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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 23 March 2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings for failing to show the claimed subject matter of claims 7, 8, and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings for failing to show the subject matter of those claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument concerning the depiction of the subject matter of claim 18 (the auxiliary substrate) has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the auxiliary substrate is structurally and functionally supported by FIGS. 10A–10C, which illustrate a substrate arrangement enclosing the line focus and modified region, consistent with the disclosure of auxiliary substrates in the specification” (p. 16). While the original disclosure mentions that “the auxiliary substrate(s) can surround the substrate,” this is meaningfully different from what is depicted in figs. 10a–10c, which depicts a single substrate first modified entirely in its interior, followed by having material removed by etching.
Applicant also argues that 37 CFR 1.83(a) only requires drawings to the extent necessary to understand the claimed invention (p. 15). This limited requirement only applies to “conventional features . . . where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention,” and still requires their depiction “in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation.” Neither a detailed or schematic depiction of the auxiliary substrate claimed in claim 18 seems shown anywhere in the figures.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the auxiliary substrate of claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 has had its dependency amended. It at first clearly appears to now depend from claim 41, which does not exist. However, zooming in closely on the type of the numeral “4” closely, we can see that there is a strike-through on the numeral adjacent to, but not perfectly overlapping the horizontal line of the numeral; this is made more clear by looking at other “4” among the claims. However, to make the record clear, Applicant should submit claims with an amendment that uses double-brackets (as per 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2)) to delete the numeral “4.”
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.
Claims 22, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 22 has been amended to replace “an imaging system” (whose meaning was previously judged unclear) with “an optical element.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because how it should be understood in the claim is too unclear. It’s not clear if the element is positively recited, since it is only mentioned with respect to a focal length that is a part of the equation for the strength of the fourth-order spherical aberration. The Office recommends amending claim 22 to depend from claim 21 since claim 21 properly introduces the optical element and relates it to the spherical aberration, and amending claim 22 to recite “the optical element” instead of “an optical element.”
Claim 27 depends from claim 24 and recites “the optical element.” The optical element is introduced as one option in claim 24 between “at least one phase mask and/or an optical element,” meaning that an optical element is not required. Claim 27 is indefinite because it’s unclear if the optical element is required, or if none need be present to read on the claim if the at least one phase mask in claim 24 is shown in the prior art. The claim should probably be amended to show that the optical element of claim 24 is required, in a manner similar to how claim 5 has been presently amended to overcome a similar § 112(b) rejection in the previous Office action.
Claim 30 depends from claim 24 and recites “the optical element.” The optical element is introduced as one option in claim 24 between “at least one phase mask and/or an optical element,” meaning that an optical element is not required. Claim 30 is indefinite because it’s unclear if the optical element is required, or if none need be present to read on the claim if the at least one phase mask in claim 24 is shown in the prior art. The claim should probably be amended to show that the optical element of claim 24 is required, in a manner similar to how claim 5 has been presently amended to overcome a similar § 112(b) rejection in the previous Office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
All of claims 1–8, 10–36, and 40 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome objection, as well as the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Ungaro (US Pub. 2021/0001430) seems to be the most relevant prior art of record, as ¶ 80 teaches influencing the at least one laser beam time-dependently and changing the energy distribution time-dependently, and ¶ 95 teaches forming a focal arc by positioning an optical element offset in a radial direction from the beam path. However, although ¶ 80 discloses that its teachings are applicable to phase-altering optical elements in general, this part of Ungaro is more specifically focused on an embodiment where this optical element is a deformable mirror, whereas ¶ 95 is focused on an aspheric optical element. While aspheric deformable mirrors do exist, it seems clear that Ungaro is not concerned at all with such an element, as its aspheric optical elements are envisioned to be axicons (see ¶ 78). The Office does not find that a deformable mirror and an axicon are equivalents or otherwise generally able to be substituted for one another. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find a sufficient suggestion in Ungaro to combining the features of ¶¶ 80 and 95 together to arrive at the claimed invention.
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 John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights