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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 2/9/2026.
Amendments to the drawings, to the specification, and to claims 6-7, filed 2/9/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Due to the amendments, all previous drawing objections, specification objections, claim objections, and claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are now withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because they are largely spent levying improper attacks against the secondary reference Yu.
For example, on pgs. 11-12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that
“Yu teaches that the probe pulse is […] configured to achieve the machining of micro-holes with a high aspect ratio, which is different from the functions of the claimed pulse laser regulation assembly”– Remarks pg. 12.
This is entirely irrelevant to the Non-Final Rejection, however, which does not rely on Yu to perform the claimed holographic-imaging function. Indeed, a basic review of the actual rejection of record reveals that the primary reference, Fan, was applied towards the claimed holographic image formation (Non-Final Rejection, ¶ 14.E), and that Yu was incorporated simply to demonstrate that the claimed laser-regulation methods (i.e. controlling time delay, wavelengths/frequencies) were already known and practiced in the laser arts (Non-Final Rejection, ¶ 17) – a point which Applicant’s own Remarks confirm:
“Yu teaches that the probe pulse is regulated by a delay line to generate a time difference and frequency-doubled” – Remarks pg. 12.
Applicant then proceeds with their arguments, determining that:
“Yu neither suggests that the probe pulse and the pump pulse are combined, nor teaches the holographic image” – Remarks, pg. 12
However, Applicant continues to commit the same logical fallacy identified above – namely, failing to properly consider and address the actual evidence of record as applied towards the claimed features. Because, again, a basic inspection of the prior office action shows that – aside from their disclosure of holographic imaging – Fan was also relied on for their disclosure of combining sub-beams (Non-Final Rejection, ¶ 14.D), not Yu.
Evidently, Applicant has neglected to consider the actual relevant teachings of the prior art applied towards the rejection, and has instead raised red herrings by selectively focusing on irrelevant details of Yu, in order to manufacture their arguments against aspects of the rejection for which Yu was not even relied upon. Applicant’s arguments are thus found to be wholly improper and unpersuasive.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan and Han (CN 111239236 A, hereinafter “Fan”) in view of Yu et al (NPL entitled Pump-probe imaging of the fs-ps-ns dynamics during femtosecond laser Bessel, hereinafter “Yu” ).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Fan discloses an air ionization display apparatus (see FIG. 1; ¶s 23-34), comprising:
a pulse laser source (pulse seed source 1-1) configured to generate a pulse laser beam (as described in ¶ 32);
a beam splitter (1-2) configured to split the pulse laser beam into a first sub-beam and a second sub-beam (¶ 25: “Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of the structure of an air ionization display device with two sub-beams”; ¶ 32: “beam splitter 1-2 is disposed… for splitting the pulse beam into multiple sub-beams”);
a pulse laser regulation assembly (time delay lines 2) configured to regulate a time difference between the third sub-beam and the first sub-beam (see also ¶ 38: “time delay lines 2 are used to adjust [i.e. regulate] the pulse time position of the sub-beams so that after the sub-beams are combined by the beam combiner 4, the pulses of the plurality of sub-beams coincide in time”);
(Examiner appreciates that the second/third sub-beams are distinguished by wavelength regulation per claim 1 – details which Fan does not disclose. This deficiency is addressed with Yu below, however, so the second/third sub-beams are used interchangeably here.)
a beam combiner (4) configured to combine the first sub-beam and the third sub-beam that is subject to the delayed emission to obtain a combined beam (¶ 33: “multiple [i.e. first and third] sub-beams are projected onto the beam combiner 4 after transmission and reflection and are merged into a single [i.e. combined] beam”); and
a light field adjustment and control assembly (light field control component 5) configured to adjust and converge the combined beam, and ionize air at a display region to form a holographic image (¶ 33: “The merged by beam combiner 4 [i.e. combined beam] is then projected into the light field control component 5. The light field control component 5 adjusts and aggregates the beam and ionizes the air in the display area 6 to form a real [holographic] image.”).
Fan does not disclose a pulse laser regulation assembly configured to regulate a wavelength of the second sub-beam to obtain a third sub-beam, and regulate a time difference between the third sub-beam and the first sub-beam to delay an emission of the third sub-beam.
Fan and Yu commonly relate to pulsed laser systems.
Yu discloses (see FIG. 1, sec. 2) a pulse laser regulation assembly (delay line with beta barium borate crystal BBO) configured to regulate a time difference between the second sub-beam (probe pulse) and the first sub-beam (pump pulse) to delay an emission of the second sub-beam (sec. 2: “The time delay between the pump and the probe pulse was controlled by an optical delay line in the probe light path”), and regulate a wavelength of the second sub-beam to obtain a third sub-beam (sec. 2: “the probe pulse was frequency doubled by a beta barium borate (BBO) crystal”)
Yu thus addresses all deficiencies of Fan in meeting the claimed features, except that Yu regulates the time difference before the wavelength – i.e. in a reverse order to that which is claimed. However, Examiner notes that whether – a laser beam is (1) delayed then wavelength-modulated as in Yu or (2) wavelength-modulated then delayed as claimed – is practically/ optically inconsequential (or at least, simply accommodated using only basic optical principles). Moreover, any such deviation from the claimed features are easily remedied by a mere rearrangement of parts – e.g. so that the laser encounters Yu’s BBO crystal before their delay
line (see modified FIG. 1 of Yu below).
PNG
media_image1.png
446
1053
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1 of Yu is modified to illustrate a mere rearrangement of parts. The left panel depicts the original figure as reference. In the right panel, placing the BBO crystal before the delay line will ensure that the wavelength is regulated before the time difference.)]
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fan with dual-pulse design features as taught by Yu, in order to have greater control over laser pulses and to exploit natural and well-known (e.g. in laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy) benefits of such dual-pulse systems – e.g. greater absorbance/efficiency of ionizing beams, high plasma brightnesses, etc.
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Fan in view of Yu by rearranging the laser system components to allow for delay adjustments to be made after wavelength-modulation (e.g. for more flexible compensation and accounting for tolerances in wavelength-modulation) – since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Further regarding claim 9, Fan discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 53-58) obtaining brightness information of the holographic image, and controlling (via controller 7 with computer 9) the pulse laser regulation assembly (time delay lines 2) and the light field adjustment and control assembly (light field control unit 5) based on the brightness information of the holographic image to enable a brightness of the holographic image to meet a predetermined condition. (note:
¶ 54 describing “real-time control… of each module of the air ionization display device” – i.e. real-time feedback which must be based on instant/obtained information
¶s 57-58: “light field control component 5 comprising a galvanometer component, a lens component, and a spatial light modulator”, “The galvanometer component... controlling the illumination path of the beam [i.e. distribution of light/brightness]”, "The spatial light modulator... achieves the purpose of light wave modulation by modulating parameters such as the amplitude [i.e. brightness]"
¶ 60 discussing how "The zoom lens[of light field control unit 5's lens assembly] can adjust... according to the imaging requirements [i.e. according to a predetermined condition for the holographic image]" and reiterating that "The computer actively [i.e. based on instant/obtained information] controls the spatial light modulator, galvanometer assembly and lens assembly to adjust the position of the laser ionization point and the pixels of the displayed image according to the image to be displayed [i.e. according to a predetermined condition for the holographic image]").
Regarding claim 2, modified Fan discloses the air ionization display apparatus according to claim 1.
Fan also discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 53-58) the further comprising: a controller (controller 7 with computer 9) connected to the pulse laser source (pulse seed source 1-1), the pulse laser regulation assembly (time delay lines 2), and the light field adjustment and control assembly (light field control unit 5), and configured to control laser outputted by the pulse laser source (pulse seed source 1-1), the pulse laser regulation assembly (time delay lines 2), and the light field adjustment and control assembly (light field control unit 5) based on brightness information of the holographic image (note:
¶ 54 describing “real-time control… of each module of the air ionization display device” – i.e. real-time feedback based on instant information
¶s 57-58: “light field control component 5 comprising a galvanometer component, a lens component, and a spatial light modulator”, “The galvanometer component... controlling the illumination path of the beam [i.e. distribution of light/brightness]”, "The spatial light modulator... achieves the purpose of light wave modulation by modulating parameters such as the amplitude [i.e. brightness]"
¶ 60 discussing how "The zoom lens[of light field control unit 5's lens assembly] can adjust... according to the imaging requirements [i.e. for the holographic image]" and reiterating that "The computer actively [i.e. based on instant information] controls the spatial light modulator, galvanometer assembly and lens assembly to adjust the position of the laser ionization point and the pixels of the displayed image according to the image to be displayed [i.e. for the holographic image]").
Regarding claim 3, modified Fan discloses the air ionization display apparatus according to claim 1.
Yu further discloses (see FIG. 1, modified above, sec. 2) wherein the pulse laser regulation assembly (delay line with beta barium borate crystal BBO) comprises:
a pulse laser regulator (BBO) configured to regulate the wavelength of the second sub-beam to obtain the third sub-beam (sec. 2: “the probe pulse was frequency doubled by a beta barium borate (BBO) crystal”); and
an optical delay line configured to regulate the time difference between the third sub-beam (probe pulse) and the first sub-beam (pump pulse) to delay the emission of the third sub-beam (probe pulse)(sec. 2: “The time delay between the pump and the probe pulse was controlled by an optical delay line in the probe light path.”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Fan discloses the air ionization display apparatus according to claim 1.
Fan further discloses (see ¶s 53-58) wherein the light field adjustment and control assembly (light field control component 5 “comprising a galvanometer component, a lens component…”) comprises:
an adjustment unit (galvanometer component/assembly) configured to perform a direction adjustment on the combined beam;
a focusing unit (lens component/assembly’s flat-field focusing lens) configured to focus the combined beam subject to the direction adjustment in the display region, and ionize the air at a position of a focal point to form an image (¶ 57: “the beam... is projected onto the lens assembly, which focuses the beam. Once the beam is concentrated at the focal point of the lens assembly,... the high-power laser ionizes air molecules to form luminous bright spots, which then form the real image”); and
a zoom unit (lens assembly’s zoom lens) disposed between the adjustment unit (galvanometer assembly) and the focusing unit (flat-field focusing lens), and configured to adjust a divergence angle of a beam emitted by the adjustment unit (galvanometer assembly) and adjust a depth position of the focal point, to display the holographic image (¶s 59-60: "The zoom lens is located between the flat-field focusing lens and the galvanometer assembly", "The zoom lens can adjust the distance between the focal point and the zoom lens", "After passing through the zoom lens and the flat-field focusing lens,... a high-power laser ionizes air molecules to form a bright spot").
Regarding claim 10, modified Fan discloses the control method for the air ionization display apparatus according to claim 9.
Fan also discloses the further comprising, subsequent to said controlling (via controller 7 with computer 9) the pulse laser regulation assembly (time delay lines 2) and the light field adjustment and control assembly (light field control unit 5) based on the brightness information of the holographic image (– as addressed in claim 9): controlling the pulse laser source (pulse seed source 1-1) to output a lowest-energy pulse laser beam having a highest allowable repetition frequency and meeting an air ionization threshold. (Note:
¶ 53: "controller 7 can also control the pulse seed source 1-1"
throughout Fan's disclosure -- e.g. in ¶s 12, 45-46, 57 -- consideration is repeatedly given, and reference is repeatedly made, to beams meeting the ionization thresholds. Per ¶ 57: "… the power density increases, reaching the power threshold for ionization"
¶ 56 establishes that the ranges for "the pulse energy is 10μJ-100mJ, and the pulse repetition frequency is 50Hz-10MHz".
for fixed power, repetition rate is inversely proportional to energy – thus, the lowest-energy pulse must correspond to the highest repetition frequency)
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Yu, as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Wei et al (CN 209746260 U, hereinafter “Wei”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Fan discloses the air ionization display apparatus according to claim 3.
Yu further discloses (see annotated FIG. 1 below) wherein the optical delay line comprises:
two total reflection mirrors perpendicular to each other, the total reflection mirrors being configured to reflect the third sub-beam; and
a motorized translation stage configured to drive the total reflection mirrors to move in an incident direction of the third sub-beam.
PNG
media_image3.png
585
883
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1 of Yu is annotated to highlight optical delay line features)]Fan further discloses the third sub-beam emitted by the pulse laser regulator (time delay lines 2) propagating towards the beam combiner (4) (See FIG. 1; all sub-beams converge at the end of the circuit at beam combiner 4)
Modified Fan does not disclose wherein the optical delay line comprises a cube-corner prism comprising the two total reflection mirrors
Fan and Wei commonly relate to optical delay lines.
Wei discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 23-30) wherein the optical delay line (“optical path folding corner prism” or “optical path return angle cone prism assembly”) comprises a cube-corner prism comprising the two total reflection mirrors (¶ 24: “optical path return angle cone prisms, which lengthens the delay path of the optical signal”; ¶ 27: “The above structure realizes three reflections of light in the optical path reflection angle cone prism combination, and a relatively ideal optical path delay path is obtained through a simple structure.”)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Fan with Wei, in order to achieve optical path delay structure with a small size, low cost, and simple structure (Wei Abstract, ¶ 24).
Regarding claim 5, modified Fan discloses the air ionization display apparatus according to claim 3.
Yu further discloses (see annotated FIG. 1 above, provided with claim 4) a first reflective mirror and a second reflective mirror, the first reflective mirror being configured to reflect the third sub-beam emitted by the pulse laser regulator (BBO) to one of the two total reflection mirrors, and the second reflective mirror being configured to reflect the third sub-beam emitted by the other one of the two total reflection mirrors.
Fan further discloses the third sub-beam propagating towards the beam combiner (4) (See FIG. 1; all sub-beams converge at the end of the circuit at beam combiner 4)
Modified Fan does not disclose wherein the optical delay line comprises:
a first cube-corner prism and a second cube-corner prism, each of the first cube-corner prism and the second cube-corner prism comprising two total reflection mirrors perpendicular to each other, and one of the two total reflection mirrors of the first cube-corner prism being disposed directly opposite to one of the two total reflection mirrors of the second cube-corner prism;
a motorized translation stage configured to drive at least one of the first cube-corner prism and the second cube-corner prism to move in an incident direction of the third sub-beam; and
Fan and Wei commonly relate to optical delay lines.
Wei discloses (see FIG. 1, annotated below, and ¶s 23-30) wherein the optical delay line comprises:
a first cube-corner prism (first corner cube prism 3) and a second cube-corner prism (second corner cube prism 4), each of the first cube-corner prism (first corner cube prism 3) and the second cube-corner prism (second corner cube prism 4) comprising two total reflection mirrors perpendicular to each other, and one of the two total reflection mirrors of the first cube-corner prism (first corner cube prism 3) being disposed directly opposite to one of the two total reflection mirrors of the second cube-corner prism (second corner cube prism 4);
PNG
media_image5.png
517
755
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1 of Wei is annotated to highlight various features)]a motorized translation stage (displacement component) configured to drive at least one of the first cube-corner prism (first corner cube prism 3) and the second cube-corner prism (second corner cube prism 4) to move in an incident direction (A-B direction) of the third sub-beam
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Fan with Wei, in order to achieve optical path delay structure with a small size, low cost, and simple structure (Wei Abstract, ¶ 24).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Yu, as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Xu and Shen (CN 106735873 A, hereinafter “Xu”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Fan discloses the air ionization display apparatus according to claim 6.
Fan further discloses (see ¶s 53-58) wherein:
the adjustment unit (galvanometer component/assembly) comprises a galvanometer assembly, and the zoom unit (zoom lens) comprises a zoom lens assembly.
Fan does not explicitly disclose that the galvanometer assembly comprises two groups of reflective mirrors that are perpendicular to each other or that the focusing unit comprises an f-theta assembly.
Fan and Xu commonly relate to pulsed laser systems.
Xu discloses (see FIG. 3, ¶ 41) that the galvanometer assembly comprises two groups of reflective mirrors that are perpendicular to each other ( “two sets of orthogonal first rotating mirror galvanometer 41 and second rotating mirror galvanometer 42”) and that the focusing unit comprises an f-theta assembly (“F-theta mirror 43 is composed of a large-aperture, wide-scanning range focusing lens, which can form a uniform focal point in the scanning plane”).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Fan and Xu, in order to maintain precise control, good focus, and consistent size/shape of the focus spots (Xu ¶s 15, 41)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Yu, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Saha et al (US 20190126537 A1, hereinafter “Saha”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Fan discloses the air ionization display apparatus according to claim 1.
Fan further discloses (see ¶s 53-58) the light field adjustment and control assembly (light field control component 5 “comprising… a spatial light modulator”) configured to regulate polarization of the pulse laser beam outputted by the pulse laser source (pulse seed source 1-1) (¶ 58: “The spatial light modulator... achieves the purpose of light wave modulation by modulating parameters such as the amplitude, phase, and polarization state of the light”).
Modified Fan does not explicitly disclose the further comprising: a half-wave plate configured to regulate polarization of the pulse laser beam outputted by the pulse laser source.
Fan and Saha commonly relate to pulsed laser systems.
Saha discloses (see FIG. 2, ¶s 47-48) the further comprising: a half-wave plate (104) configured to regulate polarization of the pulse laser beam outputted by the pulse laser source (102).
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine teachings of Fan and Saha, in order to provides polarization control means for any variety of uses – e.g., power control/efficiency (Saha ¶s 47-48), holographic imaging/recording, etc.
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights