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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on July 8, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has canceled claims 1-29 and has newly added claims 30-44.
Claims 30-44 remain pending in this application.
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 30-44 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.
The phrase “task planning module” recited in claim 30 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be the task.
The phrase “generate and update digital hologram based on feedback signals” recited in claim 30 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be the feedback signals and how to generate the feedback signals.
The phrase “optical wavefront shaping result” recited in claim 30 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be the wavefront shaping result.
Claim 30 recites both the “control module” and the “computing device” “to generate digital hologram” that is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear the digital hologram is being generated by which component?
Claim 30 recites “parallel computing module”, “task planning module”, “control module”, “computing device”, ”sensor” and “display device” that are confusing and indefinite since claim 30 fail to provide logical and structural relationships among the various components recited to give a definite and operable device or system.
Claim 30 recites “digital hologram”, “feedback signal” and “wavefront shaping result” but fail to provide a logical relationship among the various terms to make the system a definite and operable system. The feedback signal needed to be explicitly defined in order for the close-loop feedback control system to be operable.
The phrase “to perform Lee holography” recited in claim 31 is confusing and indefinite since Lee holography is a name of a type of hologram. It is not clear if the phrase means “to perform the calculation of a Lee holography”.
The phrase “a plurality of hologram frames” recited in claim 35 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be these hologram frames and how to define these plurality of hologram frames?
The phrases “a computing module”, “a memory management module”, “computing device”, “sensor” and “display device” recited in claim 43 are confusing and indefinite sine the claim fails to provide logical and structural relationships among the various components to define a definite, structural, logical and operable system. Specifically, it is not clear how do the computing module and the memory management module relates to the computing device.
The phrase “to detect feedback signals” recited in claim 43 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be these feedback signals and how are they generated?
Claim 43 recites “a close-loop wavefront shaping system” yet it is not clear how does the body of the claim relate to “a close-loop wavefront shaping system”.
The phrases “stability”, “precision” and “accuracy” recite in claim 44 are confusing and indefinite since it is not clear these phases are compared and defined with respect to what?
The scopes of the claims are confusing and indefinite which make the examination of the claims very difficult. Applicant is respectfully required to clarify and correct the various indefiniteness to make the claims in comply with the requirements of 35 USC 112, first and second paragraphs.
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.
Claim(s) 30-41 and 42-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the patent issued to Chen et al (PN. 10,401,603) in view of the Chinese Patent issued to Wang et al (CN115145024).
Claims 30-44 have been newly added to necessitate the new grounds of rejections.
The claims are rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. These claims can only be examined in the broadest interpretation.
The broadest interpretation of the claims is as follows: a system comprises computing device for generating digital hologram, the calculated digital hologram is them displayed on a display device. An incoming coherent light is modulated by the displayed digital hologram to generate a wavefront with specific beam shape. The generated wavefront shape is compared with a target wavefront shape to produce a feedback signal wherein the feedback signal is to be detected by a sensor and send to the control module to control the computing device to generate an updated digital hologram. The system forms a close loop system with iteration steps to update the digital hologram.
Chen et al teaches, with regard to claims 30 and 42, a high speed binary laser beam shaping system that is comprised of a computer generated hologram, (please see the abstract), including calculated a Lee Holography (please see column 6, line 15), that serves as the parallel computing module. A computer generated hologram is implicitly calculated by a computer or computing device, which means the parallel computing module is implicitly implemented on a computing device.
Chen et al teaches the high-speed binary laser beam shaping system further comprises a digital micromirror device (DMD, Figure 1) serves as the display device for displaying the computer generated hologram, a laser light source (101, Figure 1) for generating a light beam that illuminates the computer generated hologram displayed on the DMD to generate scanning light that is detected by camera (CCD) serves as the sensor. Chen et al teaches that the computer generated hologram displayed on the DMD is capable of modulating the incident coherent light and therefore shaping the wavefront of the light.
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly to include the sensor for detecting feedback signals. Since the claims fail to disclose what considered to be the “feedback signals” it can only be examined in the broadest interpretation. Chen et al does teaches explicitly that the camera or sensor, the computing device or computer and the display device ae operatively coupled to each other. Chen et al does not teach explicitly that the wavefront shaping system is a closed-loop wavefront shaping system. However, this feature is recited only in the preamble and does not seem to limit the structure of the claims, (please see MPEP 2111.02).
Wang et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an adjusting and controlling system for shaping laser beam comprises a digital micromirror (DMD, 5 Figure 1) that displays a beam shaping phase diagram for shaping an incident laser light, wherein the shaped laser beam is then detected by a CCD camera (7). By comparing and matching the detected shaped light beam with target image, a computer (8) is used to iteratively calculate the optimized phase information for shaping the laser beam, (please see paragraphs [0006] and [0008] to [0020]). The iteration algorithm implicitly includes a closed-loop process using detected feedback signals (i.e. the shaped light beam or wavefront by phase information on DMD at each iteration step).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Wang et al to modify the laser beam shaping system taught by Chen et al to explicitly include a closed-loop iteration calculation steps to optimize the phase hologram displayed at the DMD for shaping the wavefront of the light. It is further implicitly true that a computer may include “task module” for controlling the iteration and shaping process.
With regard to claim 13, it is implicitly true that a computer generated hologram taught by Chen et al, is generated by using a computer generated hologram algorithm. Furthermore, a digital micromirror device implicitly includes a memory or memory management module that is configured to use or reuse holograms that have been loaded to the memory of the display device and coordinate the memory usage between computing device and displaying device.
With regard to claims 31, and 33, Chen et al teaches that the parallel computing module comprises Lee holography, (please see column 5, line 62 to column 6, line 20). The Lee Holography is a binary hologram that can be calculated and be programmed on the pixels of the DMD.
With regard to claim 32, Chen et al teaches that the displaying device comprises digital micromirror device (DMD, please see column 1, line 63, also 103 of Figure 1).
With regard to claim 34, the implicitly iteration and calculation steps concerning the pixels of the display device are included.
With regard to claim 35, it is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to accelerate the computation of hologram by arranging multiple frames into a single computing task.
With regard to claims 36 and 37, in light of the teachings of Wang et al the computer may provide task module to control and to optimize the performance of the system (i.e. optimizing the phase information or phase hologram displayed on the DMD). The holograms may be determined to be computed either individually or in batch as desired.
With regard to claim 38, Chen et al in light of Wang et al teaches computer is used to calculate the Lee Holography or the phase information, wherein a computer in general comprises a central processing unit (CPU). Both Chen et al and Wang et al also teach that the sensor is a CCD camera, (please see column 2, line 25 of Chen et al and paragraph [0027] of Wang et al).
With regard to claim 39, a digital micromirror device (DMD) implicitly includes a memory or memory management module that is configured to use or reuse holograms that have been loaded to the memory of the display device and coordinate the memory usage between computing device and displaying device.
With regard to claims 40 and 43, it is implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make the computer taught by Wang et al to further include at least one control module to improve the stability, precision and accuracy of the system and accomplish the task at high speed.
With regard to claims 41 and 44, Chen et al teaches that the displaying device may alternatively include a deformable mirror (DM, please see column 8, lines 58-60).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly added claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth.
Applicant is respectfully reminded that many issues concerning rejections of claims under 35 USC 112 second paragraph set forth in the previous Office Action have not been fully addressed.
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 AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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 B 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights