DETAILED ACTION
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.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, species 1A, in the reply filed on Aug. 4, 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant amended claim 8 to remove the limitation “placing the mask in physical contact with the target optic”. Applicant stated, as a result of the amendment, claims 1-20 are within the scope of Group IA, and reiterated in the interview on Sept. 17, 2025, claims 1-20 read upon species 1A.
Applicant amended withdrawn claim 26 to depend from claim 1 in the response filed Dec. 11, 2025. Accordingly, since claims 26-28 require the limitations of claim 1, claims 26-28 have been rejoined for examination.
Specification
The amendment to claim 10 filed Dec. 11, 2025 is sufficient for the Examiner to withdraw the objection to specification for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter of claim 10.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes a nomenclature section, specifically [0023], that includes nomenclature for the term “mask”. Applicant has stated “a mask is an element of the system whose properties across its dimensions are varied or patterned in a computationally preprogrammed way to remap, predict, or influence local variations of other elements in an embodiment”. Accordingly, the Examiner is applying this definition of a mask in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, 17-20, 26-28, and 54-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement and written description. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In claim 1, Applicant has claimed generating a mask pattern using a computational remapping process that minimizes a cost function between thermos-mechanical output information and a specification of a surface precision. Applicant has failed to provide details or examples of the cost function, such as what factors are incorporated to minimize cost, what thermo-mechanical output information is required in the cost function or what specifications are required for a specification of surface precision in the cost function. Applicant in Fig. 4, states generic inputs, such as tool spec, part spec, gravity and force spec, and uniform mask information, no details of the run simulation, no details of the cost function inputs, and no details of the thermos-mechanical modeling output, desired stress profile, or desired surface precision. Applicant has failed to provide details or examples of the computational remapping process to generate the mask pattern that minimizes the claimed cost function. Accordingly, there is undue experimentation to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure and there is lack of predictability in the art, and the claimed generating a mask pattern using a computational remapping process are not explained at all or in sufficient detail. Claims 2-4, 7-14, 17-20, and 26-28 depend from claim 1 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the enablement requirement and written description for the same reasons as claim 1.
In claim 54, Applicant claims protecting the target optic with at least one buffer layer combined with claim 5 which includes generating a magnetic field with the heat source, and wherein the mask is an addressable magneto-caloric mask. Fig. 3C and ([0057]) supports a buffer layer 2 using a contact-based mask, Fig. 3D and [0058] supports a buffer layer 2 with a target part layer 1 supported along its edge by a jig, Fig. 3E and [0060] supports a buffer layer 2 on a computationally modulated mold 11 with a precomputed friction structure 8, Figs. 7A, 7B, 7C1, 7D1, 7D2, and 7F and [0067]-[0072] discloses a buffer layer either above the target part layer 1, between the target part layer 1 and mold, or two buffer layers, Fig. 8B discloses a buffer layer with a 3D printed evaporative mask, Fig. 9A and 9B and [0076]-[0077] a buffer layer resting on a mold with friction surfaces 8 programmed onto, and Fig. 11B and [0084] a buffer layer combined with a microwave heat source. The Examiner cannot find support for at least one buffer layer combined with an addressable magneto-caloric mask. If this is in error, please provide paragraph numbers, page number, and/or figures. The Examiner notes, Applicant states original claim 2 provides for support, but the scope of claim 1 is not the same as the scope of claim 5.
In claim 55, Applicant claims protecting the target optic with at least one buffer layer combined with a heating pattern in a metallic slab. The Examiner cannot find support for this combination. If this is in error, please provide paragraph numbers, page number, and/or figures. The Examiner notes, Applicant states original claim 2 provides for support, but the scope of claim 1 is not the same as the scope of claim 6.
Claim 56 claims the method of claim 5 further comprising orienting the target optic so as to be formed in part by a gravitational force, it is unclear to the Examiner where Applicant has the step of orienting combined with an addressable magneto-caloric mask. If this is in error, please provide paragraph numbers, page number, and/or figures. The Examiner notes Applicant states original claim 18 provides for support, but the scope of claim 18/17/1 is not the same as the scope of claim 5.
Claim 57 claims the method of claim 6 further comprising orienting the target optic so as to be formed in part by a gravitational force, it is unclear to the Examiner where Applicant has the step of orienting combined with a heating pattern in a metallic slab. If this is in error, please provide paragraph numbers, page number, and/or figures. The Examiner notes Applicant states original claim 18 provides for support, but the scope of claim 18/17/1 is not the same as the scope of claim 6.
Claim 58 claims the method of claim 15 further comprising orienting the target optic so as to be formed in part by a gravitational force, it is unclear to the Examiner where Applicant has the step of orienting combined with an acoustic array. If this is in error, please provide paragraph numbers, page number, and/or figures. The Examiner notes Applicant states original claim 18 provides for support, but the scope of claim 18/17/1 is not the same as the scope of claim 15.
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.
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed Dec. 11, 2025 to fix 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues with claims 7, 10, 13-14, and 19. Due to this amendment the 112(b) issues identified previously for claims 7, 13-14, and 19 are withdrawn. Additionally, due to the claim interpretation of “a mask” discussed above, the Examiner withdraws the issue with claim 10 identified previously.
However, the amendment to the claims filed Dec. 11, 2025 has triggered new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussed below.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, 17-20, and 26-28 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.
In claim 1, Applicant has claimed generating a mask pattern using a computational remapping process that minimizes a cost function between thermo-mechanical output information and a specification of a surface precision. A cost function is typically a mathematical formula used to calculate the total cost of production, and the it is unclear to the Examiner what the metes and bounds are of the cost function, since it is unclear to the Examiner what mathematical formula and what is the scope of thermo-mechanical output information and what specifications are included in a specification of a surface precision. Additionally, it is unclear to the Examiner what is involved in the computational remapping process and how it generates a mask pattern. Accordingly, claim 1 lacks clarity and is indefinite. Claims 2-4, 7-14, 17-20, and 26-28 share dependency from claim 1 and are also indefinite for the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 is/are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter is discussed below. This statement is copied from the non-final rejection dated Sept. 22, 2025.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest, the method of claim 4 (see 6/29/2023 claims) further comprising generating a magnetic field with the heat source, and wherein the mask is an addressable magneto-caloric mask.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method of claim 4 (see 6/29/2023 claims) further comprising driving an alternating current to produce a mask pattern that is a heating pattern in a metallic slab, the heating pattern transferred radiatively to the target optic. The closest prior art FR943974 teaches applying an alternating voltage to metal plates for heating glass, but fails to disclose producing a mask pattern.
Regarding claims 15-16, the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the mask comprises an acoustic array, the method further comprising producing surface waves with the acoustic array that impact frictional forces between the mold and the target optic.
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 LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 6:00am-3:00pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741