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 .
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1–4, 11, and 13–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0216452 to Suzuki et al. in view of JP 2004-29298 A to Katsunuma (copy with translation attached with this Office action, citations to the provided translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki discloses (e.g., at least Fig. 1 and its description) a light beam shaping apparatus 1A, comprising a port assembly 10, a first light beam shaping device (e.g., combination of lens 41a and phase modulating light deflection element 30, paragraphs [0055] and [0062]), wherein the port assembly comprises at least one input port 11 (paragraph [0044]); the first light beam shaping device is configured to perform light beam shaping on a first light beam input from the at least one input port (e.g., paragraphs [0055] and [0062]).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose a solid medium, the port assembly is connected to the first light beam shaping device through the solid medium.
Katsunuma discloses an optical device, and teaches forming the internal space of a transparent solid medium to reduce light loss (e.g., paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Suzuki to include a solid medium, such that the port assembly is connected to the first light beam shaping device through the solid medium, as suggested by Katsunuma, in order to reduce light loss in the device.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Suzuki and Katsunuma would have rendered obvious wherein the solid medium uses a dielectric material with a high transmittance (e.g., quartz glass, paragraph [0017] of Katsunuma).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Suzuki and Katsunuma would have rendered obvious wherein the beam shaping apparatus further comprises a housing, wherein the port assembly and the first light beam shaping device are packaged in the housing, and the housing is filled with the solid medium (e.g., paragraphs [0009] and [0017] of Katsunuma, “covering the solid medium with a case, and attaching the incident light transmission path and the output light transmission path to the solid medium, thereby greatly simplifying the manufacturing process,” and “inner space 11 of the case 10 is filled with a transparent solid medium”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Suzuki and Katsunuma would have rendered obvious wherein the first light beam shaping device is configured to perform phase adjustment on the first light beam, to adjust a beam waist width of the first light beam in a first direction and/or a second direction, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (e.g., paragraphs [0054]–[0056] of Suzuki).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Suzuki and Katsunuma would have rendered obvious wherein ports in the port assembly are distributed in M rows and N columns, M is an integer greater than 1, N is an integer greater than 1, M ports in each column are distributed in the first direction, and N ports in each row are distributed in the second direction (e.g., Figs. 16–25 of Suzuki illustrate various configurations, and where selecting a specific configuration or orientation would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results based on known optical properties, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results).
Regarding Claim 13, Suzuki discloses (e.g., at least Fig. 1 and its description) a light beam shaping method (e.g., Fig. 1), wherein the light beam shaping method is applied to a light beam shaping apparatus 1A, the light beam shaping apparatus comprises a port assembly 10/11 (e.g., paragraph [0044]), and a first light beam shaping device (e.g., combination of lens 41a and phase modulating light deflection element 30, paragraphs [0055] and [0062]); the port assembly comprises at least one input port 11 (paragraph [0044]); the method comprises: performing, by the first light beam shaping device, light beam shaping on the first light beam input from the at least one input port (e.g., paragraphs [0055] and [0062]).
Suzuki does not explicitly disclose a housing, the port assembly and the first light beam shaping device are packaged in the housing, and the housing is further filled with a solid medium.
Katsunuma discloses an optical device, and teaches forming the internal space of a transparent solid medium to reduce light loss, where the components are formed within a case (e.g., housing), to simplify the manufacturing process (e.g., paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the method of Suzuki to include a housing, the port assembly and the first light beam shaping device are packaged in the housing, and the housing is further filled with a solid medium, as suggested by Katsunuma, in order to reduce light loss and simplify manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Suzuki and Katsunuma would have rendered obvious wherein the port assembly adheres to the first light beam shaping device through the solid medium (e.g., where the components of Suzuki would be adhered by the solid material of Katsunuma; also Fig. 1 of Katsunuma and paragraph [0009], teaching the components being attached).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Suzuki and Katsunuma would have rendered obvious wherein the solid medium uses a medium material with high transmittance (e.g., quartz glass, paragraph [0017] of Katsunuma).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Suzuki and Katsunuma would have rendered obvious wherein the performing, by the first light beam shaping device, light beam shaping on a first light beam input from the at least one input port comprises: performing, by the first light beam shaping device, phase adjustment on the first light beam, to adjust a beam waist width of the first light beam in a first direction and/or a second direction, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (e.g., paragraphs [0054]–[0056] of Suzuki).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5–10, 12, and 17–20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights