. 3, 7, and 10; ¶s 24-31; output diameter depends on lateral shift d, indicating a change in focusing power), wherein material composition of the voxels of the first optic determines a respective complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient of each of the first and second optical elements (12 and 14); and
a second optic including third and fourth complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient optical elements, each comprising a solid dielectric body formed by additive deposition and curing of a heterogeneous coalescence of nanocomposite voxels, arranged in tandem along an optical axis, which together provide an optical power that varies according to a displacement of the third optical element relative to the fourth optical element, wherein material composition of the nanocomposite voxels of the second optic determines a respective complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient of each of the optical third and fourth optical elements,
(Examiner notes that item B above duplicates the matter claimed in item A, which is supported by Suleski’s ¶ 24: “It should be noted that odd numbers of optical elements may be used, or multiple pairs of optical elements”. Thus, while FIG. 2 and ¶ 23 explicitly detail a laser beam shaping system 10 with one pair of (first/second) optical elements 12 and 14 corresponding to Applicant’s first optic – Suleski’s disclosure further supports another set of third/fourth optical elements, etc., to form a second optic and satisfy item B above.)
wherein focal lengths of the first and second optics (of laser beam shaping system 10) are adjustable relative to each other, and wherein wavefront shaping (“laser beam shaping”) provided by the first and second optics along the optical axis (26) arises from interaction of the complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient of each of the first, second, third, and fourth optical elements (12 and 14, together with any subsequent optical elements).
Suleski does not disclose each optical element comprising a solid dielectric body formed by additive deposition and curing of a heterogeneous coalescence of nanocomposite voxels.
Suleski and Li1 commonly relate to gradient-index optical elements.
Li1 discloses each optical element comprising a solid dielectric body formed by additive deposition and curing of a heterogeneous coalescence of nanocomposite voxels. (See ¶s 16-17: "nanocomposites of the present disclosure... can be easily obtained using molding, 3D printing [i.e. additive deposition] ...", "The cross-linkable nanocomposite... can subsequently be cured using heat or photon excitation"; ¶ 70: “depositing the nanocomposite in a controlled fashion with varying component fraction can effectively form printed-in-place gradient-index (GRIN) lenses”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine teachings of Suleski and Li1, in order to provide polymer nanocomposites with high nanoparticle/nanofiller concentrations and precisely controllable optical properties for light management (Li1 ¶s 4-13, 70).
Regarding claim 24, modified Suleski discloses the system of claim 23.
Suleski also discloses the system further comprising at least one additional lens element arranged between the first and second optics (each comprising two optical elements, e.g. 12, 14). (See again ¶ 24: “It should be noted that odd numbers of optical elements may be used, or multiple pairs of optical elements”. Thus, in addition to the pairs of optical elements forming the first/second optics, Suleski supports yet another unpaired optical element which serves as the additional lens element. Note that Suleski uses the term “lens” interchangeably with “optical element”; see e.g. “Lens diameter” specifications in ¶s 33 and 36 for simulated embodiments of the laser beam shaping system. Note also that Suleski addresses methods/ systems building upon those of the Alvarez lens; see ¶s 3-4.)
Regarding claim 25, modified Suleski discloses the system of claim 23.
Suleski further discloses wherein dispersive properties of the first and second optics (each comprising two optical elements, e.g. 12, 14) are matched to achieve achromatic performance. (See ¶ 24: “It should be noted that… different materials may be used to achieve… achromatization”)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suleski in view of Li1, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wang and Shealy (NPL entitled Design of gradient-index lens systems for laser beam reshaping, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Modified Suleski does not explicitly disclose wherein a first and/or second complex dielectric-function that varies according to the first and/or second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient varies radially and axially, relative to the optical axis.
Suleski and Wang commonly relate to gradient index optical elements and laser beam shaping.
Wang discloses wherein a first and/or second complex dielectric-function that varies according to the first and/or second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient varies radially and axially, relative to the optical axis. (See sec. 1: “An axial gradient index can be used to control spherical aberration…, and a radial gradient index can be used to add optical power or regular system aberrations”. And as in claim 1 above, Examiner again notes that refractive index gradients directly indicate dielectric-function gradients.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Suleski with teachings of Wang, in order to control optical power/aberrations or to produce more uniform beam profiles (Wang sec. 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suleski in view of Li1, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Li and Wang (CN 101825710 A, hereinafter “Li2”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Suleski further discloses wherein the displacement imparts an effect of a variable function on the electromagnetic radiation. (¶ 23: “One or both of the plurality of optical elements 12 and 14 may be translated laterally... rotated ... separated along the optic axis 26... Thus, predetermined uniform or custom output irradiance profiles 22 may be achieved”)
Modified Suleski does not explicitly disclose a wedge function.
Suleski and Li2 commonly relate to gradient index optical elements and laser beam shaping.
Li2 explicitly discloses a wedge function. (See ¶ 40; gradient index lenses “can be made into… a wedge surface according to actual needs”; when such wedge-shaped GRIN lens surfaces are integrated with Suleski’s optical elements, variable wedge functions are achieved.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Suleski with teachings of Li2, in order to implement eye-safe fiber-optic laser systems with good performance, stability, and optimized structure and miniaturization (Li ¶s 1-11).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suleski in view of Li1, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Simonov and Rombach (US 20120257278 Al, hereinafter “Simonov”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Modified Suleski does not explicitly disclose wherein the displacement reproduces an effect of a variable phase plate on the electromagnetic radiation.
Suleski and Simonov commonly relate to gradient index optical elements and Alvarez-type varifocal lenses.
Simonov explicitly discloses wherein the displacement (e.g. Δx, Δy) reproduces an effect of a variable phase plate on the electromagnetic radiation. (See, e.g., ¶s 26-27 or 66-76 regarding examples optical systems where displacement between optical elements/phase plates in tandem will generate variable optical path lengths and phases.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine Suleski with the teachings of Simonov, in order to perform simultaneous correction of variable aberrations (Simonov ¶s 1-4).
Regarding claim 11, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Modified Suleski does not disclose wherein the optic is arranged in a vision-correcting device, optical scanner, variable-magnification telescope, or variable-magnification microscope.
Suleski and Simonov commonly relate to gradient index optical elements and Alvarez-type varifocal lenses.
Simonov discloses wherein the optic (comprising, e.g., optical elements S2 and S3 mentioned in ¶s 26-27) is arranged in a vision-correcting device, optical scanner, variable-magnification telescope, or variable-magnification microscope. (See ¶s 1-4 discussing aberration corrections as well as ¶ 15 regarding applications including machine vision, microscopy systems, etc.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine Suleski with the teachings of Simonov, in order to perform simultaneous correction of variable aberrations (Simonov ¶s 1-4).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suleski in view of Li1, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Luetz and Hillenbrand (US 20240295702 A1, hereinafter “Luetz”).
Regarding claim 9, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Modified Suleski does not explicitly disclose wherein the displacement reproduces an effect of a variable blazed grating on the electromagnetic radiation. (Examiner notes that the limitation where “the displacement reproduces an effect of a variable blazed grating” is not supported by either parent applications 14/970378 or 18/045,078, and that the current claim 9 is entitled only to the actual filing date 6/26/2023 of the active application. Luetz, with filing date 10/8/2020, thus qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).)
Suleski and Luetz commonly relate to Alvarez-type varifocal lenses.
Luetz discloses wherein the displacement reproduces an effect of a variable blazed grating on the electromagnetic radiation. (See ¶ 16 regarding first/second diffractive optical components that are “laterally displaceable and/or rotatable”. See also ¶ 21 on coordinating the relative movement of optical components with the desired diffractive structure:
“Depending on this [diffractive structure], the movement direction of the diffractive optical components relative to one another is to be selected”
“The diffractive structure... can comprise structure elements, wherein the distance, in particular the lateral distance, and/or the orientation of adjacent structure elements, in other words the grating constant and/or the angle (e.g., blaze angle), is described by a polynomial in dependence on the distance from a center of the diffractive structure.”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Suleski with the teachings of Luetz, in order to provide wavefront manipulation that is lightweight and takes up little installation space (Luetz ¶ 9).
Claims 10, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suleski in view of Li1, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Smith et al (US 20150116187 A1, hereinafter “Smith”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Modified Suleski does not disclose wherein the electromagnetic radiation comprises near-infrared, infrared, millimeter-wave, or radio-frequency radiation.
Suleski and Smith commonly relate to gradient index optical elements and laser beam shaping.
Smith discloses wherein the electromagnetic radiation comprises near-infrared, infrared, millimeter-wave, or radio-frequency radiation. (See ¶ 3: “The technology herein relates to artificially-structured materials… responsive to electromagnetic waves at radio-frequencies (RF), microwave frequencies, and/or higher frequencies such as infrared…”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine Suleski with widely applicable teachings of Smith, in order to realize and accurately control the complex inhomogeneous materials with low loss, designable properties, and easily accessible parameters (Smith ¶ 88).
Regarding claim 13, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Modified Suleski does not disclose wherein the optic is arranged in an antenna.
Suleski and Smith commonly relate to gradient index optical elements and laser beam shaping.
Smith discloses wherein the optic is arranged in an antenna. (See FIG. 11 and
¶ 50: “gradient index structure… disposed as a feed structure for an array of patch antennas”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine Suleski with widely applicable teachings of Smith, in order to realize and accurately control the complex inhomogeneous materials with low loss, designable properties, and easily accessible parameters (Smith ¶ 88).
Regarding claim 15, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Modified Suleski does not disclose the further comprising an anti-reflective coating arranged on the first and/or second optical element.
Suleski and Smith commonly relate to gradient index optical elements and laser beam shaping.
Smith discloses the further comprising an anti-reflective coating (“IML”) arranged on the first and/or second optical element (“gradient index region”). (See ¶ 51: “an input port or input region for receiving electromagnetic energy may include an impedance matching layer (IML)… to improve the input insertion loss by reducing or substantially eliminating reflections at the input port or input region… An impedance matching layer may have a wave impedance profile that provides a substantially continuous variation of wave impedance, from an initial wave impedance... to a final wave impedance at an interface between the IML and a gradient index region (e.g. that provides a device function such as beam steering or beam focusing).”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine Suleski with widely applicable teachings of Smith, in order to realize and accurately control the complex inhomogeneous materials with low loss, designable properties, and easily accessible parameters (Smith ¶ 88).
Regarding claim 16, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Modified Suleski does not disclose the further comprising a beam deflector configured to extract optical power from the optic.
Suleski and Smith commonly relate to gradient index optical elements and laser beam shaping.
Smith discloses the further comprising a beam deflector configured to extract optical power from the optic (“CSSR” – complementary split ring resonator). (See ¶s 48-49 and associated FIGs. 7-9, where a gradient index structure (CSSR) is engineered for beam focusing and steering/deflecting, as shown in FIG. 9. Any form of luminous flux, such as laser emission, indicates delivery/extraction of optical power from the system.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine Suleski with widely applicable teachings of Smith, in order to realize and accurately control the complex inhomogeneous materials with low loss, designable properties, and easily accessible parameters (Smith ¶ 88).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suleski in view of Li1, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Tenmyo (US 20050117318 A1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Modified Suleski does not disclose wherein the first and/or second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient comprises a Fresnel implementation of a complex dielectric-function gradient.
Suleski and Tenmyo commonly relate to nanocomposite optics.
Tenmyo discloses (see FIG. 15, ¶s 159-163) wherein the first and/or second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient (i.e. of optical member 54) comprises a Fresnel implementation (“Fresnel lens surface”) of a complex dielectric-function gradient. (See also ¶s 15-17, 42-46, regarding nanoparticles and refractive index (and hence dielectric function) gradients. Examiner notes further that optical element surface shapes, in addition to concentration of nanoparticles, directly influence the real-space profile/gradients of the refractive index, and hence dielectric function.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Suleski with teachings of Tenmyo, in order to achieve miniaturization and efficient use of space, light efficiency, simplified shape for easier/cheaper manufacturing, as well as good transparency, heat resistance, and mechanical properties for the optical elements/members (Tenmyo ¶s 15-17, 42-52, 164-167).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suleski in view of Li1, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Suleski further discloses wherein the first and/or second complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient (i.e. of optical elements 12 and/or 14) comprises a freeform implementation of a complex volumetric dielectric-function gradient. (See ¶ 23: “optical elements 12 and 14 may have predetermined surface shapes (either regular or freeform), … these surface shapes are selected to generate a predetermined variety of output energy distributions or irradiance profiles”. Examiner notes further that optical element surface shapes directly influence the real-space profile/gradients of the refractive index, and hence dielectric function.)
Modified Suleski does not explicitly disclose that the freeform is a segmented freeform. However, Examiner notes the claimed invention only slightly differs from Suleski’s in the freeform shape (i.e. segmented rather than whole freeforms.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Suleski by segmenting the already disclosed freeforms, in order to select shapes that generate desired/predetermined output energy distributions or irradiance profiles (Suleski ¶ 23) – since it has been held that changes in size or shape are generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suleski in view of Li1, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Cahall and Leidig (US 20050094292 A1, hereinafter “Cahall”).
Regarding claim 20, modified Suleski discloses the optic of claim 1.
Modified Suleski does not disclose the further comprising at least one opaque baffle arranged between the first and second optical elements.
Suleski and Cahall commonly relate to nanocomposite optics.
Cahall discloses (FIG. 1, ¶s 34-37) the further comprising at least one opaque baffle (50) arranged between the first and second optical elements (lenses E1 and E2).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Suleski with teachings of Cahall, in order to reduce incident light ray angles in optical systems having compact designs, improve illumination uniformity/performance of optical elements which depend on such incident angles, and also (in sensing/imaging applications) ensure light is captured by the appropriate pixels (Cahall ¶s 8-10).
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights