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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/11/25 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16 it contains the mathematical limitation of the relationship between two lenses thicknesses being
∆
z
i
x
,
y
=
γ
1
,
i
*
∆
z
i
x
,
y
+
c
i
. At issue are the two constants
γ
i
and
c
i
being considered arbitrary constants. With the constants being arbitrary there is no boundary to the claim. It seems that the limitation is directed to two optical elements in the system have a linear relationship in the thickness as one moves out perpendicular to the optical axis. (i.e. the thickness relationship of a plano-plano cemented doublet)
Regarding claims 17-19 contain limitations “all volumes Vₐ of the respective optical component” being directed to where light passes given “a displacement path for which the wavefront manipulator is designed”. Examiner is unsure as to the limitations being claimed as relationship of the volume of the optical components. Unsure if this is the volume of the various lenses that is utilized be the traversing light during operation or the volumetric value of the various lenses. Further examiner is unsure as to what the term designed is modifying this volume calculation.
Regarding claim 20 it contains the limitation of “have the same structural design in relation to their optical features”. Examiner is unsure how the term “relation to their optical features” is modifying that they have “the same structure” (i.e. what modification to there structure would be considered within the bounds of the claim as directed to those modifications being within the optical features)
Regarding claim 23 “relative partial dispersions that differ from one another by less than a specified limit value.” Given that the difference is dependent on “a specified limit” yields to the difference having no actual limit to its value and could have no difference to an “infinite” difference.
Regarding claim 24 it contains the limitation of “an anomalous relative partial dispersion”. It is not understood how the term “anomalous” is modifying the “relative partial dispersion”. It is further not understood how the “partial dispersion” is being defined as “relative”. The question being raised is what is the “partial dispersion” relative to and what makes it “anomalous”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-16 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Pretorius (US 2016/0131900 A1).
Regarding claim 15 Pretorius teaches (figs. 1, 4, 5-9, and 16-19) a wavefront manipulator, comprising:
a first optical component (203,209) and a second optical component (219,205) (para. 0129),
where the first optical component and the second optical component are arranged in succession along a reference axis (see fig. 4), with the first optical component and the second optical component being arranged so as to be movable relative to one another perpendicular to the reference axis (para. 0139),
and where the first optical component and the second optical component each comprise a first optical element and at least one further optical element with differing refractive index profiles n₁(λ) and ni(λ) arranged in succession along the reference axis (see fig. 9), with the optical elements having, in relation to local coordinates x and y of the optical components, a spatially dependent length Δzᵢ(x,y) in a z-direction parallel to the reference axis, where the index i denotes the optical element (see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 16 Pretorius teaches (figs. 1, 4, 5-9, and 16-19) a wavefront manipulator, where the length of the at least one further optical element Δzi(x,y) is not constant and depends linearly on the length of the first optical element Δz1(x,y), Δzi(x,y) = γ1,i * Δz1(x,y) + Cᵢ for i = 1,2, k, where γ1,i and cᵢ are arbitrary constants and k denotes the number of optical elements (para. 0101).
Regarding claim 20 Pretorius teaches (figs. 1, 4, 5-9, and 16-19) a wavefront manipulator, where the first and second optical components have the same structural design in relation to their optical features (para. 0129-0130).
Regarding claim 21 Pretorius teaches (figs. 1, 4, 5-9, and 16-19) a wavefront manipulator, where at least one of the first and second optical components has at least one plane outer surface which extends perpendicular to the reference axis (para. 0129-0130).
Regarding claim 22 Pretorius teaches (figs. 1, 4, 5-9, and 16-19) a wavefront manipulator, where the first and second optical components are arranged so as to be movable relative to one another by translation in at least one direction perpendicular to the reference axis and/or by rotation about an axis running parallel to the reference axis (para. 0129-0130).
Regarding claim 23 Pretorius teaches (figs. 1, 4, 5-9, and 16-19) a wavefront manipulator, where at least one of the first and second optical components comprises at least two optical elements which have relative partial dispersions that differ from one another by less than a specified limit value (para. 0129-0130, and 0139).
Regarding claim 24 Pretorius teaches (figs. 1, 4, 5-9, and 16-19) a wavefront manipulator, where at least one of the first and second optical components comprises at least three optical elements, at least one of the optical elements having an anomalous relative partial dispersion (see fig. 9).
Regarding claim 25 Pretorius teaches (figs. 1, 4, 5-9, and 16-19) a wavefront manipulator, where at least one of the first and second optical components comprises at least two optical elements, and where the at last two optical elements are arranged immediately in succession and have a common contact face in the form of a free-form surface (para. 0101 and 0129).
Regarding claim 26 Pretorius teaches (figs. 1, 4, 5-9, and 16-19) a wavefront manipulator, where an optical device, comprising the wavefront manipulator of claim 15 (para. 0129).
Regarding claim 27 Pretorius teaches (figs. 1, 4, 5-9, and 16-19) a wavefront manipulator, where a method of using at least one wavefront manipulator, comprising bringing about an adjustable change of a wavefront and/or causing at least one from the group of the following corrections or reductions: astigmatism, coma, dichromatic correction, trichromatic correction, reduction of the secondary spectrum, reduction of the tertiary spectrum, via the wavefront manipulator of claim 15 (para. 0129).
Regarding claim 28 Pretorius teaches (figs. 1, 4, 5-9, and 16-19) a wavefront manipulator, where a method of use of a wavefront manipulator, comprising bringing about a position-dependent correction of at least one wavefront error in a zoom objective via the wavefront manipulator of claim 15 (para. 0129).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further art directed to perpendicular freeform structures for wavefront manipulation include Alverez (US 3,305,294), Baker (US 4,925,281), Simonov et. al. (US 2012/0257278 A1), Zhou et. al. (US 2014/0285905 A1), Crosby et. al. (US 9,335,446 B2), Williams (US 11,465,375 B2), Fein et. al. (US 2023/0091357 A1), and Williams et. al. (US 2023/0339198 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 a.m. -6 p.m..
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/Robert E. Tallman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights