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 December 12, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1-4, 8-10, and 13-15.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
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) 1-4, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the patent issued to Sekine (PN. 6,417,940) in view of the patent issued to Swanson (PN. 5,344,447).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Sekine teaches a phase type computer hologram (12, Figure 6, and Figures 1-3, 5, and 7) that serves as the diffractive optical element including a plurality of phase values (with regard to amendment), wherein the diffractive optical element comprises a substrate (1) including a plurality of regions (6, Figure 5) serves as the plurality of unit cells arrayed across the substrate, wherein each unit cell (6) of the plurality of unit cells includes N x N phase elements (Figures 1-3), N of the N x N phase elements is each unit cell are characterized by one of a set of N phase values, wherein the N phase values in the set of N phase values are equal to m*(p/N) wherein N is greater than 1, (such as equals to 4) and m = 1…N.
In particularly, Sekine teaches an example of the diffractive optical element may comprise a plurality of unit cells that each unit cell includes 4 x 4 phase elements, which means N = 4. The 4 x 4 phase elements in each unit cell are characterized by a set of 4 phase values, wherein the set of 4 phase values are equal to 0 or 2p, p/2, p, and 3p/2, which is defined as m*(2p/4), with m assumes values 1, 2, 3, or 4, (please see column 5, line 33-55).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claim. It however does not teach explicitly that the diffractive optical element is operable to generate a multi-foci beam.
Swanson in the same field of endeavor teaches a diffractive optical element (10) that may be designed to generate a beam with multiple focal points (please see Figure 1). It is therefore either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Swanson to make diffractive optical element of Sekine to generate a multi-foci beam.
With regard to amended claim 2, Sekine teaches that the incremental phase values is p/2, and is 2p/4, wherein N assumes the value of 4. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that N also may assume value 5, such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art since such modification only involves designing the factor N to assume a different number such as 5 for the benefit of allowing the diffractive optical element to have desired properties.
With regard to amended claim 3, Sekine teaches that the N phase values correspond to an incremental thickness or depth of the phase element, (please see Figures 1 and 2).
With regard to amended claim 4, it is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make the N phase values in the set of N phase values be equally assigned to foci of the multi-foci beam.
With regard to amended claims 8 and 9, Sekine teaches that the plurality of unit cells (region 6, Figure 3) are arrayed in a two dimensional pattern and it is within general level of skill to make the pattern being a periodic pattern across the substrate for the benefit of allowing the diffractive optical element to have desired properties. With regard to amended claim 9, for the unit cells to be arranged in a periodic pattern, the locations of phase elements characterized by a specific phase value are constant in each unit cell.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine and Swanson (‘447) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of the patent issued to patent issued to Swanson et al (PN. 5,218,471).
The phase type computer hologram or diffractive optical element taught by Sekine in combination with the teachings of Swanson (‘447) as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 5, this reference does not teach explicitly that the substrate comprises fused silica. Swanson et al (‘471) in the same field of endeavor teaches a substrate for a diffractive optical element wherein the substrate may comprise a fused silica, (please see column 7, line 9). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to be motivated at time of invention to use an art well-known material to fabricate the diffractive optical element since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine and Swanson (‘447) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of the patent issued to patent issued to Kato (PN. 4,037,918).
The phase type computer hologram or diffractive optical element taught by Sekine in combination with the teachings of Swanson (‘447) as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, Sekine taches that the phase value of each phase elements may be determined by an optimization process based on optimizing desired optical properties of the diffractive optical element or computer hologram, (please see Figure 4). This means it is implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art that the set of phase values may be distributed differently in at least two of the plurality of unit cells or be distributed randomly in the at least two of the plurality of unit cells. Kato also in the same field of endeavor teaches a diffractive optical element wherein the set of phase values of the unit cells may be different or randomly distributed for at least two of the plurality of unit cells, (please see Figures 5b. 5c and 6c). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kato et al to modify the diffractive optical element or the phase type computer hologram to have phase values differently distributed or randomly distributed in at least two unit cells for the benefit of making the diffractive optical element to have the desired property.
Claim(s) 10-13, 15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent issued to Sekine (PN. 6,417,940) in view of the US patent application publication by Wang et al (US 2006/0082882 A1).
Claim 12 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Sekine teaches with regard to claim 12, a method for generating beam wherein the method comprises the step of providing a phase type computer hologram (12, Figure 6 and Figure 1-3, 5 and 7) that serves as the diffractive optical element including a plurality of regions (6, Figure 5) serves as the plurality of unit cells, wherein each unit cell (6) of the plurality of unit cells includes N x N phase elements of M phase elements (Figures 1-3), wherein M (equals to N x N) is greater than N, and the phase elements of each unit cell of the plurality of unit cells are assigned a phase value equal to m*(p/N) with m = 1…N, using ratio 1:2:…:N-1:N.
In particularly, Sekine teaches an example of the diffractive optical element may comprise a plurality of unit cells that each unit cell includes 4 x 4 or 16 phase elements, which means N = 4 and M = 16. The 4 x 4 phase elements in each unit cell are characterized by a set of 4 phase values, wherein the set of 4 phase values are equal to 0 or 2p, p/2, p, and 3p/2, which is defined as m*(2p/4), with m assumes values 1, 2, 3, or 4, (please see column 5, line 33-55).
Sekine further teaches that the method comprises the step of receiving an incident beam of light propagating in axial direction, directing the incident beam of light to pass through the diffractive optical element and generating beam of light along the axial direction, (please see Figure 6).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claim, it however does not teach explicitly that the generated beam of light is a multi-foci beam with N foci.
Wang et al teaches a method for generating a narrow beam, (beam of light of extended depth of focus, please see Figure 1A) that is comprised of a step of providing a diffractive optical element (DOE, 103, Figure 1A), step of receiving an incident beam of light propagating in an axial direction, step of directing the incident beam of light to pass through the diffractive optical element and generating a plurality of foci along the axial direction to form the narrow beam or needle-shaped beam.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Wang et al to modify the method of Sekine to specifically generate beam of light with multiple focal points for the benefit of extending the depth of focus of the diffractive optical element.
With regard to claim 11, Wang et al teaches to provide a refractive lens (104) and directing the incident beam of light to pass through the refractive lens, (please see Figure 1A). Although this reference does not specifically identify the refractive lens is an objective lens, such modification is considered to be intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Madham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
With regard to claim 12, Wang et al teaches that the incident beam of light passes through the refractive or objective lens (104, Figure 1A) after the incident beam of light passes through the diffractive optical element (103).
With regard to amended claim 13, as shown in Figure 3B of Wang et al, the multi-foci beam is characterized by a beam intensity for each foci that increases as a function of propagation distance.
With regard to amended claim 15, as shown in Figure 3B of Wang et al, the adjacent foci of the N foci are separated by an equal interval.
With regard to claim 17, Wang et al teaches that the focusing of the incident beam of light using a lens (104, Figure 1A) after the incident beam of light has passed through the diffractive optical element, (103).
With regard to claim 18, although these references do not teach explicitly to include scanning the incident beam of light after the incident beam of light has passed through the diffractive optical element, however such feature is considered as intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Madham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim(s) 16 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine and Wang et al as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US patent issued to Swanson et al (PN. 5,218,471).
The method of generating narrow or needle-shape beam taught by Sekine in combination with the teachings of Wang et al as described in claim 10 has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to amended claim 16, this reference does not teach explicitly that the diffractive optical element comprises fused silica. Swanson et al (‘471) in the same field of endeavor teaches a substrate for a diffractive optical element wherein the substrate may comprise a fused silica, (please see column 7, line 9). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to be motivated at time of invention to use an art well-known material to fabricate the diffractive optical element since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine and Wang et al as applied to claim 10 and further in view of the patent issued to patent issued to Kato (PN. 4,037,918).
The method of generating narrow or needle-shape beam taught by Sekine in combination with the teachings of Wang et al as described in claim 10 has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to amended claim 14, these references do not teach explicitly that the phase elements of each unit cell of the plurality of unit cells are distributed randomly in at least two of the plurality of cells. With regard to claim 19, these references do not teach explicitly that the different phase values corresponding to each of the plurality of phase elements are distributed differently in at least two of the plurality of unit cells. With regard to claim 20, these references also do not teach that the plurality of cells formed a two dimensional array.
Kato also in the same field of endeavor teaches a diffractive optical element that comprises a plurality of unit cells formed in a two dimensional array, (please see Figures 5b, 5c, and 6c), wherein the set of phase values of the unit cells may be differently or randomly distributed for at least two of the plurality of unit cells, (please see Figures 5b, 5c and 6c). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kato et al to modify the diffractive optical element to have phase values differently distributed in at least two unit cells for the benefit of making the diffractive optical element to have the desired property.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 12, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended claims and features that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
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