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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 3 March 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment to the Drawing has overcome the Drawing objection. The Drawing objection has been withdrawn.
The examiner fully considered the Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 112 rejections, but the examiner was not persuaded. Applicant’s amendments have provided additional ground for 35 USC 112(a) rejections. Accordingly, there are still grounds for 35 USC 112 rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 21 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, these claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 34-35, 39-40, and 44 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, additional references were identified, which teach the amended portions of the claims. Therefore, these claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 3 March 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 21, 24, 34-35, 39-40, and 44 have been amended. Claims 11-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 2-4 and 23 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 5-22, 24-31 and 33-44 are pending.
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.
Claims 34-41 and 44 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 34-35, 39-40, and 44, the limitation “an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation” is not mentioned in the original Specification nor in the original set of claims. Numerical ranges must have support in the original disclosure (MPEP 2163.05). As a result, by using this claim limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
In claims 36-38, the limitation “oscillation distances and oscillation speeds of the first and second galvanometer scanners are proportioned and synchronized to produce a circular or annular beam path with an effective and stable rotational speed of the laser beam” of claims 36-38 is not mentioned in the original Specification nor in the original set of claims. As a result, by using this claim limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claim 41 is rejected based on its dependency to claim 40.
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, 5-10, 21-22, 24-31, and 33-44 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-10, 21, 24, 26-29, 31, 33-42, and 44 recite structure and the method steps for using that structure. For example, claim 1 recites the following (method steps are underlined below):
“A device comprising:
a first galvanometer scanner that oscillates a first mirror;
a second galvanometer scanner that oscillates a second mirror;
a laser source directing a laser beam into the first mirror;
an optical element that focuses the laser beam; and
a controller comprising a microprocessor and a memory for storing executable instructions, the controller is configured to control the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner so as to create a moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern with the laser beam to ablate a coating from a surface at a contact area by a leading edge and a trailing edge of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern and the controller is further configured to control the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner to form a second contact curve by superimposing, at a same time, the second contact curve on the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern, the second contact curve having a different diameter than a diameter of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern, the microprocessor executing the executable instructions to:
move the first and second galvanometer scanners such that the laser beam interacts with the first mirror to reflect and alter a path of the laser beam along an X- axis, and the laser beam reflects off of the second mirror to reflect and alter the path of the laser beam along a Y-axis, a combined laser beam path alteration of the first and the second mirrors along the X-axis and Y-axis producing the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern and the second contact curve, where a shape and a size of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern is selectively adjustable by way of an X-axis speed control input, an Y-axis speed control input, an X-axis scan width input, and an Y-axis scan width input.”
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the methods steps for using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p.II). It is unclear if infringement occurs based on the structure or based on the method steps for using the structure. Recommend using “configured to” in these claims.
Claims 6, 22, 25, 30, 32, and 43 are rejected based on their dependence to the independent claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-10, 21-22, 24-34, 33, 36, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zair (US-5618285-A) in view of Black et al. (US-5786924-A) and Minehara (US-9174304-B2, effective filing date of 25 October 2011).
Regarding claim 1, Zair teaches a device (fig. 1) comprising:
a first galvanometer scanner (“The scanning system 6 includes two mirrors 12, 14, each rotated by a motor M1, M2,” column 3, lines 1-2; the system with the motor M1 and the mirror 12 is construed as the claimed “first galvanometer scanner”) that oscillates a first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1; equations 1-2 describe the oscillation that takes place across the X1 and Y1 axes, column 3, lines 35-40);
a second galvanometer scanner (the system with the motor M2 and the mirror 14 is construed as the claimed “second galvanometer scanner”) that oscillates a second mirror (mirror 14, fig. 1; equations 3-6 describe the oscillation that takes place across the X2 and Y2 axes, column 4, lines 11-23);
a laser source (laser 2, fig. 1) directing a laser beam (beam 4, fig. 1) into the first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1);
an optical element (lens 10, fig .1) that focuses the laser beam (column 2, lines 64-67); and
a controller (control system 16, fig. 1), the controller is configured to control the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (as shown in fig. 1) so as to create a moving annular of circular contact curve laser pattern (elliptical patterns that are slanted right, fig. 6) with the laser beam to ablate a surface at a contact area (“ablation of a target material of living tissue,” column 2, lines 1-2) by a leading edge (similar to how the Applicant distinguishes between trailing edges and leading edges in fig. 3C, the beam patterns on the right side of the Lissajous in fig. 6 are construed as the claimed “leading edge”) and a trailing edge (the beam patterns on the left side of the Lissajous in fig. 6 are construed as the claimed “trailing edge”) of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern and the controller is further configured to control the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (equations 1-6, fig. 6; controlled using the parameters shown in column 6, lines 16-24) to form a second contact curve (elliptical patterns that are slanted left, fig. 6) by superimposing, at a same time, the second contact curve on the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (as shown in fig. 6), the second contact curve having a different diameter than a diameter of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (the diameters across the major axis and the minor axis of the ellipses change during each revolution), the microprocessor executing the executable instructions to:
move the first and second galvanometer scanners (movement accomplished by the motors M1 and M2, fig. 1; their operation is explained through the description of figs. 2-5) such that the laser beam interacts with the first mirror to reflect and alter a path of the laser beam along an X- axis (“X2,” fig. 5; equations 3 and 5), and the laser beam reflects off of the second mirror to reflect and alter the path of the laser beam along a Y-axis (“Y2,” fig. 5; equations 4 and 6), a combined laser beam path alteration of the first and the second mirrors (combine as shown in fig. 1) along the X-axis and Y-axis producing the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern and the second contact curve (fig. 6)
where a shape and a size of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern is selectively adjustable (“parameters” column 6, line 13; top of column 5 shows another set of “parameters,” which are construed as being “adjustable”) by way of an X-axis speed control input (Omega, equation 3, column 4, line 13; represents the rotational speed of the motors, column 6, line 21), an Y-axis speed control input (Omega, equation 4, column 4, line 16; represents the rotational speed of the motors, column 6, line 21), an X-axis scan width input (Theta, equation 3, column 4, line 13;determined from “A,” column 4, line 44, which determined from the Scan Radius, column 5, line 4), and an Y-axis scan width input (Theta, equation 4, column 4, line 16; determined from “A,” column 4, line 44, which determined from the Scan Radius, column 5, line 4).
Zair, figs. 1 and 6 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
516
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
560
831
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zair does not explicitly disclose a controller comprising a microprocessor and a memory for storing executable instructions configured to ablate a coating.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation, Black teaches a controller (scanning control means 98, fig. 7) comprising a microprocessor (“microprocessor,” column 5, line 29) and a memory for storing executable instructions (“A control means controls the position and speed of the focal point so that various scanning patterns may be programmed by the user,” column 3, line 67-column 4, line 2; disclosure of a program is construed such that microprocessor must possess memory in order to access the program).
