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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on October 29, 2025, is acknowledged. Applicant does not provide any arguments to traverse the restriction requirement (dated October 1, 2025), the election therefore is deemed as election without traverse.
Claims 16-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 29, 2025.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-15 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 “a task panning module” recited in claim 1 that is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be the “task”.
The phase “a closed-loop wavefront shaping system” recited in claims 1 and 13 is confusing and indefinite since the claims fail to disclose any features or method steps to define or achieve the “closed-loop” feature. It is therefore not clear what is considered to be the “closed-loop”.
The phrase “the system is implemented on” recited in claims 1 and 13, that is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear if the system is implemented on the at last one computing device, the at least one sensor or the at least one display device? It is also not clear if the shaping system is “implemented on” the computing device, the sensor and/or display device, or the shaping system comprises the computing device, the sensor and/or display device. The scopes of the claims are therefore unclear.
The phrase “feedback signals” recited in claims 1 and 13 that is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be these “feedback signals” and where or how do these feedback signals come from? Furthermore, it is not clear what is the logical relationship between the “feedback signals” and rest of the elements of the shaping system to definitely define the operation of the system.
The phrase “a DMD” recited in claims 4 and 5 is confusing and indefinite since it does not clear how does the DMD logically and structurally related to the rest elements of the system. The phrase “i1”, the phrase “i2”, the phrase “j1” and the phrase “j2” recited in claims 4 and 5 are confusing and indefinite.
The phrase “the target wavefront on DMD” recited in claims 4 and 5 is confusing and indefinite since it lacks proper antecedent basis from the based claim. Furthermore, it is not clear what considered to be this target wavefront and it is not clear how does the Lee holography solved by the equations claimed relate to the closed-loop wavefront shaping system.
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) 1-12 and 13-15 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).
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.
Chen et al teaches, with regard to claims 1 and 13, 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 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 also 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 calculating 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 2, and 4-5, 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 3, 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 6, 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 7 and 8, 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 9, 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 10, 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 11 and 14, 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 12 and 15, Chen et al teaches that the displaying device may alternatively include a deformable mirror (DM, please see column 8, lines 58-60).
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