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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 22nd, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-4, 8-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ames (US 7,095,504) in view of Wichmann (DE 102018206679 A1, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Ames discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1-5, element 100) comprising:
an optical surface (177) configured to receive multiple input optical beams (502), the optical surface comprising:
a grating (Col. 4, lines 65-66, “a diffraction grating 177”) configured to diffract first portions of the input optical beams in a first direction to form a combined optical beam (as shown in Fig. 5, a portion of the beam hitting 177 is directed towards 112b), the grating also configured to reflect second portions of the input optical beams in a second direction (as shown in Fig. 5, a portion of the beam is reflected towards 106, Col. 9, lines 24-26, “diffraction grating mixes the LO beam 512 with the recombined beam and are directed to a first photodetector of the dual photodetector 106”); and
a reflective surface (176) at least partially surrounding the grating (as shown in Fig. 1, 176 surrounds 177), the reflective surface configured to reflect third portions of the input optical beams in the second direction (as shown in Fig. 5, third portions of light is reflected by 176).
Ames does not specifically disclose diffracting first portions of the input optical beams in a first direction to form a combined optical beam exclusively in the first direction, the first and second directions extending away from a common side of the optical surface.
However Wichmann, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a grating, teaches diffracting first portions of the input optical beams (Fig. 2, element 11) in a first direction to form a combined optical beam exclusively in the first direction (element 12, as shown in Fig. 2, the first direction is exclusively the first direction alone), the first and second directions extending away from a common side of the optical surface (as shown in Fig. 2, the first direction 12 and second direction 13 extend from a common side in different directions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the apparatus of Ames with the diffracting first portions of the input optical beams in a first direction to form a combined optical beam exclusively in the first direction, the first and second directions extending away from a common side of the optical surface as taught by Wichmann, for the purpose of deflecting rays in a two-dimensional direction ([0008]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Ames further discloses wherein the reflective surface (176) is configured to function as an apodizer to remove one or more unwanted portions of the input optical beams from the combined optical beam (Col. 9, lines 6-8, “The apodized beam further comprises an annular beam portion that is incident upon the reflective surface 176”, examiner interprets this to mean the unwanted portions are reflected by 176).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Ames further discloses wherein the grating and the reflective surface form an integral structure (as shown in Fig. 1, the grating 177 and reflective surface 176 are integral).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Ames further discloses wherein:
the grating (177) and the reflective surface (172a) comprise separate components (as shown in Fig. 1, 177 and 172a are separate); and
the reflective surface is positioned over the grating (as shown in Fig. 1, 172a is over the grating 177).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Ames further discloses wherein a boundary (Fig. 7B) between the grating and the reflective surface is shaped based on a desired far-field profile of an output beam (Col. 10, lines 4-6, “At location "G", the reference beam 504' is combined with the apodized return beam to produce concentric beam pattern 710 at "G"”).
Regarding claim 9, Ames discloses a system (Figs. 1-5, element 100) comprising:
an optical device (144a) comprising an optical surface (177) configured to receive multiple input optical beams (502), the optical surface comprising:
a grating (Col. 4, lines 65-66, “a diffraction grating 177”) configured to diffract first portions of the input optical beams in a first direction to form a combined optical beam (as shown in Fig. 5, a portion of the beam hitting 177 is directed towards 112b), the grating also configured to reflect second portions of the input optical beams in a second direction (as shown in Fig. 5, a portion of the beam is reflected towards 106, Col. 9, lines 24-26, “diffraction grating mixes the LO beam 512 with the recombined beam and are directed to a first photodetector of the dual photodetector 106”); and
a reflective surface (176) at least partially surrounding the grating (as shown in Fig. 1, 176 surrounds 177), the reflective surface configured to reflect third portions of the input optical beams in the second direction (as shown in Fig. 5, third portions of light is reflected by 176); and
a beam dump (106) configured to terminate the second and third portions of the input optical beams (as shown in Fig. 5, second and third portions of the light 502 are reflected towards 106).
Ames does not specifically disclose diffracting first portions of the input optical beams in a first direction to form a combined optical beam exclusively in the first direction, the first and second directions extending away from a common side of the optical surface.
However Wichmann, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a grating, teaches diffracting first portions of the input optical beams (Fig. 2, element 11) in a first direction to form a combined optical beam exclusively in the first direction (element 12, as shown in Fig. 2, the first direction is exclusively the first direction alone), the first and second directions extending away from a common side of the optical surface (as shown in Fig. 2, the first direction 12 and second direction 13 extend from a common side in different directions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the apparatus of Ames with the diffracting first portions of the input optical beams in a first direction to form a combined optical beam exclusively in the first direction, the first and second directions extending away from a common side of the optical surface as taught by Wichmann, for the purpose of deflecting rays in a two-dimensional direction ([0008]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 9 rejection above and Ames further discloses wherein the reflective surface (176) is configured to function as an apodizer to remove one or more unwanted portions of the input optical beams from the combined optical beam (Col. 9, lines 6-8, “The apodized beam further comprises an annular beam portion that is incident upon the reflective surface 176”, examiner interprets this to mean the unwanted portions are reflected by 176).
Regarding claim 11, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 9 rejection above and Ames further discloses wherein the grating and the reflective surface form an integral structure (as shown in Fig. 1, the grating 177 and reflective surface 176 are integral).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 9 rejection above and Ames further discloses wherein:
the grating (177) and the reflective surface (172a) comprise separate components (as shown in Fig. 1, 177 and 172a are separate); and
the reflective surface is positioned over the grating (as shown in Fig. 1, 172a is over the grating 177).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 9 rejection above and Ames further discloses further comprising:
multiple optical fibers (122a, 122b) configured to provide the input optical beams (Col. 8, lines 47-49, “laser beam is provided to fiber optic 122a and is collimated by the collimator 102a to produce a source beam”); and
at least one transform optic (102a, 102b) configured to direct the input optical beams from the optical fibers towards the optical device (as shown in Figs. 1 and 5, 102a and 102b direct the beams towards 177).
Regarding claim 17, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 9 rejection above and Ames further discloses further comprising:
an exit scraper (182) configured to absorb one or more portions of the combined optical beam in order to generate an output beam (as shown in Fig. 5, peripheral portions of the beam are cut off by 182).
Regarding claim 18, Ames discloses a method (Figs. 1-5, element 100) comprising:
receiving multiple input optical beams (as shown in Fig. 5, there are multiple beams 502 and 512) at an optical surface (177);
using a grating (Col. 4, lines 65-66, “a diffraction grating 177”) of the optical surface, diffracting first portions of the input optical beams in a first direction to form a combined optical beam (as shown in Fig. 5, a portion of the beam hitting 177 is directed towards 112b) and reflecting second portions of the input optical beams in a second direction (as shown in Fig. 5, a portion of the beam is reflected towards 106, Col. 9, lines 24-26, “diffraction grating mixes the LO beam 512 with the recombined beam and are directed to a first photodetector of the dual photodetector 106”); and
using a reflective surface (176) of the optical surface that at least partially surrounds the grating (as shown in Fig. 1, 176 surrounds 177), reflecting third portions of the input optical beams in the second direction (as shown in Fig. 5, third portions of light is reflected by 176).
Ames does not specifically disclose diffracting first portions of the input optical beams in a first direction to form a combined optical beam exclusively in the first direction, the first and second directions extending away from a common side of the optical surface.
However Wichmann, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a grating, teaches diffracting first portions of the input optical beams (Fig. 2, element 11) in a first direction to form a combined optical beam exclusively in the first direction (element 12, as shown in Fig. 2, the first direction is exclusively the first direction alone), the first and second directions extending away from a common side of the optical surface (as shown in Fig. 2, the first direction 12 and second direction 13 extend from a common side in different directions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the apparatus of Ames with the diffracting first portions of the input optical beams in a first direction to form a combined optical beam exclusively in the first direction, the first and second directions extending away from a common side of the optical surface as taught by Wichmann, for the purpose of deflecting rays in a two-dimensional direction ([0008]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 18 rejection above and Ames further discloses further comprising:
terminating the second and third portions of the input optical beams using a common beam dump (as shown in Fig. 5, second and third portions of the optical beams are reflected towards 106 which examiner interprets to be the beam dump).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ames (US 7,095,504) in view of Wichmann (DE 102018206679 A1, as evidenced by the machine translation), further in view of Rhee (KR101621431B1, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above and Ames further discloses further comprising:
a base (Fig. 2, element 142); and
a housing configured to be coupled to the base (Fig. 6, examiner interprets the flat plate upon which 104 is disposed upon to be the housing).
Ames does not specifically disclose a cover configured to be attached to the base and to secure the grating and the reflective surface.
However Rhee, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an apparatus, teaches a cover (Figs. 1-2, element 110) configured to be attached to the base (140) and to secure the grating and the reflective surface ([0027], “a cover (110) that is interlocked with the main body (140) and connects the transparent film (120) and the mirror panel (130) to the main body (140).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the apparatus of Ames in view of Wichmann with the cover configured to be attached to the base and to secure the grating and the reflective surface as taught by Rhee, for the purpose of securing the mirror the body ([0027]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 9 rejection above and Ames further discloses wherein the optical device further comprises:
a base (Fig. 2, element 142); and
a housing configured to be coupled to the base (Fig. 6, examiner interprets the flat plate upon which 104 is disposed upon to be the housing).
Ames does not specifically disclose a cover configured to be attached to the base and to secure the grating and the reflective surface.
However Rhee, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an apparatus, teaches a cover (Figs. 1-2, element 110) configured to be attached to the base (140) and to secure the grating and the reflective surface ([0027], “a cover (110) that is interlocked with the main body (140) and connects the transparent film (120) and the mirror panel (130) to the main body (140).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the apparatus of Ames in view of Wichmann with the cover configured to be attached to the base and to secure the grating and the reflective surface as taught by Rhee, for the purpose of securing the mirror the body ([0027]).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ames (US 7,095,504) in view of Wichmann (DE 102018206679 A1, as evidenced by the machine translation), further in view of Rhee (KR101621431B1, as evidenced by the machine translation) and SAUVAGEOT (US 2023/0296860).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 5 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the base is configured to be cooled in order to remove thermal energy from the apparatus.
However Sauvageot, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an apparatus, teaches wherein the base (Figs. 102, element 4) is configured to be cooled in order to remove thermal energy from the apparatus ([0049], “The mirror 2 is fixed to a heat sink 3 by means of supports 4”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the apparatus of Ames in view of Wichmann further in view of Rhee with the wherein the base is configured to be cooled in order to remove thermal energy from the apparatus as taught by Sauvageot, for the purpose of providing cooling for the mirrored device ([0032-0034]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 13 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the base is configured to be cooled in order to remove thermal energy from the optical device.
However Sauvageot, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an apparatus, teaches wherein the base (Figs. 102, element 4) is configured to be cooled in order to remove thermal energy from the optical device ([0049], “The mirror 2 is fixed to a heat sink 3 by means of supports 4”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the apparatus of Ames in view of Wichmann further in view of Rhee with the wherein the base is configured to be cooled in order to remove thermal energy from the optical device as taught by Sauvageot, for the purpose of providing cooling for the mirrored device ([0032-0034]).
Claims 7, 15, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ames (US 7,095,504) in view of Wichmann (DE 102018206679 A1, as evidenced by the machine translation), further in view of Sokol (US 6,259,055).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a boundary between the grating and the reflective surface is serrated.
However Sokol, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an apparatus, teaches wherein a boundary (Fig. 4, 36) between the grating and the reflective surface (Col. 5, lines 61-62, “oscillator apodizer 16 and amplifier apodizer 28 may be a reflective graded aperture”) is serrated (Col. 5, lines 7-9, “A serrated aperture 32 is an apodizer containing an iris 34 with inward projecting serrations or teeth 36”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the apparatus of Ames in view of Wichmann with the wherein a boundary between the grating and the reflective surface is serrated as taught by Sokol, for the purpose of the removal of diffraction fringes (Col. 2, lines 47-58).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 9 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a boundary between the grating and the reflective surface is serrated.
However Sokol, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an apparatus, teaches wherein a boundary (Fig. 4, 36) between the grating and the reflective surface (Col. 5, lines 61-62, “oscillator apodizer 16 and amplifier apodizer 28 may be a reflective graded aperture”) is serrated (Col. 5, lines 7-9, “A serrated aperture 32 is an apodizer containing an iris 34 with inward projecting serrations or teeth 36”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the apparatus of Ames in view of Wichmann with the wherein a boundary between the grating and the reflective surface is serrated as taught by Sokol, for the purpose of the removal of diffraction fringes (Col. 2, lines 47-58).
Regarding claim 20, modified Ames teaches as is set forth in claim 18 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein a boundary between the grating and the reflective surface is serrated.
However Sokol, in the same field of endeavor because both teach an apparatus, teaches wherein a boundary (Fig. 4, 36) between the grating and the reflective surface (Col. 5, lines 61-62, “oscillator apodizer 16 and amplifier apodizer 28 may be a reflective graded aperture”) is serrated (Col. 5, lines 7-9, “A serrated aperture 32 is an apodizer containing an iris 34 with inward projecting serrations or teeth 36”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the apparatus of Ames in view of Wichmann with the wherein a boundary between the grating and the reflective surface is serrated as taught by Sokol, for the purpose of the removal of diffraction fringes (Col. 2, lines 47-58).
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 MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270 - 1284. 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 5 February 2026