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
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 08/29/2024, 05/13/2025, and 01/08/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein surface shapes of the first and second freeform-surface mirrors are determined based on a freeform-surface coefficient determined by at least five optical parameters of a distance from the first freeform-surface mirror to a confocal point of the first freeform-surface mirror and the second freeform-surface mirror, a distance from the confocal point to the second freeform-surface mirror, a distance from a waist of the incident light to the first freeform-surface mirror, a distance from the second freeform-surface mirror to a waist of the mode-converted light, and an incident angle of the incident light for the first freeform-surface mirror and an incident angle of the reflected light for the second freeform-surface mirror”. The claim needs a colon or some method of separating the list of the five parameters. A suggested amendment would be as follows:
“wherein surface shapes of the first and second freeform-surface mirrors are determined based on a freeform-surface coefficient determined by at least five optical parameters of a distance from the first freeform-surface mirror to a confocal point of the first freeform-surface mirror and the second freeform-surface mirror: a distance from the confocal point to the second freeform-surface mirror, a distance from a waist of the incident light to the first freeform-surface mirror, a distance from the second freeform-surface mirror to a waist of the mode-converted light, and an incident angle of the incident light for the first freeform-surface mirror and an incident angle of the reflected light for the second freeform-surface mirror”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following variables in Equation 1 must be shown and defined:
i. z
ii. x
iii. y
iv. m
v. n
These variables 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation:
PNG
media_image1.png
123
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The Specification fails to provide an enabling disclosure for the claimed equation
PNG
media_image2.png
89
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
because the variables (z, x, y, m, and n) are nowhere defined in the Specification or the claims. The equation
PNG
media_image2.png
89
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is a mathematical representation of an XY-polynomial surface, frequently used in optical engineering to define the shape of free-form mirrors, the Specification and claims must define each variable. While the applicant claims a mode conversion apparatus that operates according to this mathematical relationship, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be left to guess what physical properties, units or system parameters these variables represent. Because one skilled in the art cannot determine the inputs required to satisfy the equation, they would require undue experimentation to make and used the claimed invention.
The Specification provides no guidance with equation nor the variables and freeform surfaces require precise inputs, such as definitions to equations and its contained variables. An equation with more than one variable and no definitions results in an output that fails to achieve the disclosed surface shapes. Because the limitation in Claim 8 encompasses all possible applications of the polynomial equation, a person having ordinary skill in the art attempting to practice the full scope of the claimed invention would be required to engage in undue experimentation. One would have to determine the missing definitions of the variables, how they should be mathematically scaled and how to integrate the limitations in the mode conversion apparatus without any guidance from the claim language. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1998). See also MPEP § 2164.01(a) and § 2164.04.
Claims 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation: “Equation 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
123
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For the
PNG
media_image2.png
89
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
equation, there are no definitions for the following variables in the claim or the Specification:
z
x
y
m
n
While there are no special definitions for the variables listed, above,
PNG
media_image2.png
89
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is a mathematical representation of an XY-polynomial surface, frequently used in optical engineering to define the shape of free-form mirrors.
For examination purposes,
PNG
media_image2.png
89
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in lines 4-5, the unknown variables will be taken as:
m: The total degree of the polynomial (in this case, up to the 5th order).
ck: The specific coefficients that determine the mirror's unique shape.
xm-n yn: The monomial terms allow the surface to be non-rotationally symmetric.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al., (Chang hereafter) (US 7,274,513).
With respect to Claim 1, Chang discloses a mode conversion apparatus, comprising: a first freeform-surface mirror (M1, Figure 1) configured to reflect incident light (incident beam, column 6, lines 57-59) provided from a front-end optical system and output the reflected light (light reflected from M1, Figure 1) in a first direction (light reflected from M1, Figure 1); and a second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1) configured to reflect the reflected light (light reflected from M1, Figure 1) and output mode-converted light in a second direction (light reflected out of M2, Figure 1) corresponding to a rear-end optical system, wherein surface shapes of the first and second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1) are determined based on a freeform-surface coefficient determined by at least five optical parameters of a distance from the first freeform-surface mirror (M1, Figure 1) to a confocal point (confocal point, Figure 2) of the first freeform-surface mirror (M1, Figure 1) and the second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1), a distance from the confocal point (confocal point, Figure 2) to the second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1), a distance from a waist (M1 focal point, Figure 2) of the incident light (incident beam, column 6, lines 57-59) to the first freeform-surface mirror (M1, Figure 1), a distance from the second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1) to a waist (M2 & system focal point, Figure 2) of the mode-converted light, and an incident angle (incident angle, column 4, lines 27-30) of the incident light (incident beam, column 6, lines 57-59) for the first freeform-surface mirror (M1, Figure 1) and an incident angle (incident angle, column 4, lines 27-30) of the reflected light for the second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 7,274,513) in view of Ichikawa et al., (Ichikawa hereafter) (US 10,928,611).
With respect to Claim 2, Chang teaches the mode conversion apparatus according to claim 1, the first freeform-surface mirror, the confocal point, and the second freeform-surface mirror.
Chang fails to teach wherein a distance from the first freeform-surface mirror to the confocal point is 370.54 mm, and a distance from the confocal point to the second freeform-surface mirror is 61.5472 mm.
Chang teaches off-axis projection optics and Ichikawa teaches a lens module for a projector.
Ichikawa teaches a distance from the first freeform-surface mirror to the confocal point is 250 mm (column 12, lines 18-22), and a distance from the confocal point to the second freeform-surface mirror is 2 mm (column 12, lines 18-22)
Chang in view of Ichikawa disclose the claimed invention except for wherein a distance from the first freeform-surface mirror to the confocal point is 370.54 mm, and a distance from the confocal point to the second freeform-surface mirror is 61.5472 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have a distance from the first freeform-surface mirror to the confocal point is 370.54 mm, and a distance from the confocal point to the second freeform-surface mirror is 61.5472 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have a distance from the first freeform-surface mirror to the confocal point is 370.54 mm, and a distance from the confocal point to the second freeform-surface mirror is 61.5472 mm for the purpose of reducing linear astigmatism, column 5, lines 55-63. Absent any demonstration of criticality, there is no indication in the present application of the distance from the first freeform-surface mirror to the confocal point is 370.54 mm, and a distance from the confocal point to the second freeform-surface mirror is 61.5472 mm is critical to the invention. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to Claim 3, Chang teaches the mode conversion apparatus according to claim 1, the waist (M1 focal point, Figure 2) of the incident light (incident beam, column 6, lines 57-59), the first freeform-surface mirror (M1, Figure 1), the second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1) and the waist (M2 & system focal point, Figure 2).
Chang fails to teach a distance from the waist of the incident light to the first freeform-surface mirror is 236.3541 mm, and a distance from the second freeform-surface mirror to the waist of the mode-converted light is 1471.4665 mm.
Ichikawa teaches a distance from the waist of the incident light to the first freeform-surface mirror is 200 mm (column 10, lines 8-11), and a distance from the second freeform-surface mirror to the waist of the mode-converted light is 239 mm (column 10, lines 6-9).
Chang in view of Ichikawa disclose the claimed invention except for wherein a distance from the waist of the incident light to the first freeform-surface mirror is 236.3541 mm, and a distance from the second freeform-surface mirror to the waist of the mode-converted light is 1471.4665 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have a distance from the waist of the incident light to the first freeform-surface mirror is 236.3541 mm, and a distance from the second freeform-surface mirror to the waist of the mode-converted light is 1471.4665 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have a distance from the waist of the incident light to the first freeform-surface mirror is 236.3541 mm, and a distance from the second freeform-surface mirror to the waist of the mode-converted light is 1471.4665 mm for the purpose of reducing linear astigmatism, column 5, lines 55-63. Absent any demonstration of criticality, there is no indication in the present application of a distance from the waist of the incident light to the first freeform-surface mirror is 236.3541 mm, and a distance from the second freeform-surface mirror to the waist of the mode-converted light is 1471.4665 mm is critical to the invention. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to Claim 4, Chang teaches the mode conversion apparatus according to claim 1, an incident angle (incident angle, column 4, lines 27-30) of the incident light (incident beam, column 6, lines 57-59), the first freeform-surface mirror (M1, Figure 1), an incident angle (incident angle, column 4, lines 27-30) of the reflected light (light reflected from M1, Figure 1), and the second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1).
Chang fails to teach an incident angle of the incident light for the first freeform-surface mirror is 14.92°, and an incident angle of the reflected light for the second freeform-surface mirror is 24.46°.
Ichikawa teaches an incident angle of the incident light for the first freeform-surface mirror is 40° (column 10, lines 30-32), and an incident angle of the reflected light for the second freeform-surface mirror is 40° (column 10, lines 30-32).
Chang in view of Ichikawa disclose the claimed invention except for wherein an incident angle of the incident light for the first freeform-surface mirror is 14.92°, and an incident angle of the reflected light for the second freeform-surface mirror is 24.46°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have wherein an incident angle of the incident light for the first freeform-surface mirror is 14.92°, and an incident angle of the reflected light for the second freeform-surface mirror is 24.46°, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have wherein an incident angle of the incident light for the first freeform-surface mirror is 14.92°, and an incident angle of the reflected light for the second freeform-surface mirror is 24.46° for the purpose of reducing linear astigmatism, column 5, lines 55-63. Absent any demonstration of criticality, there is no indication in the present application of wherein an incident angle of the incident light for the first freeform-surface mirror is 14.92°, and an incident angle of the reflected light for the second freeform-surface mirror is 24.46° is critical to the invention. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 7,274,513) in view of Beach (US 2004/0246595 A1).
With respect to Claim 5, Chang teaches the mode conversion apparatus according to claim 1, the first freeform-surface mirror (M1, Figure 1), and the second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1).
Chang fails to teach a semi-major axis of the first freeform-surface mirror is 280.6708 mm, and a semi-major axis of the second freeform-surface mirror is 710.1308 mm.
Chang teaches off-axis projection optics and Beach teaches an optical system.
Beach teaches a semi-major axis of the first freeform-surface mirror is 178 mm (Table 1), and a semi-major axis of the second freeform-surface mirror is 500 mm (Table 1).
Chang in view of Beach disclose the claimed invention except for wherein a semi-major axis of the first freeform-surface mirror is 280.6708 mm, and a semi-major axis of the second freeform-surface mirror is 710.1308 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have a semi-major axis of the first freeform-surface mirror is 280.6708 mm, and a semi-major axis of the second freeform-surface mirror is 710.1308 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have a semi-major axis of the first freeform-surface mirror is 280.6708 mm, and a semi-major axis of the second freeform-surface mirror is 710.1308 mm for the purpose of reducing linear astigmatism, column 5, lines 55-63. Absent any demonstration of criticality, there is no indication in the present application of wherein a semi-major axis of the first freeform-surface mirror is 280.6708 mm, and a semi-major axis of the second freeform-surface mirror is 710.1308 mm is critical to the invention. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to Claim 6, Chang teaches the mode conversion apparatus according to claim 1, the first freeform-surface mirror (M1, Figure 1), and the second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1).
Chang fails to teach wherein an off-axis angle of the first freeform-surface mirror is 50.3142°, and an off-axis angle of the second freeform-surface mirror is 22.7024°.
Beach teaches wherein an off-axis angle of the first freeform-surface mirror is 90°, and an off-axis angle of the second freeform-surface mirror is 12°.
Chang in view of Beach disclose the claimed invention except for an off-axis angle of the first freeform-surface mirror is 50.3142°, and an off-axis angle of the second freeform-surface mirror is 22.7024°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have an off-axis angle of the first freeform-surface mirror is 50.3142°, and an off-axis angle of the second freeform-surface mirror is 22.7024°, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have an off-axis angle of the first freeform-surface mirror is 50.3142°, and an off-axis angle of the second freeform-surface mirror is 22.7024° for the purpose of reducing linear astigmatism, column 5, lines 55-63. Absent any demonstration of criticality, there is no indication in the present application of an off-axis angle of the first freeform-surface mirror is 50.3142°, and an off-axis angle of the second freeform-surface mirror is 22.7024° is critical to the invention. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to Claim 7, Chang teaches the mode conversion apparatus according to claim 1, the first freeform-surface mirror (M1, Figure 1), and the second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1).
Chang fails to teach a conic constant of the first freeform-surface mirror is -0.1119, and a conic constant of the second freeform-surface mirror is -1.1510.
Beach teaches a conic constant of the first freeform-surface mirror is 1.0 (Table 10), and a conic constant of the second freeform-surface mirror is 1.0 (Table 10).
Chang in view of Beach disclose the claimed invention except for a conic constant of the first freeform-surface mirror is -0.1119, and a conic constant of the second freeform-surface mirror is -1.1510. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have a conic constant of the first freeform-surface mirror is -0.1119, and a conic constant of the second freeform-surface mirror is -1.1510, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have a conic constant of the first freeform-surface mirror is -0.1119, and a conic constant of the second freeform-surface mirror is -1.1510 for the purpose of reducing linear astigmatism, column 5, lines 55-63. Absent any demonstration of criticality, there is no indication in the present application of a conic constant of the first freeform-surface mirror is -0.1119, and a conic constant of the second freeform-surface mirror is -1.1510 is critical to the invention. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 7,274,513) in further view of Osaka et al., (Osaka hereafter) (US 2013/0107166 A1), as best understood.
With respect to Claim 8, Chang teaches the mode conversion apparatus according to claim 1, the a first freeform-surface mirror (M1, Figure 1) and the second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1).
Chang fails to teach wherein the surface shapes of the first and second freeform-surface mirrors are determined through Equation 1 below defining a freeform-surface based on the freeform-surface coefficient (ck; where k is a positive integer):
PNG
media_image1.png
123
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chang teaches an off-axis projection system and Osaka teaches an image displaying apparatus.
Osaka teaches the surface shapes of the first and second freeform-surface mirrors are determined through Equation 1 below defining a freeform-surface based on the freeform-surface coefficient (ck; where k is a positive integer) (Tables 4 and 5).
Chang in view of Osaka disclose the claimed invention except for the surface shapes of the first and second freeform-surface mirrors are determined through wherein the surface shapes of the first and second freeform-surface mirrors are determined through Equation 1 below defining a freeform-surface based on the freeform-surface coefficient (ck; where k is a positive integer):
PNG
media_image1.png
123
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have the surface shapes of the first and second freeform-surface mirrors are determined through Equation 1 below defining a freeform-surface based on the freeform-surface coefficient (ck; where k is a positive integer):
PNG
media_image1.png
123
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the surface shapes of the first and second freeform-surface mirrors are determined through Equation 1 below defining a freeform-surface based on the freeform-surface coefficient (ck; where k is a positive integer):
PNG
media_image1.png
123
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
for the prevention of image quality degradation, ¶[0061]. Absent any demonstration of criticality, there is no indication in the present application of the claimed limitations are critical to the invention. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6(CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to Claim 9, Chang teaches the mode conversion apparatus according to claim 8, the a first freeform-surface mirror (M1, Figure 1) and the second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1).
Chang fails to teach when the freeform-surface coefficient is c3, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.78473E-03 mm-1, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -4.75086E-03 mm-1, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c5, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.66642E-03 mm-1, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -3.93635E-03 mm-1, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c7, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -3.44799E-07 mm-2, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.54869E-05 mm-2, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c9, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -3.21942E-07 mm-2, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.28318E-05 mm-2, and when the freeform-surface coefficient is c10, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -5.82799E-10 mm-3, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as 2.75914E-07 mm-3.
Osaka teaches when the freeform-surface coefficient is c3, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.78473E-03 mm-1 (Tables 4 and 5), and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -4.75086E-03 mm-1 (Tables 4 and 5), when the freeform-surface coefficient is c5, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.66642E-03 mm-1 (Tables 4 and 5), and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -3.93635E-03 mm-1 (Tables 4 and 5), when the freeform-surface coefficient is c7, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -3.44799E-07 mm-2 (Tables 4 and 5), and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.54869E-05 mm-2 (Tables 4 and 5), when the freeform-surface coefficient is c9, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -3.21942E-07 mm-2 (Tables 4 and 5), and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.28318E-05 mm-2 (Tables 4 and 5), and when the freeform-surface coefficient is c10, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -5.82799E-10 mm-3 (Tables 4 and 5), and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as 2.75914E-07 mm-3 (Tables 4 and 5).
Chang in view of Osaka disclose the claimed invention except for when the freeform-surface coefficient is c3, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.78473E-03 mm-1, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -4.75086E-03 mm-1, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c5, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.66642E-03 mm-1, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -3.93635E-03 mm-1, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c7, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -3.44799E-07 mm-2, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.54869E-05 mm-2, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c9, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -3.21942E-07 mm-2, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.28318E-05 mm-2, and when the freeform-surface coefficient is c10, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -5.82799E-10 mm-3, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as 2.75914E-07 mm-3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have when the freeform-surface coefficient is c3, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.78473E-03 mm-1, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -4.75086E-03 mm-1, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c5, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.66642E-03 mm-1, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -3.93635E-03 mm-1, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c7, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -3.44799E-07 mm-2, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.54869E-05 mm-2, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c9, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -3.21942E-07 mm-2, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.28318E-05 mm-2, and when the freeform-surface coefficient is c10, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -5.82799E-10 mm-3, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as 2.75914E-07 mm-3, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the freeform-surface coefficient is c3, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.78473E-03 mm-1, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -4.75086E-03 mm-1, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c5, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.66642E-03 mm-1, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -3.93635E-03 mm-1, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c7, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -3.44799E-07 mm-2, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.54869E-05 mm-2, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c9, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -3.21942E-07 mm-2, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.28318E-05 mm-2, and when the freeform-surface coefficient is c10, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -5.82799E-10 mm-3, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as 2.75914E-07 mm-3 for the prevention of image quality degradation, ¶[0061]. Absent any demonstration of criticality, there is no indication in the present application of the claimed limitations are critical to the invention. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6(CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to Claim 10, Chang teaches the mode conversion apparatus according to claim 8, the a first freeform-surface mirror (M1, Figure 1) and the second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1).
Chang fails to teach when the freeform-surface coefficient is c12, a surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -4.11544E-10 mm-3, and a surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as 3.57567E-07 mm-3, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c14, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 2.49032E-10 mm-3, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as 1.21805E-07 mm-3, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c16, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 3.45330E-10 mm-4, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -4.15260E-07 mm-4, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c18, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 3.67005E-10 mm-4, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -2.96124E-07 mm-4, and when the freeform-surface coefficient is c20, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 9.93976E-11 mm-4, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.07659E-07 mm-4.
Osaka teaches when the freeform-surface coefficient is c12, a surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -4.11544E-10 mm-3 (Tables 4 and 5), and a surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as 3.57567E-07 mm-3 (Tables 4 and 5), when the freeform-surface coefficient is c14, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 2.49032E-10 mm-3 (Tables 4 and 5), and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as 1.21805E-07 mm-3 (Tables 4 and 5), when the freeform-surface coefficient is c16, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 3.45330E-10 mm-4 (Tables 4 and 5), and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -4.15260E-07 mm-4 (Tables 4 and 5), when the freeform-surface coefficient is c18, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 3.67005E-10 mm-4 (Tables 4 and 5), and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -2.96124E-07 mm-4 (Tables 4 and 5), and when the freeform-surface coefficient is c20, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 9.93976E-11 mm-4 (Tables 4 and 5), and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.07659E-07 mm-4 (Tables 4 and 5).
Chang in view of Osaka disclose the claimed invention except for when the freeform-surface coefficient is c12, a surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -4.11544E-10 mm-3, and a surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as 3.57567E-07 mm-3, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c14, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 2.49032E-10 mm-3, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as 1.21805E-07 mm-3, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c16, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 3.45330E-10 mm-4, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -4.15260E-07 mm-4, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c18, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 3.67005E-10 mm-4, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -2.96124E-07 mm-4, and when the freeform-surface coefficient is c20, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 9.93976E-11 mm-4, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.07659E-07 mm-4. One would have been motivated to have when the freeform-surface coefficient is c12, a surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -4.11544E-10 mm-3, and a surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as 3.57567E-07 mm-3, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c14, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 2.49032E-10 mm-3, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as 1.21805E-07 mm-3, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c16, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 3.45330E-10 mm-4, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -4.15260E-07 mm-4, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c18, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 3.67005E-10 mm-4, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -2.96124E-07 mm-4, and when the freeform-surface coefficient is c20, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 9.93976E-11 mm-4, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.07659E-07 mm-4, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have when the freeform-surface coefficient is c12, a surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as -4.11544E-10 mm-3, and a surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as 3.57567E-07 mm-3, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c14, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 2.49032E-10 mm-3, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as 1.21805E-07 mm-3, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c16, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 3.45330E-10 mm-4, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -4.15260E-07 mm-4, when the freeform-surface coefficient is c18, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 3.67005E-10 mm-4, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -2.96124E-07 mm-4, and when the freeform-surface coefficient is c20, the surface of the first freeform-surface mirror is determined as 9.93976E-11 mm-4, and the surface of the second freeform-surface mirror is determined as -1.07659E-07 mm-4 for the prevention of image quality degradation, ¶[0061]. Absent any demonstration of criticality, there is no indication in the present application of the claimed limitations are critical to the invention. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6(CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 7,274,513) in view of Smithwick et al., (Smithwick hereafter) (US 2018/0063519 A1).
With respect to Claim 11, Chang teaches the mode conversion apparatus according to claim 1, the front-end optical system outputs the incident light (incident beam, column 6, lines 57-59), the second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1), and incident light (incident beam, column 6, lines 57-59).
Chang fails to teach the front-end optical system outputs the incident light having a waist of 19.79 microns at a point of 370.54 mm away from the first freeform-surface mirror against a direction of travel of the incident light.
Chang teaches off-axis projection optics and Smithwick teaches a multi - view display system.
Smithwick teaches the front-end optical system outputs the incident light having a waist of 1 microns (¶[0094] and [0104]) at a point of 100 mm (¶[0097]) away from the first freeform-surface mirror against a direction of travel of the incident light (beam waist enlarges with the increase of the angular index (well-known in the art).
Chang in view of Smithwick disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the front-end optical system outputs the incident light having a waist of 19.79 microns at a point of 370.54 mm away from the first freeform-surface mirror against a direction of travel of the incident light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have the front-end optical system outputs the incident light having a waist of 19.79 microns at a point of 370.54 mm away from the first freeform-surface mirror against a direction of travel of the incident light, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the front-end optical system outputs the incident light having a waist of 19.79 microns at a point of 370.54 mm away from the first freeform-surface mirror against a direction of travel of the incident light for the purpose of reducing linear astigmatism, column 5, lines 55-63. Absent any demonstration of criticality, there is no indication in the present application of the front-end optical system outputs the incident light having a waist of 19.79 microns at a point of 370.54 mm away from the first freeform-surface mirror against a direction of travel of the incident light is critical to the invention. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to Claim 12, Chang teaches the mode conversion apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1) outputs the mode-converted light and the mode-converted light from the second freeform-surface mirror (M2, Figure 1).
Chang fails to teach wherein the second freeform-surface mirror outputs the mode-converted light having a waist of 344 microns at a point of 1474.4665 mm away along a direction of travel of the mode-converted light from the second freeform-surface mirror.
Smithwick teaches wherein the second freeform-surface mirror outputs the mode-converted light having a waist of 1000 microns (¶[0094]) at a point of 81 mm (¶[0094]) away along a direction of travel of the mode-converted light from the second freeform-surface mirror (beam waist enlarges with the increase of the angular index (well-known in the art).
Chang in view of Smithwick disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the second freeform-surface mirror outputs the mode-converted light having a waist of 344 microns at a point of 1474.4665 mm away along a direction of travel of the mode-converted light from the second freeform-surface mirror. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to have the second freeform-surface mirror outputs the mode-converted light having a waist of 344 microns at a point of 1474.4665 mm away along a direction of travel of the mode-converted light from the second freeform-surface mirror, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the second freeform-surface mirror outputs the mode-converted light having a waist of 344 microns at a point of 1474.4665 mm away along a direction of travel of the mode-converted light from the second freeform-surface mirror for the purpose of reducing linear astigmatism, column 5, lines 55-63. Absent any demonstration of criticality, there is no indication in the present application of the second freeform-surface mirror outputs the mode-converted light having a waist of 344 microns at a point of 1474.4665 mm away along a direction of travel of the mode-converted light from the second freeform-surface mirror is critical to the invention. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al., (Wang, Z.; Wang, T.; Yang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Mi, X.; Wang, J. Precise Two-Dimensional Tilt Measurement Sensor with Double-Cylindrical Mirror Structure and Modified Mean-Shift Algorithm for a Confocal Microscopy System. Sensors 2022, 22, 6794. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22186794) teaches a mirror structure with measurement system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 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, Stephone 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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights