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 September 9, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1 and 10 and has canceled claims 9 and 12.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 remain pending in this application.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
In light of the amendment to claim 1, (i.e. the base claim), it is not clear if the controller is to evaluate “an image quality of an image” or “the binary phase structure” of the phase shift mask?
The scopes of the claim are unclear.
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, 3-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Klapp et al (US 2016/0299339 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Crossland et al (US 2001/0050787 A1) and US patent application publication by Roh et al (UA 2022/0141427 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Klapp et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a system for tunable extended depth of field that is capable of extending a depth of field of an optical system wherein the optical system is comprised of a tunable spatial light modulator or a tunable filter (111, Figure 1A and 2B) serves as the phase shift mask that is disposed between a first and a second lenses (111 and 112) of the optical system. Klapp et al teaches that the tunable filter may comprise a binary phase structure, (please see paragraph [0080]) and the phase shift of the tunable filter comprises the tunable spatial light modulator that the phase modulation is controlled by changing the voltage, (please see paragraph [0049]) which means the optical system implicitly comprises a controller for controlling the voltage to control the binary phase structure of the tunable filter.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “evaluating an image quality of an image acquired by the optical system with the phase shift mask, calculating a cost representing a difference between the image quality and a target image quality and modifying the binary phase structure by using particle swarm optimization so as to minimize the cost”.
Klapp et al teaches that a database of the phase shift masks tailored to the structure of the
tunable spatial light modulator or a tunable filter (111, Figure 1A and 2B), may be built, (please see the Abstract and paragraph [0043] to [0044]). It however does not teach explicitly the steps of modifying or building the binary phase structure of the phase shift mask. However, one skilled in the art must have the basic knowledge that iteration process is most well-known and typical method to calculate and modify a phase structure. Crossland et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a typical algorithm for determining a phase structure (or hologram phase, please see Figure 6), that is comprised of the step of minimizing a cost function defined by the difference of an output function g and a target function g’, (please see paragraphs [0110] to [0111]). The output function g with the minimized cost function would be used as desired output. In light of the teachings of Crossland et al, it would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Klapp et al to use the iteration algorithm to evaluate an output function such as the image acquired with the initial phase function of the phase shift mask and minimizing the cost function between the difference of the output function of the image with a target image function and to modify the phase function of the phase shift mask or the binary phase structure according to the calculated phase function that has minimized the cost function. Such modification is considered standard and obvious to one skilled in the art since iteration process is the most common practice in the art to obtain desired structure.
These references do not teach explicitly that the optimization algorithm used in the iteration process is a particle swarm optimization method. However, as taught by Roh et al such optimization method is a common optimization method for determining desired phase profile of an optical element, (please see paragraph [0150]). Such modification would therefore have been obvious to one skilled in the art for the benefit of using art well-known optimization process to carry out the iteration process.
With regard to claims 3-5, Klapp et al teaches that the tunable filter may comprise a plurality of concentric rings (please see Figure 1C) with certain rings have phase zero and certain rings have phase p to make the tunable filter has a binary phase structure, (please see paragraph [0080]). This means the tunable filter has first region corresponding to phase zero (zero degree) delay and the second region corresponding to phase p (180 degrees) delay.
With regard to claim 8, Klapp et al teaches that the phase shift mask or the tunable filter (111) is implemented as a spatial light modulator, (please see paragraph [0049]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klapp et al, Crossland et al and Roh et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of US patent application publication by Takiguchi (US 2018/0313759 A1).
The system for extending a depth of field of an optical system taught by Klapp et al as in combination with the teachings of Crossland et al and Roh et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations.
With regard to claim 2, Klapp et al teaches the controller is configured to determine the final image by using image lights output from the second lens according to at least two different binary phase structure of the tunable filter, (please see the abstract). This reference however does not teach explicitly to use the feedback arrangement to evaluate the binary phase structure of the tunable filter. Takiguchi in the same field of endeavor teaches an image acquisition system that is comprised of a spatial light modulator with a phase structure (13, Figure 1) that is controlled by a control unit (19) wherein an optimal phase structure of the spatial light modulator is evaluated and optimized by the light output received by the photodetector (18, Figure 1, paragraphs [0048] to [0051]). The phase structure obtained by the evaluation process is then used to either change the phase structure of spatial light modulator or be used as is.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Takiguchi to modify the system of Klapp et al to alternatively be able to determine the optimal binary phase structure for generating desired extension of the depth of field.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klapp et al, Crossland et al and Roh et al in view of US patent application publication by Neil et al (US 2005/0046818 A1).
The system for extending a depth of field of an optical system taught by Klapp et al in combination with the teachings of Crossland et al and Roh et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, these references do not teach that the first region and the second region of the phase mask or the tunable filter are provided in plural and formed alternately and do not teach the second region is placed at the center. Neil et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a binary phase mask (4, Figure 1) that is comprised of a plurality of alternating rings (20, Figure 1) of a first region (with zero degree phase) and a second region (with 180 degrees phase). The 180 degree phase regions have black or opaque transition is placed at the center of the mask, (please see Figure 7 and paragraph [0037]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Neil et al to modify the tunable filter to have a binary phase mask with alternating rings of the zero and 180 degrees phase for the benefit to use the specific binary phase structure to achieve the desired extended depth of field.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Takiguchi (US 2018/0313759 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Klapp et al (US 2016/0299339 A1).
Claim 10 has been amended to necessary the new grounds of rejection.
Takiguchi teaches a method for extending depth of field of an imaging optical system wherein the method is comprised of a step of providing a spatial light modulator (13, Figure 1) with phase structure (please see Figures 2 and 3) serves as the phase shit mask in the imaging optical system and a step of applying an optimal phase structure while controlling a phase structure formed on the phase shift mask or the spatial light modulator. Takiguchi teaches a feedback arrangement to determine the phase pattern of the spatial light modulator by the image light output and received by the photodetector, (please see paragraphs [0048] to [0051]).
This reference has met all the limitations of claim. It however does not teach that the spatial light modulator or the phase shift mask is disposed between a first and second lenses in the optical system.
Klapp et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a method for extending a depth of field of an optical system wherein the method comprises a step of disposing the tunable filter (111, Figure 2A) serves as the phase shift mask between a first and second lenses (111 and 112) of the optical system. Klapp et al specifically teaches that the tunable filter should be placed at the system’s aperture stop or in its conjugate plane, (please see Figure 2B and paragraph [0081]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Klapp et al to modify the imaging optical system of Takiguchi to place the tunable filter or the phase shift mask at the exit pupil (117, Figure 2B) for the benefit of allowing the desired depth of field may be achieved.
Takiguchi et al teaches that the spatial light modulator with a phase structure that has phase values between 0 and 2p, it does not teach that the phase shift mask is a binary phase mask. Klapp et al teaches that the tunable filter may have binary phase structure, (please see paragraph [0080]).
Claim 10 has been amended to include the phrase “wherein the act of controlling the binary phase structure is performed by evaluating an image quality of an image acquired by the optical system with the phase shift mask, calculating a const representing a difference between the image quality and a targe image quality and modifying the binary phase structure by using particle swarm optimization so as to minimize the cost”.
Klapp et al teaches that a database of the phase shift masks tailored to the structure of the
tunable spatial light modulator or a tunable filter (111, Figure 1A and 2B), may be built, (please see the Abstract and paragraph [0043] to [0044]). It however does not teach explicitly the steps of modifying or building the binary phase structure of the phase shift mask. But one skilled in the art must have the basic knowledge that iteration process is most well-known and typical method to calculate and modify an optical structure such as a phase structure. Crossland et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a typical algorithm for determining a phase structure (or hologram phase, please see Figure 6), that is comprised of the step of minimizing a cost function defined by the difference of an output function g and a target function g’, (please see paragraphs [0110] to [0111]). The output function g with the minimized cost function would be used as desired output. In light of the teachings of Crossland et al, it would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Klapp et al to use the iteration algorithm to evaluate an output function such as the image acquired with the initial phase function of the phase shift mask and minimizing the cost function between the difference of the output function of the image with a target image function and to modify the phase function of the phase shift mask or the binary phase structure according to the calculated phase function that has minimized the cost function. Such modification is considered standard and obvious to one skilled in the art since iteration process is the most common practice in the art to obtain desired structure.
These references do not teach explicitly that the optimization algorithm used in the iteration process is a particle swarm optimization method. However, as taught by Roh et al such optimization method is a common optimization method for determining desired phase profile of an optical element, (please see paragraph [0150]). Such modification would therefore have been obvious to one skilled in the art for the benefit of using art well-known optimization process to carry out the iteration process.
With regard to claim 11, Takiguchi teaches the spatial light modulator with a phase structure (13, Figure 1) is controlled by a control unit (19) wherein an optimal phase structure of the spatial light modulator is evaluated and optimized by the light output received by the photodetector (18, Figure 1, paragraphs [0048] to [0051]). The phase structure obtained by the evaluation process is then used to either change the phase structure of spatial light modulator or be used as is.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to newly amended features that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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