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 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
At p. 7 last para to p. 9 para 1 and at p. 9 last para to p. 10 para 3 that “Bock Does Not Disclose A Grating Axicon Accepting A Non-Expanding Light Ring” and “Bock Does Not Disclose Diffracting Light To A Focal Point Beyond The Grating Axicon”.
Examiner response:
In response to applicant's argument above, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant argues:
At p. 9 para 2-5 that “Liu, whether considered separately or in combination with the other cited references, does not describe, teach, or suggest "passing the non-expanding light ring through a grating axicon comprising a diffractive optic encoded with axicon optical properties, wherein the grating axicon accepts the non-expanding light ring and diffracts light from the non-expanding light ring to a focal point beyond the optical diffraction device"”.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the Office Action in the rejection of claim 13, “replacing lens 214 of Liu with a spiral grating axicon”, will teach the limitation “passing the non-expanding light ring through a grating axicon comprising a diffractive optic encoded with axicon optical properties, wherein the grating axicon accepts the non-expanding light ring and diffracts light from the non-expanding light ring to a focal point beyond the optical diffraction device”. Also, combining Bock with Redding, Brandon, and Yong-Le Pan. "Optical trap for both transparent and absorbing particles in air using a single shaped laser beam." Optics letters 40.12 (2015): 2798-2801, fig. 1 (Offica Action p. 3 para 1) will also teach the limitation “passing the non-expanding light ring through a grating axicon comprising a diffractive optic encoded with axicon optical properties, wherein the grating axicon accepts the non-expanding light ring and diffracts light from the non-expanding light ring to a focal point beyond the optical diffraction device”. This is because the grating axicon of the application is an optical element used for converging light to the sample.
Thus, with all the reasoning above, the rejection is maintained.
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 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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Q. et al., US 20150062573 A1 (hereinafter Liu) and in view of Bock, Martin, Jürgen Jahns, and Ruediger Grunwald. "Few-cycle high-contrast vortex pulses." Optics Letters 37.18 (2012): 3804-3806.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an optical diffraction device comprising: a pair of axicon lenses (fig. 2 elements 210 and 212) that “transform an input light beam traveling in a first direction into a non-expanding light ring as it travels away from the pair of axicon lenses in the first direction” (para [0039] lines 1-10, also see evidentiary reference Redding, Brandon, and Yong-Le Pan. "Optical trap for both transparent and absorbing particles in air using a single shaped laser beam." Optics letters 40.12 (2015): 2798-2801 fig. 1).
Liu does not teach a grating axicon comprising a diffractive optic encoded with axicon optical properties, wherein the grating axicon accepts the non-expanding light ring and diffracts light from the non-expanding light ring to a focal point beyond the grating axicon.
Bock, from the same field of endeavor as Liu, teaches a grating axicon (replacing lens 214 of Liu with a spiral grating axicon, fig.1, p. 1 col 2 para 1) comprising a diffractive optic encoded with axicon optical properties (the grating in fig. 1 is encoded to produce doughnut beam, p. 1 col 2 para 1), wherein the grating axicon accepts the non-expanding light ring (replacing lens 214 of Liu with a spiral grating axicon) and diffracts light from the non-expanding light ring to a focal point beyond the grating axicon (the spiral grating diffracts light).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Bock to Liu to replace the focusing lens of Liu to a spiral grating of Bock in order to produce doughnut beams and high-quality vortex beams (p. 1 col 1 para 1 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 2, Liu does not teach the optical diffraction device of claim 1, wherein the grating axicon comprises multiple grating zones that have different focal attributes. Regarding claim 3, Liu does not teach the optical diffraction device of claim 2, wherein a first grating zone of the multiple grating zones has a first focal length and a second grating zone of the multiple grating zones has a second focal length that differs from the first focal length. Regarding claim 4, Liu does not teach the optical diffraction device of claim 3, wherein the multiple grating zones of the grating axicon cause the non-expanding light ring to diffract at different angles to create an illumination pattern that differs from a base illumination pattern caused by the grating axicon having a single grating zone.
Bock, from the same field of endeavor as Liu, teaches the optical diffraction device of claim 1, wherein the grating axicon comprises multiple grating zones that have different focal attributes (this is shown in fig. 2, the different doughnut beams have different focal attributes), the optical diffraction device of claim 2, wherein a first grating zone of the multiple grating zones has a first focal length and a second grating zone of the multiple grating zones has a second focal length that differs from the first focal length (fig. 2 shows every doughnut beam has a different focal length), the optical diffraction device of claim 3, wherein the multiple grating zones of the grating axicon cause the non-expanding light ring to diffract at different angles (this is shown in fig. 2(a)) to create an illumination pattern that differs from a base illumination pattern caused by the grating axicon having a single grating zone (this is shown in fig. 3(a), the center have strong intensity than the intensity of the outer doughnut beam).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Bock to Liu to have the optical diffraction device of claim 1, wherein the grating axicon comprises multiple grating zones that have different focal attributes, the optical diffraction device of claim 2, wherein a first grating zone of the multiple grating zones has a first focal length and a second grating zone of the multiple grating zones has a second focal length that differs from the first focal length, the optical diffraction device of claim 3, wherein the multiple grating zones of the grating axicon cause the non-expanding light ring to diffract at different angles to create an illumination pattern that differs from a base illumination pattern caused by the grating axicon having a single grating zone in order to produce doughnut beams and high-quality vortex beams (p. 1 col 1 para 1 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Liu fails to teach the optical diffraction device of claim 1, wherein the grating axicon comprises an interior hole where the non-expanding light ring passes through a surface of the grating axicon encircling the interior hole. Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Liu fails to teach the optical diffraction device of claim 5, further comprising a collection lens adhered to the surface of the grating axicon.
The limitations “the optical diffraction device of claim 1, wherein the grating axicon comprises an interior hole where the non-expanding light ring passes through a surface of the grating axicon encircling the interior hole” and “the optical diffraction device of claim 5, further comprising a collection lens adhered to the surface of the grating axicon” are simply rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI-C In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Replacing the lens 214 of Liu with the spiral grating of Bock and then attached the lens 218 of Liu to the spiral grating of Bock is equated as rearrangement of parts (evidentiary reference US5963359A, fig. 6 an annular film coupled with a lens at the center, col 9 lines 46-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply “the optical diffraction device of claim 1, wherein the grating axicon comprises an interior hole where the non-expanding light ring passes through a surface of the grating axicon encircling the interior hole” and “the optical diffraction device of claim 5, further comprising a collection lens adhered to the surface of the grating axicon” to the modified device Liu in order to make the device compact.
Regarding claim 10, Liu does the optical diffraction device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the non-expanding light ring travels directly from the axicon lenses to the grating axicon without contacting additional optical elements.
Bock, from the same field of endeavor as Liu, teaches the optical diffraction device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the non-expanding light ring travels directly from the axicon lenses to the grating axicon without contacting additional optical elements (replacing lens 214 of Liu with a spiral grating axicon, fig.1, p. 1 col 2 para 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Bock to Liu to have the optical diffraction device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the non-expanding light ring travels directly from the axicon lenses to the grating axicon without contacting additional optical elements in order to produce doughnut beams and high-quality vortex beams (p. 1 col 1 para 1 lines 1-6).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Bock as applied to claim(s) 6 above, and in view of Fleming, Holly, et al. "Through-bottle whisky sensing and classification using Raman spectroscopy in an axicon-based backscattering configuration." Analytical Methods 12.37 (2020): 4572-4578 (hereinafter Flemming).
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches the optical diffraction device of claim 6, wherein: causes the non-expanding light ring to refract out of the optical diffraction device onto a sample (fig. 2 sample 216); and the light reflected off the object surface reflects towards the collection lens (fig. 2 element 218, para [0039] last sentence).
Lui does not disclose the grating axicon, a non-opaque barrier surface located closer to the optical diffraction device, and an object surface located beyond the non-opaque barrier surface.
Bock, from the same field of endeavor as Liu, teaches the grating axicon (replacing lens 214 of Liu with a spiral grating axicon, fig.1, p. 1 col 2 para 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Bock to Liu to have the grating axicon in order to produce doughnut beams and high-quality vortex beams (p. 1 col 1 para 1 lines 1-6).
Liu, when modified by Bock, fails to teach a non-opaque barrier surface located closer to the optical diffraction device, and an object surface located beyond the non-opaque barrier surface.
Flemming, from the same field of endeavor as Liu, teaches “a non-opaque barrier surface located closer to the optical diffraction device, and an object surface located beyond the non-opaque barrier surface” (fig. 1, the bottle is the non-opaque barrier, the object is the content of the bottle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Flemming to Liu, when modified by Bock, to have a non-opaque barrier surface located closer to the optical diffraction device, and an object surface located beyond the non-opaque barrier surface in order to provide a way of non-destructive and non-contact detection to precisely analyse the contents without the requirement to open the bottle (Abstract last sentence).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Liu does not teach the optical diffraction device of claim 7, further comprising a pass-through mirror that reflects the non-expanding light ring onto the grating axicon (Bock teaches this, see claim 1) and around the collection lens.
Flemming, from the same field of endeavor as Liu, teaches the optical diffraction device of claim 7, further comprising a pass-through mirror that reflects the non-expanding light ring onto the grating axicon and around the collection lens (fig. 1, DM is the pass-through mirror).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Flemming to Liu, when modified by Bock, to have the optical diffraction device of claim 7, further comprising a pass-through mirror that reflects the non-expanding light ring onto the grating axicon and around the collection lens in order to remove the Rayleigh scattered photons (p. 2 col 2 para 1 lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Liu does not teach the optical diffraction device of claim 8, wherein: the pass-through mirror comprises an interior hole that allows excited light passing along a second light path to pass in-between the non-expanding light ring and through the interior hole in the pass-through mirror; or the pass-through mirror is a dichroic mirror that reflects the non-expanding light ring at a first wavelength and allows the excited light at a second wavelength to travel through the pass-through mirror along the second light path.
Flemming, from the same field of endeavor as Liu, teaches the optical diffraction device of claim 8, wherein: the pass-through mirror comprises an interior hole that allows excited light passing along a second light path to pass in-between the non-expanding light ring and through the interior hole in the pass-through mirror; or the pass-through mirror is a dichroic mirror that reflects the non-expanding light ring at a first wavelength and allows the excited light at a second wavelength to travel through the pass-through mirror along the second light path (fig. 1, DM is the pass-through mirror).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Flemming to Liu, when modified by Bock, to have the optical diffraction device of claim 8, wherein: the pass-through mirror comprises an interior hole that allows excited light passing along a second light path to pass in-between the non-expanding light ring and through the interior hole in the pass-through mirror; or the pass-through mirror is a dichroic mirror that reflects the non-expanding light ring at a first wavelength and allows the excited light at a second wavelength to travel through the pass-through mirror along the second light path in order to remove the Rayleigh scattered photons (p. 2 col 2 para 1 lines 14-16).
Claim(s) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Bock as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Matousek, P. et al., US8248600B2 (hereinafter Matousek).
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Liu does not teach the optical diffraction device of claim 1, wherein the optical diffraction device is part of a portable Raman spectrometer device.
Matousek, from the same field of endeavor as Liu, teaches the optical diffraction device of claim 1, wherein the optical diffraction device is part of a portable Raman spectrometer device (fig. 3 element 52 is a compact Raman probe, thus it is a portable Raman device; col 2 lines 22-25; fig. 5b; claim 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Matousek to the modified device of Liu to have the optical diffraction device of claim 1, wherein the optical diffraction device is part of a portable Raman spectrometer device in order to obtain a rapid and accurate measurements (col 1 lines 22-25).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Liu does not teach the optical diffraction device of claim 1, further comprising a spectrometer that analyzes collected excited light that reflects off of an object at “a collection lens located in an interior hole of the grating axicon” (this is disclosed in claims 1, 5, 6).
Matousek, from the same field of endeavor as Liu, teaches the optical diffraction device of claim 1, further comprising a spectrometer that analyzes collected excited light that reflects off of an object (col 6 line 15) at “a collection lens located in an interior hole of the grating axicon” (this is disclosed in claims 1, 5, 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Matousek to the modified device of Liu to have the optical diffraction device of claim 1, further comprising a spectrometer that analyzes collected excited light that reflects off of an object at “a collection lens located in an interior hole of the grating axicon” in order to obtain a rapid and accurate measurements (col 1 lines 22-25).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, in view of Bock, and further in view of Lei, M. et al., CN202102170U (hereinafter Lei).
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches a method for utilizing an optical diffraction device, comprising: emitting a light beam at a pair of axicon lenses comprising an exterior axicon lens (fig. 2 element 210) having a first conical surface (element 210 has a surface) and an interior axicon lens (fig. 2 element 212) having a second conical surface (element 212 has a surface), wherein the exterior axicon lens comprises an interior hole (fig. 2 shows light pass through the interior hole of element 210); generating a non-expanding light ring utilizing the pair of axicon lenses by: passing the light beam through the interior hole of the exterior axicon lens (para [0039] lines 1-10, also see evidentiary reference Redding, Brandon, and Yong-Le Pan. "Optical trap for both transparent and absorbing particles in air using a single shaped laser beam." Optics letters 40.12 (2015): 2798-2801 fig. 1).
Liu fails to teach reflecting the light beam off of the second conical surface of the interior axicon lens toward the exterior axicon lens to generate a reflected light beam; and further reflecting the reflected light beam off the first conical surface of the exterior axicon lens; and passing the non-expanding light ring through a grating axicon comprising a diffractive optic encoded with axicon optical properties, wherein the grating axicon accepts the non-expanding light ring and diffracts light from the non-expanding light ring to a focal point beyond the optical diffraction device.
Bock, from the same field of endeavor as Liu, teaches passing the non-expanding light ring through a grating axicon (replacing lens 214 of Liu with a spiral grating axicon, fig.1, p. 1 col 2 para 1) comprising a diffractive optic encoded with axicon optical properties (the grating in fig. 1 is encoded to produce doughnut beam, p. 1 col 2 para 1), wherein the grating axicon accepts the non-expanding light ring (replacing lens 214 of Liu with a spiral grating axicon) and diffracts light from the non-expanding light ring to a focal point beyond the optical diffraction device (the spiral grating diffracts light).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Bock to Liu to have passing the non-expanding light ring through a grating axicon comprising a diffractive optic encoded with axicon optical properties, wherein the grating axicon accepts the non-expanding light ring and diffracts light from the non-expanding light ring to a focal point beyond the optical diffraction device in order to produce doughnut beams and high-quality vortex beams (p. 1 col 1 para 1 lines 1-6).
Liu, when modified by Bock fails to teach reflecting the light beam off of the second conical surface of the interior axicon lens toward the exterior axicon lens to generate a reflected light beam; and further reflecting the reflected light beam off the first conical surface of the exterior axicon lens.
Lei, from the same field of endeavor as Liu, teaches “reflecting the light beam off of the second conical surface of the interior axicon lens toward the exterior axicon lens to generate a reflected light beam; and further reflecting the reflected light beam off the first conical surface of the exterior axicon lens” (this is fig. 3 element 7, p. 1 claim 1 last para, element 7 has a conical surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Lei to Liu, when modified by Bock, to have “reflecting the light beam off of the second conical surface of the interior axicon lens toward the exterior axicon lens to generate a reflected light beam; and further reflecting the reflected light beam off the first conical surface of the exterior axicon lens” in order to reduce light damage to the sample (p. 4 para 7 lines 3-5).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Bock, and Lei as applied to claim(s) 13 above, and further in view of Fleming.
Regarding claim 14, the modified apparatus Liu teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising: collecting the excited light that reflects off of the substance at a collection lens (fig. 2 element 218).
Liu does not teach generating excited light by reflecting diffracted light off a substance behind a non-opaque barrier surface adjacent to the optical diffraction device; the collection lens located in an interior hole of the grating axicon.
The limitation “the collection lens located in an interior hole of the grating axicon” is simply rearrangement of parts, a combination of claims 5 and 6. See MPEP 2144.04 VI-C In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). Replacing the lens 214 of Liu with the spiral grating of Bock and then attached the lens 218 of Liu to the spiral grating of Bock is equated as rearrangement of parts (evidentiary reference US5963359A, fig. 6 an annular film coupled with a lens at the center, col 9 lines 46-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply “the collection lens located in an interior hole of the grating axicon” to the modified apparatus of Liu in order to make the device compact.
The modified apparatus of Liu fails to teach generating excited light by reflecting diffracted light off a substance behind a non-opaque barrier surface adjacent to the optical diffraction device.
Flemming, from the same field of endeavor as Liu, teaches “generating excited light by reflecting diffracted light off a substance behind a non-opaque barrier surface adjacent to the optical diffraction device” (fig. 1, the bottle is the non-opaque barrier, the object is the content of the bottle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Flemming to the modified apparatus of Liu to have generating excited light by reflecting diffracted light off a substance behind a non-opaque barrier surface adjacent to the optical diffraction device in order to provide a way of non-destructive and non-contact detection to precisely analyse the contents without the requirement to open the bottle (Abstract last sentence).
Claim(s) 15, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Bock.
Regarding claim 15, Lei teaches an optical reflective device comprising: a pair of axicon lenses comprising: an exterior axicon lens having a first conical surface (this is fig. 3 element 7, p. 1 claim 1 last para, element 7 has a conical surface), wherein the exterior axicon lens includes an interior hole (element 7 has a hole at the center as shown in fig. 3); an interior axicon lens having a second conical surface (this is fig. 3 element 8, p. 1 claim 1 last para, element 8 has a conical surface), wherein the optical reflective device allows a light beam to travel through the interior hole of the exterior axicon lens (this is shown in fig. 3 elements 7, 8), reflect off of the second conical surface of the interior axicon lens (this is shown in fig. 3 elements 7, 8), reflect off the first conical surface of the exterior axicon lens (this is shown in fig. 3 elements 7, 8), and travel away from the optical reflective device in a light ring as it travels away from the exterior axicon lens (this is shown in fig. 3 elements 7, 8).
Lei does not teach a grating axicon comprising an axicon with a grating light effect, wherein the grating axicon accepts the light ring and diffracts light from the light ring to a focal point beyond the grating axicon. Note this limitation “a grating axicon comprising an axicon with a grating light effect, wherein the grating axicon accepts the light ring and diffracts light from the light ring to a focal point beyond the grating axicon” is the same as in claim 1.
Bock, from the same field of endeavor as Lei, teaches “a grating axicon comprising an axicon with a grating light effect, wherein the grating axicon accepts the light ring and diffracts light from the light ring to a focal point beyond the grating axicon” (replacing element 12 of Lei with a spiral grating axicon, fig.1, p. 1 col 2 para 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Bock to Lei to replace the focusing lens of Liu to a spiral grating of Bock in order to produce doughnut beams and high-quality vortex beams (p. 1 col 1 para 1 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 16, Lei teaches the optical reflective device of claim 15, wherein: the light ring is a non-expanding light ring (this is shown in fig. 3 element 6); “moving a location of the interior axicon lens longitudinally along a center axis of the exterior axicon lens causes a diameter of the non-expanding light ring to change size when reflecting off of the exterior axicon lens” (p. 4 second to the last para lines 5-6); and a ring thickness of the non-expanding light ring remains a same size regardless of the diameter of the non-expanding light ring as it travels away from the exterior axicon lens (moving elements 7,8 will not change the thickness of the ring).
Regarding claim 20, Lei teaches the optical reflective device of claim 15, wherein: the first conical surface of the exterior axicon lens generates a conical outer reflection (this is shown in fig. 3 element 6); and the second conical surface of the interior axicon lens generates a conical interior reflection (this is shown in fig. 3 element 6).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei and Bock as applied to claim(s) 16 above, and further in view of Komiya, T. et al., JP 2009178725 A (Komiya).
Regarding claim 17, Lei does not teach the optical reflective device of claim 16, wherein moving the interior axicon lens toward the exterior axicon lens causes the diameter of the non-expanding light ring to shrink before it travels away from the exterior axicon lens.
Komiya, from the same field of endeavor as Lei, teaches “the optical reflective device of claim 16, wherein moving the interior axicon lens toward the exterior axicon lens causes the diameter of the non-expanding light ring to shrink before it travels away from the exterior axicon lens” (p. 5 para 4 lines 6-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Komiya to Lei to have the optical reflective device of claim 16, wherein moving the interior axicon lens toward the exterior axicon lens causes the diameter of the non-expanding light ring to shrink before it travels away from the exterior axicon lens in order to have an appropriate depth of focus according to the thickness of the workpiece (p. 5 para 4 lines 6-9).
Claim(s) 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei and Bock as applied to claim(s) 15 above, and further in view Brunne, Jens, Matthias C. Wapler, and Ulrike Wallrabe. "Fast and robust piezoelectric axicon mirror." Optics Letters 39.15 (2014): 4631-4634 (hereinafter Brunne).
Regarding claim 18, Lei does not teach the optical reflective device of claim 15, wherein the exterior axicon lens comprises a flexible membrane that, when moved, changes an angle of the first conical surface, which changes a diameter of the light ring before it travels away from the exterior axicon lens.
Brunne, from the same field of endeavor as Lei, teaches the optical reflective device of claim 15, wherein the exterior axicon lens comprises a flexible membrane that, when moved, changes an angle of the first conical surface, which changes a diameter of the light ring before it travels away from the exterior axicon lens (fig. 1 shows an axicon mirror; fig. 2 shows the surface mirror is deformed due to the voltage; p. 1 para 1 lines 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Brunne to Lei to have the optical reflective device of claim 15, wherein the exterior axicon lens comprises a flexible membrane that, when moved, changes an angle of the first conical surface, which changes a diameter of the light ring before it travels away from the exterior axicon lens in order to create a quasi-Bessel beam (Abstract last line). Note that for these limitations, the specification only discloses this as a flexible membrane as shown in fig. 6A and both the flexible membranes acting like mirrors.
Regarding claim 19, Lei does not teach the optical reflective device of claim 15, wherein the interior axicon lens comprises a flexible membrane that moves to change an angle of the second conical surface, which changes a diameter of the light ring before it travels away from the exterior axicon lens.
Brunne, from the same field of endeavor as Lei, teaches the optical reflective device of claim 15, wherein the interior axicon lens comprises a flexible membrane that moves to change an angle of the second conical surface, which changes a diameter of the light ring before it travels away from the exterior axicon lens (fig. 1 shows an axicon mirror; fig. 2 shows the surface mirror is deformed due to the voltage; p. 1 para 1 lines 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Brunne to Lei to have the optical reflective device of claim 15, wherein the interior axicon lens comprises a flexible membrane that moves to change an angle of the second conical surface, which changes a diameter of the light ring before it travels away from the exterior axicon lens in order to create a quasi-Bessel beam (Abstract last line). Note that for these limitations, the specification only discloses this as a flexible membrane as shown in fig. 6A and both the flexible membranes acting like mirrors.
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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights