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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on June 17, 2026, that has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claim 7.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 and 8-10 in the reply filed on June 17, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 17, 2026.
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 1-6 and 8-10 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.
The phrase “bending curve” recited in claim 1 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear the curve is referred to what? “Curve” by dictionary definition is referred to a smooth bending line with no sharp turn. It is not clear if the “bending curves” are referred to line structure of the grating structure or not?
The phrase “same relative positions” referred to claim 1 is confusing and indefinite since what this phrase mean?
The phrase “one single pare of adjacent bending curves” recited in claim 1 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what does this phrase mean?
The phrase “density maximization direction” recited in claim 1 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear the density is referred to what?
The phrase “bending factor” recited in claim 1 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear how to define such factor.
The phrase “n represents a periodic number difference of the point M and the point O” recited in claim 1 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be periodic number?
The phrase “x0 represents a relative position of the point M in any grating period” recited in claim 1 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear what considered to be the “relative position” and it is not clear what considered to be “any grating period”.
With all these indefiniteness concerning the symbols disclosed above in the claimed mathematical expression, this mathematical expression is indefinite and confusing.
The phrase “the longitudinal structure” and the phrase “a top grating layer” recited in claims 4, 5, and 6 is confusing and indefinite since it is not clear if this “longitudinal structure “ and this top grating layer is the curved fork-like grating structure or not?
The phrase “straight fringe diffraction grating” recited in claims 8-10 is confusing and indefinite.
The scopes of the claims are therefore confusing and indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Generation of optical vortices with curved fork-shaped holograms” by Topuzoski (Springer Nature Link Optical and Quantum Electronics volume 48, 138(2016) and “Fresnel and Fraunhofer diffraction of Gaussian laser beam by fork-shape gratings” by Janicijevic et al (Journal Optical Society of America A Vol. 25, No. 11 pages 2659-2669).
The scopes of the claims are confusing and indefinite for the reasons set forth above. The claims can only be examined in the broadest interpretation.
Topuzoski teaches, with regard to claim 1, a curved fork-shaped hologram that includes curved fork-shaped grating structure, (please see Figures 1(a) and 1(b)). The curved fork-shaped grating structure comprises a plurality of bending curves of grating lines that are formed by all points in the same grating line. The plurality of bending curved of the grating lines are periodically and bendingly distributed. On single part of adjacent bending curves of curved grating lines comprises a fork-shape structure, (please see Figures 1(a) and 1(b)) between the adjacent bending curved grating lines. The fork-shaped structure would convert an incident light irradiated on the curved fork-shaped grating structure into Gaussian-Bessel beam, (please see Figure 2).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly that a traverse distribution function of the curved fork-shaped grating structure in a polar coordinate system has the claimed expression. However, since Topuzoski teaches explicitly that the curved forked shaped grating structure has definite period or spatial frequency D, has axicon base angle g that serves as bending factor, has topological charge p and a point on the grating structure has a spatial coordinate in the polar coordinate as (r, j, z), (please see pages 2 and 3). It is implicitly true that any point on the curved fork-shaped grating can be represent in term of polar coordinate. And it is therefore within general level skill in the art to represent the point coordinate r, therefore the transverse distribution function, in terms of the various factors of the curved fork shaped grating structure. Janicijevic et al in the same field of endeavor also teaches a fork-shaped grating, wherein a point on the fork-shaped grating or transverse distribution of the fork-shaped grating can be calculated in terms of the spatial frequency D of the grating, topological charge p etc., (please see pages 2661-2664).
One skilled in the art therefore would have been motivated by Janicijevic et al to calculate the transverse distribution of the curved fork-shaped grating structure.
With regard to claim 2, Topuzoski teaches that the bending factor or axicon base angle, topological charge value p can assume positive non-zero values, (please see page 2, lines 14-15).
Claim(s) 3, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topuzoski and Janicijevic et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent issued to Miyasaka et al (PN. 8,599,484).
The curved fork-shaped grating taught by Topuzoski in combination with the teachings of Janicijevic et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 3, these references do not teach the curved fork-shaped grating is a metal, a dielectric or a metal dielectric hybrid grating.
With regard to claims 4 and 5, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. The scopes of the claims are confusing and indefinite and for these reasons the claims can only be examined in the broadest interpretation.
These references do not teach explicitly that the curved fork-shaped grating is a metal fork-shaped grating by including a metal coating or a dielectric curved fork-shaped grating by including a dielectric coating. However, using a metal coating or a dielectric coating to longitudinal structure of the grating are known in the art as explicitly demonstrated by Miyasaka et al wherein a film (72, please see Figure 10) that may either comprise a metal film or a dielectric multilayer film may be coated on the diffractive grating structure (70, please see column 11, lines 53-67). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Miyasaka et al to provide either a metal coating layer or a dielectric multilayer coating on the longitudinal surface of the curved fork-shaped grating for the benefit of making the curved fork-shaped grating either a metal reflective curved fork-shaped grating or a dielectric reflective curved fork-shaped grating.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topuzoski and Janicijevic et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Wolfe et al (US 2004/0190141 A1).
The curved fork-shaped grating taught by Topuzoski in combination with the teachings of Janicijevic et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 6, this claim is rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above. The scopes of the claims are confusing and indefinite and for these reasons the claims can only be examined in the broadest interpretation.
These references do not teach explicitly that the curved fork-shaped grating is a metal and dielectric hybrid fork-shaped grating by including a metal coating and a dielectric coating. However, using a metal and dielectric coating to a longitudinal structure of the grating are known in the art as explicitly demonstrated by Wolfe et al wherein a silver film (16, Figure 2) and a dielectric multilayer film (22, 24, 26) are coated on the longitudinal structure of the grating (10, please see paragraphs [0034] and [0040]).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Wolfe et al to provide a metal and a dielectric hybrid coating on the longitudinal surface of the curved fork-shaped grating for the benefit of making the curved fork-shaped grating a metal dielectric hybrid curved fork-shaped grating.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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 B 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights