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 § 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) 15-17 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter (GB 2513884 A, hereinafter "Carter") in view of Koyoma (10.1109/ULTSYM.2010.5935605, hereinafter “Koyoma”).
Regarding claim 15, Carter teaches a method comprising: producing an acoustic field from a first transducer having a first orientation and a second transducer having a second orientation, wherein the first transducer is positioned relative to the second transducer; (see page 7, line 20-29; page 16, line 25-27: producing an acoustic field, comprising an array of transducers having known relative positions and orientations. An array of transducers is arranged to produce the acoustic field, comprising one or more transducers in any suitable configuration, for example one or more two dimensional arrays arranged in parallel. Hence, a first and second transducer producing an acoustic field, having orientations where they are positioned relative to another.)
defining a first control point relative to the first transducer and the second transducer; (see page 7, line 24-29: compute control points, which each have a known spatial relationship relative to the array of transducers, which may be relative to a first and second transducer.)
defining a second control point relative to the first transducer and the second transducer; (see page 7, line 24-29: compute control points, which each have a known spatial relationship relative to the array of transducers, which may be relative to a first and second transducer.)
producing an acoustic radiation force at the first control point and the second control point using the first transducer and the second transducer, (see page 16, line 11-21: produce an acoustic radiation force at the control points)
However, Carter is silent to wherein the acoustic radiation force causes the shape of an object within the acoustic field to be modified to be one of a convex shape and a concave shape
Koyoma teaches wherein the acoustic radiation force causes the shape of an object within the acoustic field to be modified to be one of a convex shape and a concave shape. (see Fig. 1, page 1-3: an acoustic force from a speaker to control an object such as a liquid lens, which would deform the cylindrical cell lens into a convex or concave shape in response to a positive or negative acoustic pressure from an acoustic field.)
Carter and Koyoma are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of mechanical manipulation, involving acoustic radiation forces through electric or acoustic means to deform (acoustic) lenses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of an acoustic energy to deform a lens of Koyoma to Carter teaching the speaker array with control points for generating an acoustic force on an object in order to adjust the acoustic intensity and control points of the array by changing the curvature of the liquid interface at a high speed.
Regarding claim 16, Carter is silent to a liquid-based lens.
However, Koyoma teaches the object is a liquid-based lens. (see Fig. 1: liquid based lens)
Carter and Koyoma are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of mechanical manipulation, involving acoustic radiation forces through electric or acoustic means to deform (acoustic) lenses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Koyoma to Carter in order to adjust the acoustic intensity and control points of the array by changing the curvature of the liquid interface at a high speed and allows reshaping of the liquid based lens’ curvature without mechanical moving parts.
Regarding claim 17, Carter is silent to the acoustic radiation force is calibrated to modify the shape of the liquid-based lens so as to alter the optical effects of the liquid-based lens.
Koyoma teaches the acoustic radiation force is calibrated to modify the shape of the liquid-based lens so as to alter the optical effects of the liquid-based lens. (see Fig. 1, page 2-3, IV. "Lens Performance": liquid based lens - acoustic energy, or radiation force, acting on the interface will be deformed, or altered, from the deficiency of an optical lens and the misalignment between the optical and sound axes.)
Carter and Koyoma are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of mechanical manipulation, involving acoustic radiation forces through electric or acoustic means to deform (acoustic) lenses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Koyoma to Carter in order to adjust the acoustic intensity and control points of the array by changing the curvature of the liquid interface at a high speed and allows reshaping of the liquid based lens’ curvature without mechanical moving parts.
Regarding claim 22-24, the claimed limitations are a system claim directly corresponding to the method claim 15-17 respectively; therefore, is rejected for the significant similar reasons as claim 15-17 as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 4-6 of applicant’s remarks, applicant mainly argues that the art of record fails to disclose a distribution of control points (recited as a first and a second control point) to controllably modify the shape of an object into a specific geometry, such as a convex or a concave shape. The Examiner disagrees and maintains as pointed out in the rejection above, Carter in view of Koyoma clearly teaches a method comprising: producing an acoustic field from a first transducer having a first orientation and a second transducer having a second orientation, wherein the first transducer is positioned relative to the second transducer; (see page 7, line 20-29; page 16, line 25-27: producing an acoustic field, comprising an array of transducers having known relative positions and orientations. An array of transducers is arranged to produce the acoustic field, comprising one or more transducers in any suitable configuration, for example one or more two dimensional arrays arranged in parallel. Hence, a first and second transducer producing an acoustic field, having orientations where they are positioned relative to another.)
defining a first control point relative to the first transducer and the second transducer; (see page 7, line 24-29: compute control points, which each have a known spatial relationship relative to the array of transducers, which may be relative to a first and second transducer.)
defining a second control point relative to the first transducer and the second transducer; (see page 7, line 24-29: compute control points, which each have a known spatial relationship relative to the array of transducers, which may be relative to a first and second transducer.)
producing an acoustic radiation force at the first control point and the second control point using the first transducer and the second transducer, (see page 16, line 11-21: produce an acoustic radiation force at the control points)
However, Carter is silent to wherein the acoustic radiation force causes the shape of an object within the acoustic field to be modified to be one of a convex shape and a concave shape
Koyoma teaches wherein the acoustic radiation force causes the shape of an object within the acoustic field to be modified to be one of a convex shape and a concave shape. (see Fig. 1, page 1-3: an acoustic force from a speaker to control an object such as a liquid lens, which would deform the cylindrical cell lens into a convex or concave shape in response to a positive or negative acoustic pressure from an acoustic field.)
Carter and Koyoma are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of mechanical manipulation, involving acoustic radiation forces through electric or acoustic means to deform (acoustic) lenses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of an acoustic energy to deform a lens of Koyoma to Carter teaching the speaker array with control points for generating an acoustic force on an object in order to adjust the acoustic intensity and control points of the array by changing the curvature of the liquid interface at a high speed.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. Additionally, the motivation to combine does not have to be the same as the applicant's. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of the reference may be bodily incorporated into the other to produce the claimed subject matter but simply what the references make obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In Re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, (CCPA 1969); In re Richman 165 USPQ 509, (CCPA 1970); In re Beckum, 169 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1971); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 218 USPQ 385.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANNABELLE KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/ANNABELLE KANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695