Black, fig. 7
PNG
media_image3.png
414
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair to additionally include, a controller comprising a microprocessor and a memory for storing executable instruction, in view of the teachings of Black, by using a microprocessor and sensors, as taught by Black, to monitor the rotating mirrors in the control system, as taught by Zair, in order to analyze feedback signals from the sensors, for the advantage of ensuring that the desired rotational position and speed of the mirrors meets the particular scanning pattern specified by the user to provide assurance that the beam is being directed in the appropriate pattern at the desired speed (Black, column 5, lines 27-36; Black also teaches that it is known in the art to use microprocessor-controlled mirrors, column 2, line 19).
Zair/Black do not explicitly disclose a controller configured to ablate a coating.
However, reasonably pertinent to the problem of decontamination, Minehara teaches a controller (focus position controlling section 24, fig. 2) configured to ablate a coating (radioisotopes RI deposited on surface of article T are construed as the claimed “coating,” fig. 3).
Minehara, figs. 2-3
PNG
media_image4.png
424
372
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
314
436
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair include by substitution, a controller configured to ablate a coating, in view of the teachings of Minehara, by ablating radioisotopes, as taught by Minehara, instead of ablating tissue, as taught by Zair, in order to substitute one object of ablation for another, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one ablated object known in the art (human tissue) for another (radioactive isotopes) with predictable results (regardless of whether the object that is ablated is tissue or isotopes, the object will continue to be ablated and will not change the operation of the laser ablation device), for the advantage of vaporizing contaminant radioactive isotopes that are on the surface of a material, such that the underlying material is not damaged (Minehara, column 1, lines 18-27).
Regarding claim 5, Zair teaches the invention as described above as well as a cooperative movement of the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (device in fig. 1 is capable of producing the pattern shown in fig. 6, which is construed as being “cooperative movement”). Zair does not explicitly disclose wherein the microprocessor is programmed with further instructions.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation, Black teaches wherein the microprocessor (“microprocessor,” column 5, line 29) is programmed with further instructions (“microprocessor programming,” column 5, line 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair to additionally include, wherein the microprocessor is programmed with further instructions, in view of the teachings of Black, by using a microprocessor and sensors, as taught by Black, to monitor the rotating mirrors in the control system, as taught by Zair, in order to analyze feedback signals from the sensors, for the advantage of ensuring that the desired rotational position and speed of the mirrors meets the particular scanning pattern specified by the user to provide assurance that the beam is being directed in the appropriate pattern at the desired speed (Black, column 5, lines 27-36; Black also teaches that it is known in the art to use microprocessor-controlled mirrors, column 2, line 19).
Regarding claim 6, Zair teaches wherein an energy level, a pulse duration, and a pulse frequency of the laser source are selectable (column 1, lines 25-47; determination of pulse duration is disclosed at the bottom of column 5).
Regarding claim 7, Zair teaches wherein the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (fig. 6) comprises any of a circle or ellipse (ellipses are shown in fig. 6) created by a cooperative movement of the first galvanometer scanner (motor M1 and mirror 12, fig. 1) and the second galvanometer scanner (motor M2 and mirror 14, fig. 1) in both X- axis (equations 1, 3, and 5, columns 3-4) and Y-axis directions (equations 2, 4, and 6, columns 3-4).
Regarding claim 8, Zair teaches wherein the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (fig. 6) is created by oscillating the first galvanometer scanner (equations 1-2, column 3) and the second galvanometer scanner (equations 3-6, column 4).
Regarding claim 9, Zair teaches wherein respective distances that each of the first galvanometer scanner (amplitude of equations 1-2, column 3) and the second galvanometer scanner (amplitudes of equations 3-6, column 4) oscillates affects a size of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern that is created (equations 7-8, which show the movement at the “focal plane” have amplitudes that are product of the focal length and the amplitudes from equations 1-6; by mathematical extension, changing the amplitudes in equations 1-6 will change the amplitudes in equations 7-8; examiner understands equations 7-8 such that sine functions and the cosine functions will be 90 degrees out of phase from each other; in other words, the sine functions will lag behind the cosine functions by a quarter of a period; this lag property with differing amplitudes between the respective sine and cosine functions creates the ellipses shown in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Zair teaches wherein the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern comprises one of a circle or an ellipse created (ellipses are shown in fig. 6) by cooperative movement of the first galvanometer scanner (motor M1 and mirror 12, fig. 1) and the second galvanometer scanner (motor M2 and mirror 14, fig. 1) in both X- axis (equations 1, 3, and 5, columns 3-4) and Y-axis directions (equations 2, 4, and 6, columns 3-4), and a first oscillation distance of the first galvanometer scanner (
"
θ
"
equation 1, column 3) differs from a second oscillation distance (
"
θ/√2,"
equation 5, column 4) of the second galvanometer scanner.
Regarding claim 21, Zair teaches a device (fig. 1) comprising:
a first galvanometer scanner (“The scanning system 6 includes two mirrors 12, 14, each rotated by a motor M1, M2,” column 3, lines 1-2; the system with the motor M1 and the mirror 12 is construed as the claimed “first galvanometer scanner”) that oscillates a first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1; equations 1-2 describe the oscillation that takes place across the X1 and Y1 axes, column 3, lines 35-40);
a second galvanometer scanner (the system with the motor M2 and the mirror 14 is construed as the claimed “second galvanometer scanner”) that oscillates a second mirror (mirror 14, fig. 1; equations 3-6 describe the oscillation that takes place across the X2 and Y2 axes, column 4, lines 11-23);
a laser source (laser 2, fig. 1) directing a laser beam (beam 4, fig. 1) into the first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1);
an optical element (lens 10, fig. 1) that focuses the laser beam (column 2, lines 64-67); and
a controller (control system 16, fig. 1), the controller is configured to control the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (as shown in fig. 1) so as to create a moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (elliptical patterns that are slanted right, fig. 6) with the laser beam to ablate a surface at a contact area (“ablation of a target material of living tissue,” column 2, lines 1-2) by a leading edge (similar to how the Applicant distinguishes between trailing edges and leading edges in fig. 3C, the beam patterns on the right side of the Lissajous in fig. 6 is construed as the claimed “leading edge”) and a trailing edge (the beam patterns on the left side of the Lissajous in fig.6 is construed as the claimed “trailing edge”) of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern and the controller is further configured to control the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (equations 1-6, fig. 6; controlled using the parameters shown in column 6, lines 16-24) to form a second contact curve (elliptical patterns that are slanted left, fig. 6) by superimposing, at a same time, the second contact curve on the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (as shown in fig. 6), the second contact curve having a different diameter than a diameter of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (the diameters across the major axis and the minor axis of the ellipses change during each revolution),
the controller further comprising an X-axis speed control input (Omega, equation 3, column 4, line 13; represents the rotational speed of the motors, column 6, line 21), a Y-axis speed control input (Omega, equation 4, column 4, line 16; represents the rotational speed of the motors, column 6, line 21), a X-axis scan width input (Theta, equation 3, column 4, line 13; determined from “A,” column 4, line 44, which is determined from the Scan Radius, column 5, line 4), and a Y-axis scan width input (Theta, equation 4, column 4, line 16; determined from “A,” column 4, line 44, which is determined from the Scan Radius, column 5, line 4), wherein the X-axis speed control input controls a directional speed of movement of the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner in an X-axis (speed along x axis, fig. 3; equations 1 and 3, columns 3 and 4), the Y-axis speed control input controls a directional speed of the movement of the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner in the Y-axis (speed along y axis, fig. 3; equations 2 and 4, columns 3 and 4), the first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1) reflecting the laser beam to the second galvanometer scanner (motor M2 and mirror 14, fig. 1), the second mirror (mirror 14, fig. 1) reflecting the laser beam to the optical element (lens 10, fig. 1), the microprocessor executing the executable instructions to:
move the first and second galvanometer scanners (movement accomplished by the motors M1 and M2, fig. 1; their operation is explained through the description of figs. 2-5) such that the laser beam interacts with the first mirror to reflect and alter a path of the laser beam along the X- axis (“X2,” fig. 5; equations 3 and 5), and the laser beam reflects off of the second mirror to reflect and alter the path of the laser beam along the Y-axis (Y2, fig. 5; equations 4 and 6), a combined laser beam path alteration of the first and the second mirrors (combine as shown in fig. 1) along the X-axis and Y-axis producing the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern and the second contact curve (fig. 6)
where a shape and a size of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern is selectively adjustable (“parameters” column 6, line 13; top of column 5 shows another set of “parameters,” which are construed as being “adjustable”) by way of an X-axis speed control input (Omega, equation 3, column 4, line 13; represents the rotational speed of the motors, column 6, line 21), an Y-axis speed control input (Omega, equation 4, column 4, line 16; represents the rotational speed of the motors, column 6, line 21), an X-axis scan width input (Theta, equation 3, column 4, line 13;determined from “A,” column 4, line 44, which determined from the Scan Radius, column 5, line 4), and an Y-axis scan width input (Theta, equation 4, column 4, line 16; determined from “A,” column 4, line 44, which determined from the Scan Radius, column 5, line 4).
Zair does not explicitly disclose a controller comprising a microprocessor and a memory for storing executable instructions configured to ablate a coating.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation, Black teaches a controller (scanning control means 98, fig. 7) comprising a microprocessor (“microprocessor,” column 5, line 29) and a memory for storing executable instructions (“A control means controls the position and speed of the focal point so that various scanning patterns may be programmed by the user,” column 3, line 67-column 4, line 2; disclosure of a program is construed such that microprocessor must possess memory in order to access the program).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair to additionally include, a controller comprising a microprocessor and a memory for storing executable instructions, in view of the teachings of Black, by using a microprocessor and sensors, as taught by Black, to monitor the rotating mirrors in the control system, as taught by Zair, in order to analyze feedback signals from the sensors, for the advantage of ensuring that the desired rotational position and speed of the mirrors meets the particular scanning pattern specified by the user to provide assurance that the beam is being directed in the appropriate pattern at the desired speed (Black, column 5, lines 27-36; Black also teaches that it is known in the art to use microprocessor-controlled mirrors, column 2, line 19).
Zair/Black do not explicitly disclose a controller configured to ablate a coating.
However, reasonably pertinent to the problem of decontamination, Minehara teaches a controller (focus position controlling section 24, fig. 2) configured to ablate a coating (radioisotopes RI deposited on surface of article T are construed as the claimed “coating,” fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair include by substitution, a controller configured to ablate a coating, in view of the teachings of Minehara, by ablating radioisotopes, as taught by Minehara, instead of ablating tissue, as taught by Zair, in order to substitute one object of ablation for another, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one ablated object known in the art (human tissue) for another (radioactive isotopes) with predictable results (regardless of whether the object that is ablated is tissue or isotopes, the object will continue to be ablated and will not change the operation of the laser ablation device), for the advantage of vaporizing contaminant radioactive isotopes that are on the surface of a material, such that the underlying material is not damaged (Minehara, column 1, lines 18-27).
Regarding claim 22, Zair teaches wherein the controller is further configured to selectively control a scan speed (“rotation speed,” column 6, line 21) and a scan width (“scan radius,” column 6, line 17) of the moving annular or circular contact laser pattern (fig. 6) in both X-axis and Y-axis directions (these variables become parameters that are used in equations 3-6, column 4).
Regarding claim 24, Zair teaches the invention as described above as well as a cooperative movement of the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (device in fig. 1 is capable of producing the pattern shown in fig. 6, which is construed as being “cooperative movement”). Zair does not explicitly disclose wherein the microprocessor is programmed with further instructions.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation, Black teaches wherein the microprocessor (“microprocessor,” column 5, line 29) is programmed with further instructions (“microprocessor programming,” column 5, line 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair to additionally include, wherein the microprocessor is programmed with further instructions, in view of the teachings of Black, by using a microprocessor and sensors, as taught by Black, to monitor the rotating mirrors in the control system, as taught by Zair, in order to analyze feedback signals from the sensors, for the advantage of ensuring that the desired rotational position and speed of the mirrors meets the particular scanning pattern specified by the user to provide assurance that the beam is being directed in the appropriate pattern at the desired speed (Black, column 5, lines 27-36; Black also teaches that it is known in the art to use microprocessor-controlled mirrors, column 2, line 19).
Regarding claim 25, Zair teaches wherein an energy level, a pulse duration, and a pulse frequency of the laser source are selectable (column 1, lines 25-47; determination of pulse duration is disclosed at the bottom of column 5).
Regarding claim 26, Zair teaches wherein the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (fig. 6) comprises any of a circle or ellipse (ellipses are shown in fig. 6) created by a cooperative movement of the first galvanometer scanner (motor M1 and mirror 12, fig. 1) and the second galvanometer scanner (motor M2 and mirror 14, fig. 1) in both the X- axis (equations 1, 3, and 5, columns 3-4) and the Y-axis directions (equations 2, 4, and 6, columns 3-4).
Regarding claim 27, Zair teaches wherein the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (fig. 6) is created by oscillating the first galvanometer scanner (equations 1-2, column 3) and the second galvanometer scanner (equations 3-6, column 4).
Regarding claim 28, Zair teaches wherein a respective distance that each of the first galvanometer scanner (amplitude of equations 1-2, column 3) and the second galvanometer scanner (amplitudes of equations 3-6, column 4) oscillates affects a size of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern that is created (equations 7-8, which show the movement at the “focal plane” have amplitudes that are product of the focal length and the amplitudes from equations 1-6; by mathematical extension, changing the amplitudes in equations 1-6 will change the amplitudes in equations 7-8; examiner understands equations 7-8 such that sine functions and the cosine functions will be 90 degrees out of phase from each other; in other words, the sine functions will lag behind the cosine functions by a quarter of a period; this lag property with differing amplitudes between the respective sine and cosine functions creates the ellipses shown in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 29, Zair teaches wherein the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern comprises one of a circle or an ellipse created (ellipses are shown in fig. 6) by cooperative movement of the first galvanometer scanner (motor M1 and mirror 12, fig. 1) and the second galvanometer scanner (motor M2 and mirror 14, fig. 1) in both the X- axis (equations 1, 3, and 5, columns 3-4) and the Y-axis directions (equations 2, 4, and 6, columns 3-4), and a first oscillation distance of the first galvanometer scanner (
"
θ
"
equation 1, column 3) differs from a second oscillation distance (
"
θ/√2,"
equation 5, column 4) of the second galvanometer scanner.
Regarding claim 30, Zair teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner are mounted side by side.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation, Black teaches wherein the first galvanometer scanner (mirror 82, fig. 7) and the second galvanometer scanner (mirror 88, fig. 7) are mounted side by side (“mounted,” column 5, line 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair to additionally include, wherein the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner are mounted side by side, in view of the teachings of Black, by using a concave mirror and a convex mirror and providing a central hole, as taught by Black, in the mirror 12, as taught by Zair, in order to use a system that is capable of delivering laser beams of a wide range of wavelengths and to a very small focus, from delivery of confident far IR beams to visible beams without chromatic aberration (Black, column 2, lines 41-55 and column 3, lines 31-47)
Regarding claim 31, Zair teaches wherein the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (fig. 1) are mounted together in a single delivery head (scanner system 36, fig. 9) such as to create a plurality of circle scans side by side or overlapping each other (“scan the continuous laser beam along two orthogonal axes as described above to cause the beam to trace Lissajous figures over the tissue to be ablated,” column 6, lines 9-12; tracing multiple Lissajous figures, which is in the shape of a circle as shown in fig. 6, is construed as a “plurality of circles scans…overlapping each other”).
Regarding claim 33, Zair teaches control cooperative movement of the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (device in fig. 1 is capable of producing the pattern shown in fig. 6, which is construed as being “cooperative movement”) in both X-axis (equations 1, 3, and 5, columns 3-4) and Y- axis directions (equations 2, 4, and 6, columns 3-4) so as to create the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (fig. 6) with the laser beam. Zair does not explicitly disclose wherein the microprocessor is further programmed with instructions.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation, Black teaches wherein the microprocessor (“microprocessor,” column 5, line 29) is programmed with further instructions (“microprocessor programming,” column 5, line 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair to additionally include, a microprocessor, in view of the teachings of Black, by using a microprocessor and sensors, as taught by Black, to monitor the rotating mirrors in the control system, as taught by Zair, in order to analyze feedback signals from the sensors, for the advantage of ensuring that the desired rotational position and speed of the mirrors meets the particular scanning pattern specified by the user to provide assurance that the beam is being directed in the appropriate pattern at the desired speed (Black, column 5, lines 27-36; Black also teaches that it is known in the art to use microprocessor-controlled mirrors, column 2, line 19).
Regarding claim 36, Zair teaches wherein the first and second galvanometer scanners (scanner system 6, fig. 1) are controlled by the microprocessor (controller 16, fig. 1) such that oscillation distances (“A=Θf/√2=0.207; B=θf=0.293,” column 4, line 45; these “A” and “B” distances are construed as the claimed “oscillation distances;” “A” and “B” are in mm and are used to create fig. 6) and oscillation speeds (Omega in equations 5 and 6, column; represents the rotational speed of the motors, column 6, line 21) of the first and second galvanometer scanners are proportioned and synchronized to produce a circular or annular beam path with an effective and stable rotational speed of the laser beam (“20 revolution scan period is about 0.2 seconds,” column 4, lines 49-50).
Regarding claim 42, Zair teaches wherein the first and second galvanometer scanners (scanner system 6, fig. 1) are controlled by the microprocessor (controller 16, fig. 1) such that angles of mirror rotation (“angle,” column 3, line 16 and 55; shown in figs. 2 and 3 and maintained at 90 degrees) and oscillation speeds (Omega in equations 5 and 6, column; represents the rotational speed of the motors, column 6, line 21) of the first and second galvanometer scanners are proportioned and synchronized to produce a circular or annular beam path (fig. 6) with an effective rotational speed of the beam of approximately 30,000 RPM or less (“20 revolution scan period is about 0.2 seconds,” column 4, lines 49-50; construed as 20/.2*60=6,000 RPM).
Claims 34-35, 39-41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zair (US-5618285-A) in view of Black et al. (US-5786924-A), Minehara (US-9174304-B2, effective filing date of 25 October 2011), Zamisel (“Laser scanners,” NPL filed and cited in IDS 29 March 2024 with a publication date of 19 Jan 2013; considered Applicant admitted prior art because fig. 9 is labeled “prior art” and is the work of another, MPEP 2129), and Warner et al. (US-20080192316-A1).
Regarding claim 34, Zair teaches a device (fig. 1) comprising:
a first galvanometer scanner (“The scanning system 6 includes two mirrors 12, 14, each rotated by a motor M1, M2,” column 3, lines 1-2; the system with the motor M1 and the mirror 12 is construed as the claimed “first galvanometer scanner”) that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1; equations 1-2 describe the reciprocal oscillation that takes place across the X1 and Y1 axes, column 3, lines 35-40);
a second galvanometer scanner (the system with the motor M2 and the mirror 14 is construed as the claimed “second galvanometer scanner”) that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror (mirror 14, fig. 1; equations 3-6 describe the reciprocal oscillation that takes place across the X2 and Y2 axes, column 4, lines 11-23);
a laser source (laser 2, fig. 1) directing a laser beam (beam 4, fig. 1) into the first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1);
an optical element (lens 10, fig .1) that focuses the laser beam (column 2, lines 64-67); and
a controller (control system 16, fig. 1), the controller is configured to control the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (as shown in fig. 1) so as to create a moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (elliptical patterns that are slanted right, fig. 6) with the laser beam to ablate a surface at a contact area (“ablation of a target material of living tissue,” column 2, lines 1-2) by a leading edge (similar to how the Applicant distinguishes between trailing edges and leading edges in fig. 3C, the beam patterns on the right side of the Lissajous in fig. 6 is construed as the claimed “leading edge”) and a trailing edge (the beam patterns on the left side of the Lissajous in fig. 6 is construed as the claimed “trailing edge”) of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern and the controller is further configured to control the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (equations 1-6, fig. 6; controlled using the parameters shown in column 6, lines 16-24) to form a second contact curve (elliptical patterns that are slanted left, fig. 6) by superimposing, at a same time, the second contact curve on the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (as shown in fig. 6), the second contact curve having a different diameter than a diameter of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (the diameters across the major axis and the minor axis of the ellipses change during each revolution), the microprocessor executing the executable instructions to:
oscillate the first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1) via the first galvanometer scanner (equations 1-2 describe the oscillation that takes place across the X1 and Y1 axes, column 3, lines 35-40;
oscillate the second mirror (mirror 14, fig. 1) via the second galvanometer scanner (equations 3-6 describe the oscillation that takes place across the X2 and Y2 axes, column 4, lines 11-23);
direct the laser beam (beam 4, fig. 1) into the first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1) using the laser source (laser 2, fig. 1);
focus (column 2, lines 64-67) the laser beam using the optical element (lens 10, fig .1); and
control, via the controller (control system 16, fig. 1), the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (controls both scanning systems, fig. 1) so as to create the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern and the second contact curve (fig. 6) with the laser beam by moving the first and second galvanometer scanners with cooperative movement (movement accomplished by the motors M1 and M2, fig. 1; their operation is explained through the description of figs. 2-5).
Zair does not explicitly disclose a first galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a second galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a controller comprising a microprocessor and a memory for storing executable instructions configured to ablate a coating.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation, Black teaches a controller (scanning control means 98, fig. 7) comprising a microprocessor (“microprocessor,” column 5, line 29) and a memory for storing executable instructions (“A control means controls the position and speed of the focal point so that various scanning patterns may be programmed by the user,” column 3, line 67-column 4, line 2; disclosure of a program is construed such that microprocessor must possess memory in order to access the program).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair to additionally include, a controller comprising a microprocessor and a memory for storing executable instructions, in view of the teachings of Black, by using a microprocessor and sensors, as taught by Black, to monitor the rotating mirrors in the control system, as taught by Zair, in order to analyze feedback signals from the sensors, for the advantage of ensuring that the desired rotational position and speed of the mirrors meets the particular scanning pattern specified by the user to provide assurance that the beam is being directed in the appropriate pattern at the desired speed (Black, column 5, lines 27-36; Black also teaches that it is known in the art to use microprocessor-controlled mirrors, column 2, line 19).
Zair/Black do not explicitly disclose a first galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a second galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a controller configured to ablate a coating.
However, reasonably pertinent to the problem of decontamination, Minehara teaches a controller (focus position controlling section 24, fig. 2) configured to ablate a coating (radioisotopes RI deposited on surface of article T are construed as the claimed “coating,” fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair include by substitution, a controller configured to ablate a coating, in view of the teachings of Minehara, by ablating radioisotopes, as taught by Minehara, instead of ablating tissue, as taught by Zair, in order to substitute one object of ablation for another, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one ablated object known in the art (human tissue) for another (radioactive isotopes) with predictable results (regardless of whether the object that is ablated is tissue or isotopes, the object will continue to be ablated and will not change the operation of the laser ablation device), for the advantage of vaporizing contaminant radioactive isotopes that are on the surface of a material, such that the underlying material is not damaged (Minehara, column 1, lines 18-27).
Zair/Black/Minehara do not explicitly disclose a first galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a second galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation, Zamisel teaches a first galvanometer scanner (annotated in fig. 4 below) that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror (annotated in fig. 4 below) in a back-and-forth motion (the first mirror is construed as oscillating back and forth because of the rotation of the first galvanometer); a second galvanometer scanner (annotated in fig. 4 below) that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror (annotated in fig. 4 below) in a back-and-forth motion (the second mirror is construed as oscillating back and forth because of the rotation of the second galvanometer).
Zamisel, fig. 4 (annotated)
PNG
media_image6.png
596
754
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair, in view of the teachings of Zamisel, by using galvanometers that tilt mirrors, as taught by Zamisel, instead of galvanometers that rotate mirrors, as taught by Zair, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one galvanometer system for another with predictable results (using mirrors that tilt back and forth instead of mirrors that rotate in circles will not change the resultant scanning of the laser beam but will simplify the scanning of the laser beam across an x-axis and y-axis).
Zair/Black/Minehara/Zamisel do not explicitly disclose an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation.
However, in the same filed of endeavor of laser ablation, Warner teaches an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation (“the useful range of angles should avoid the extremes, however, i.e., near 0 degrees and near 90 degrees,” para 0066; construed as a range greater than zero degrees and less than 90 degrees).
Warner, fig. 3A
PNG
media_image7.png
1159
828
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair/Zamisel, in view of the teachings of Warner, by limiting the ranges of the first mirror and second mirror, as taught by Zamisel, to between 0 and 90 degrees, as taught by Warner, in order to prevent the mirrors from tilting at 0 and 90 degrees, because when the mirror is at zero degrees, the beam will be parallel to the mirror and when the mirror is at 90 degrees, the beam will be reflected back to its source, resulting in the laser beam becoming uncontrollable beyond a 90-degree range (Warner, paras 0056 and 0066).
Regarding claim 35, Zair teaches a device (fig. 1) comprising:
a first galvanometer scanner (“The scanning system 6 includes two mirrors 12, 14, each rotated by a motor M1, M2,” column 3, lines 1-2; the system with the motor M1 and the mirror 12 is construed as the claimed “first galvanometer scanner”) that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1; equations 1-2 describe the reciprocal oscillation that takes place across the X1 and Y1 axes, column 3, lines 35-40);
a second galvanometer scanner (the system with the motor M2 and the mirror 14 is construed as the claimed “second galvanometer scanner”) that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror (mirror 14, fig. 1; equations 3-6 describe the reciprocal oscillation that takes place across the X2 and Y2 axes, column 4, lines 11-23);
a laser source (laser 2, fig. 1) directing a laser beam (beam 4, fig. 1) into the first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1);
an optical element (lens 10, fig. 1) that focuses the laser beam (column 2, lines 64-67); and
a controller (control system 16, fig. 1), the controller is configured to control the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (as shown in fig. 1) so as to create a moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (elliptical patterns that are slanted right, fig. 6) with the laser beam to ablate a surface at a contact area (“ablation of a target material of living tissue,” column 2, lines 1-2) by a leading edge (similar to how the Applicant distinguishes between trailing edges and leading edges in fig. 3C, the beam patterns on the right side of the Lissajous in fig. 6 is construed as the claimed “leading edge”) and a trailing edge (the beam patterns on the left side of the Lissajous in fig. 6 is construed as the claimed “trailing edge”) of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern and the controller is further configured to control the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (equations 1-6, fig. 6; controlled using the parameters shown in column 6, lines 16-24) to form a second contact curve (elliptical patterns that are slanted left, fig. 6) by superimposing, at a same time, the second contact curve on the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (as shown in fig. 6), the second contact curve having a different diameter than a diameter of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (the diameters across the major axis and the minor axis of the ellipses change during each revolution),
the controller further comprising an X-axis speed control input (Omega, equation 3, column 4, line 13; represents the rotational speed of the motors, column 6, line 21), a Y-axis speed control input (Omega, equation 4, column 4, line 16; represents the rotational speed of the motors, column 6, line 21), a X-axis scan width input (Theta, equation 3, column 4, line 13;determined from “A,” column 4, line 44, which determined from the Scan Radius, column 5, line 4), and a Y-axis scan width input (Theta, equation 4, column 4, line 16; determined from “A,” column 4, line 44, which determined from the Scan Radius, column 5, line 4), wherein the X-axis speed control input controls a directional speed of movement of the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner in the X-axis (speed along x axis, fig. 3; equations 1 and 3, columns 3 and 4), the Y-axis speed control input controls a directional speed of the movement of the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner in the Y-axis (speed along y axis, fig. 3; equations 2 and 4, columns 3 and 4), the first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1) reflecting the laser beam to the second galvanometer scanner (motor M2 and mirror 14, fig. 1), the second mirror (mirror 14, fig. 1) reflecting the laser beam to the optical element (lens 10, fig. 1), the microprocessor executing the executable instructions to:
oscillate the first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1) via the first galvanometer scanner (equations 1-2 describe the oscillation that takes place across the X1 and Y1 axes, column 3, lines 35-40;
oscillate the second mirror (mirror 14, fig. 1) via the second galvanometer scanner (equations 3-6 describe the oscillation that takes place across the X2 and Y2 axes, column 4, lines 11-23);
direct the laser beam (beam 4, fig. 1) into the first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1) using the laser source (laser 2, fig. 1);
focus (column 2, lines 64-67) the laser beam using the optical element (lens 10, fig .1); and
control, via the controller (control system 16, fig. 1), the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (controls both scanning systems, fig. 1) so as to create the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern and the second contact curve (fig. 6) with the laser beam by moving the first and second galvanometer scanners (movement accomplished by the motors M1 and M2, fig. 1; their operation is explained through the description of figs. 2-5) as a single unit (scanner system 36, fig. 9).
Zair does not explicitly disclose a first galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a second galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a controller comprising a microprocessor and a memory for storing executable instructions configured to ablate a coating.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation, Black teaches a controller (scanning control means 98, fig. 7) comprising a microprocessor (“microprocessor,” column 5, line 29) and a memory for storing executable instructions (“A control means controls the position and speed of the focal point so that various scanning patterns may be programmed by the user,” column 3, line 67-column 4, line 2; disclosure of a program is construed such that microprocessor must possess memory in order to access the program).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair to additionally include, a controller comprising a microprocessor and a memory for storing executable instructions, in view of the teachings of Black, by using a microprocessor and sensors, as taught by Black, to monitor the rotating mirrors in the control system, as taught by Zair, in order to analyze feedback signals from the sensors, for the advantage of ensuring that the desired rotational position and speed of the mirrors meets the particular scanning pattern specified by the user to provide assurance that the beam is being directed in the appropriate pattern at the desired speed (Black, column 5, lines 27-36; Black also teaches that it is known in the art to use microprocessor-controlled mirrors, column 2, line 19).
Zair/Black do not explicitly disclose a first galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a second galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a controller configured to ablate a coating.
However, reasonably pertinent to the problem of decontamination, Minehara teaches a controller (focus position controlling section 24, fig. 2) configured to ablate a coating (radioisotopes RI deposited on surface of article T are construed as the claimed “coating,” fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair include by substitution, a controller configured to ablate a coating, in view of the teachings of Minehara, by ablating radioisotopes, as taught by Minehara, instead of ablating tissue, as taught by Zair, in order to substitute one object of ablation for another, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one ablated object known in the art (human tissue) for another (radioactive isotopes) with predictable results (regardless of whether the object that is ablated is tissue or isotopes, the object will continue to be ablated and will not change the operation of the laser ablation device), for the advantage of vaporizing contaminant radioactive isotopes that are on the surface of a material, such that the underlying material is not damaged (Minehara, column 1, lines 18-27).
Zair/Black/Minehara do not explicitly disclose a first galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a second galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation, Zamisel teaches a first galvanometer scanner (annotated in fig. 4 above) that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror (annotated in fig. 4 above) in a back-and-forth motion (the first mirror is construed as oscillating back and forth because of the rotation of the first galvanometer); a second galvanometer scanner (annotated in fig. 4 above) that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror (annotated in fig. 4 above) in a back-and-forth motion (the second mirror is construed as oscillating back and forth because of the rotation of the second galvanometer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair, in view of the teachings of Zamisel, by using galvanometers that tilt mirrors, as taught by Zamisel, instead of galvanometers that rotate mirrors, as taught by Zair, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one galvanometer system for another with predictable results (using mirrors that tilt back and forth instead of mirrors that rotate in circles will not change the resultant scanning of the laser beam but will simplify the scanning of the laser beam across an x-axis and y-axis).
Zair/Black/Minehara/Zamisel do not explicitly disclose an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation.
However, in the same filed of endeavor of laser ablation, Warner teaches an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation (“the useful range of angles should avoid the extremes, however, i.e., near 0 degrees and near 90 degrees,” para 0066; construed as a range greater than zero degrees and less than 90 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair/Zamisel, in view of the teachings of Warner, by limiting the ranges of the first mirror and second mirror, as taught by Zamisel, to between 0 and 90 degrees, as taught by Warner, in order to prevent the mirrors from tilting at 0 and 90 degrees, because when the mirror is at zero degrees, the beam will be parallel to the mirror and when the mirror is at 90 degrees, the beam will be reflected back to its source, resulting in the laser beam becoming uncontrollable beyond a 90-degree range (Warner, paras 0056 and 0066).
Regarding claim 39, Zair teaches a device (fig. 1) comprising:
a first galvanometer scanner (“The scanning system 6 includes two mirrors 12, 14, each rotated by a motor M1, M2,” column 3, lines 1-2; the system with the motor M1 and the mirror 12 is construed as the claimed “first galvanometer scanner”) that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1; equations 1-2 describe the reciprocal oscillation that takes place across the X1 and Y1 axes, column 3, lines 35-40);
a second galvanometer scanner (the system with the motor M2 and the mirror 14 is construed as the claimed “second galvanometer scanner”) that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror (mirror 14, fig. 1; equations 3-6 describe the reciprocal oscillation that takes place across the X2 and Y2 axes, column 4, lines 11-23);
a laser source (laser 2, fig. 1) directing a laser beam (beam 4, fig. 1) into the first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1);
an optical element (lens 10, fig .1) that focuses the laser beam (column 2, lines 64-67); and
a controller (control system 16, fig. 1), the controller is configured to control the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (as shown in fig. 1) so as to create a contact curve laser pattern (elliptical patterns that are slanted right, fig. 6) with the laser beam to ablate a surface at a contact area (“ablation of a target material of living tissue,” column 2, lines 1-2) by a leading edge (similar to how the Applicant distinguishes between trailing edges and leading edges in fig. 3C, the beam patterns on the right side of the Lissajous in fig. 6 are construed as the claimed “leading edge”) and a trailing edge (the beam patterns on the left side of the Lissajous in fig. 6 are construed as the claimed “trailing edge”) of the contact curve laser pattern, the microprocessor executing the executable instructions to:
move the first and second galvanometer scanners (movement accomplished by the motors M1 and M2, fig. 1; their operation is explained through the description of figs. 2-5) such that the laser beam interacts with the first mirror to reflect and alter a path of the laser beam along an X- axis (“X2,” fig. 5; equations 3 and 5), and the laser beam reflects off of the second mirror to reflect and alter the path of the laser beam along a Y-axis (“Y2,” fig. 5; equations 4 and 6), a combined laser beam path alteration of the first and the second mirrors (combine as shown in fig. 1) along the X-axis and Y-axis producing the contact curve laser pattern and the second contact curve (fig. 6).
Zair does not explicitly disclose a first galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a second galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a controller comprising a microprocessor and a memory for storing executable instructions configured to ablate a coating.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation, Black teaches a controller (scanning control means 98, fig. 7) comprising a microprocessor (“microprocessor,” column 5, line 29) and a memory for storing executable instructions (“A control means controls the position and speed of the focal point so that various scanning patterns may be programmed by the user,” column 3, line 67-column 4, line 2; disclosure of a program is construed such that microprocessor must possess memory in order to access the program).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair to additionally include, a controller comprising a microprocessor and a memory for storing executable instructions, in view of the teachings of Black, by using a microprocessor and sensors, as taught by Black, to monitor the rotating mirrors in the control system, as taught by Zair, in order to analyze feedback signals from the sensors, for the advantage of ensuring that the desired rotational position and speed of the mirrors meets the particular scanning pattern specified by the user to provide assurance that the beam is being directed in the appropriate pattern at the desired speed (Black, column 5, lines 27-36; Black also teaches that it is known in the art to use microprocessor-controlled mirrors, column 2, line 19).
Zair/Black do not explicitly disclose a first galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a second galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a controller configured to ablate a coating.
However, reasonably pertinent to the problem of decontamination, Minehara teaches a controller (focus position controlling section 24, fig. 2) configured to ablate a coating (radioisotopes RI deposited on surface of article T are construed as the claimed “coating,” fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair include by substitution, a controller configured to ablate a coating, in view of the teachings of Minehara, by ablating radioisotopes, as taught by Minehara, instead of ablating tissue, as taught by Zair, in order to substitute one object of ablation for another, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one ablated object known in the art (human tissue) for another (radioactive isotopes) with predictable results (regardless of whether the object that is ablated is tissue or isotopes, the object will continue to be ablated and will not change the operation of the laser ablation device), for the advantage of vaporizing contaminant radioactive isotopes that are on the surface of a material, such that the underlying material is not damaged (Minehara, column 1, lines 18-27).
Zair/Black/Minehara do not explicitly disclose a first galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a second galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation, Zamisel teaches a first galvanometer scanner (annotated in fig. 4 above) that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror (annotated in fig. 4 above) in a back-and-forth motion (the first mirror is construed as oscillating back and forth because of the rotation of the first galvanometer); a second galvanometer scanner (annotated in fig. 4 above) that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror (annotated in fig. 4 above) in a back-and-forth motion (the second mirror is construed as oscillating back and forth because of the rotation of the second galvanometer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair, in view of the teachings of Zamisel, by using galvanometers that tilt mirrors, as taught by Zamisel, instead of galvanometers that rotate mirrors, as taught by Zair, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one galvanometer system for another with predictable results (using mirrors that tilt back and forth instead of mirrors that rotate in circles will not change the resultant scanning of the laser beam but will simplify the scanning of the laser beam across an x-axis and y-axis).
Regarding claim 40, Zair teaches a device (fig. 1) comprising:
a first galvanometer scanner (“The scanning system 6 includes two mirrors 12, 14, each rotated by a motor M1, M2,” column 3, lines 1-2; the system with the motor M1 and the mirror 12 is construed as the claimed “first galvanometer scanner”) that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1; equations 1-2 describe the reciprocal oscillation that takes place across the X1 and Y1 axes, column 3, lines 35-40);
a second galvanometer scanner (the system with the motor M2 and the mirror 14 is construed as the claimed “second galvanometer scanner”) that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror (mirror 14, fig. 1; equations 3-6 describe the reciprocal oscillation that takes place across the X2 and Y2 axes, column 4, lines 11-23);
a laser source (laser 2, fig. 1) directing a laser beam (beam 4, fig. 1) into the first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1);
an optical element (lens 10, fig .1) that focuses the laser beam (column 2, lines 64-67); and
a controller (control system 16, fig. 1), the controller is configured to control the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (as shown in fig. 1) so as to create a moving annular of circular contact curve laser pattern (elliptical patterns, fig. 6) with the laser beam to ablate a coating from a surface at a contact area (“ablation of a target material of living tissue,” column 2, lines 1-2) by a leading edge (similar to how the Applicant distinguishes between trailing edges and leading edges in fig. 3C, the beam patterns on the right side of the Lissajous in fig. 6 are construed as the claimed “leading edge”) and a trailing edge (the beam patterns on the left side of the Lissajous in fig. 6 are construed as the claimed “trailing edge”) of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (elliptical patterns, fig. 6)
the microprocessor executing the executable instructions to:
move the first and second galvanometer scanners (movement accomplished by the motors M1 and M2, fig. 1; their operation is explained through the description of figs. 2-5) such that the laser beam interacts with the first mirror to reflect and alter a path of the laser beam along an X- axis (“X2,” fig. 5; equations 3 and 5), and the laser beam reflects off of the second mirror to reflect and alter the path of the laser beam along a Y-axis (“Y2,” fig. 5; equations 4 and 6), a combined laser beam path alteration of the first and the second mirrors (combine as shown in fig. 1) along the X-axis and Y-axis producing the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern and the second contact curve (fig. 6).
Zair does not explicitly disclose a first galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a second galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a controller comprising a microprocessor and a memory for storing executable instructions configured to ablate a coating.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation, Black teaches a controller (scanning control means 98, fig. 7) comprising a microprocessor (“microprocessor,” column 5, line 29) and a memory for storing executable instructions (“A control means controls the position and speed of the focal point so that various scanning patterns may be programmed by the user,” column 3, line 67-column 4, line 2; disclosure of a program is construed such that microprocessor must possess memory in order to access the program).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair to additionally include, a controller comprising a microprocessor and a memory for storing executable instruction, in view of the teachings of Black, by using a microprocessor and sensors, as taught by Black, to monitor the rotating mirrors in the control system, as taught by Zair, in order to analyze feedback signals from the sensors, for the advantage of ensuring that the desired rotational position and speed of the mirrors meets the particular scanning pattern specified by the user to provide assurance that the beam is being directed in the appropriate pattern at the desired speed (Black, column 5, lines 27-36; Black also teaches that it is known in the art to use microprocessor-controlled mirrors, column 2, line 19).
Zair/Black do not explicitly disclose a first galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a second galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a controller configured to ablate a coating.
However, reasonably pertinent to the problem of decontamination, Minehara teaches a controller (focus position controlling section 24, fig. 2) configured to ablate a coating (radioisotopes RI deposited on surface of article T are construed as the claimed “coating,” fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair include by substitution, a controller configured to ablate a coating, in view of the teachings of Minehara, by ablating radioisotopes, as taught by Minehara, instead of ablating tissue, as taught by Zair, in order to substitute one object of ablation for another, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one ablated object known in the art (human tissue) for another (radioactive isotopes) with predictable results (regardless of whether the object that is ablated is tissue or isotopes, the object will continue to be ablated and will not change the operation of the laser ablation device), for the advantage of vaporizing contaminant radioactive isotopes that are on the surface of a material, such that the underlying material is not damaged (Minehara, column 1, lines 18-27).
Zair/Black/Minehara do not explicitly disclose a first galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a second galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation, Zamisel teaches a first galvanometer scanner (annotated in fig. 4 above) that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror (annotated in fig. 4 above) in a back-and-forth motion (the first mirror is construed as oscillating back and forth because of the rotation of the first galvanometer); a second galvanometer scanner (annotated in fig. 4 above) that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror (annotated in fig. 4 above) in a back-and-forth motion (the second mirror is construed as oscillating back and forth because of the rotation of the second galvanometer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair, in view of the teachings of Zamisel, by using galvanometers that tilt mirrors, as taught by Zamisel, instead of galvanometers that rotate mirrors, as taught by Zair, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one galvanometer system for another with predictable results (using mirrors that tilt back and forth instead of mirrors that rotate in circles will not change the resultant scanning of the laser beam but will simplify the scanning of the laser beam across an x-axis and y-axis).
Zair/Black/Minehara/Zamisel do not explicitly disclose an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation.
However, in the same filed of endeavor of laser ablation, Warner teaches an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation (“the useful range of angles should avoid the extremes, however, i.e., near 0 degrees and near 90 degrees,” para 0066; construed as a range greater than zero degrees and less than 90 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair/Zamisel, in view of the teachings of Warner, by limiting the ranges of the first mirror and second mirror, as taught by Zamisel, to between 0 and 90 degrees, as taught by Warner, in order to prevent the mirrors from tilting at 0 and 90 degrees, because when the mirror is at zero degrees, the beam will be parallel to the mirror and when the mirror is at 90 degrees, the beam will be reflected back to its source, resulting in the laser beam becoming uncontrollable beyond a 90-degree range (Warner, paras 0056 and 0066).
Regarding claim 41, Zair teaches wherein the microprocessor (control system 16, fig. 1) is further configured to execute the executable instructions to: change a size of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern (size of the circle shown in fig. 6), the change the size of the moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern creating circles of varying sizes (“circle of radius 0.5 mm ,” column 4, line 47; “Scan Radius r=2.0 mm,” column 5, line 4; “radius of at least 1.5 mm,” column 2, line 27; Zair teaches changing the radius of the circle through parameters A and B as shown in fig. 6; for example, when A=.828 and B=1.172, then the scan radius is 2 mm, column 5, line 4).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Zair in view of Black, Minehara, Zamisel, and Warner as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 43. Specifically, Minehara teaches wherein the coating (radioisotopes RI deposited on surface of article T, fig. 3) to be ablated from the surface comprises at least one of corrosion, foreign material (radioisotopes cause contamination, column 1, lines 18-27; construed as being a foreign material because the radioactive material causes “deterioration” of a surface, paragraph 0003 of the Specification in the Instant Application), oxidation, paint, soiling, smoke damage, atmospheric pollutants (the radioisotopes cause “environmental pollution,” column 6, line 2; construed as being pollutants), organic residues, and grease.
Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zair (US-5618285-A) in view of Black et al. (US-5786924-A) and Minehara (US-9174304-B2, effective filing date of 25 October 2011) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kekkonen et al. (US-20170350000-A1, EFD of 23 Dec 2014).
Regarding claim 37, Zair teaches wherein the first and second galvanometer scanners (scanner system 6, fig. 1) are controlled by the microprocessor (controller 16, fig. 1) such that oscillation distances (“A=Θf/√2=0.207; B=θf=0.293,” column 4, line 45; these “A” and “B” distances are construed as the claimed “oscillation distances;” “A” and “B” are in mm and are used to create fig. 6) and oscillation speeds (Omega in equations 5 and 6, column; represents the rotational speed of the motors, column 6, line 21) of the first and second galvanometer scanners are proportioned and synchronized to produce a circular or annular beam path with an effective and stable rotational speed of the beam (“20 revolution scan period is about 0.2 seconds,” column 4, lines 49-50).
Zair does not explicitly disclose an effective rotational speed of the beam of approximately 30,000 RPM (Zair teaches appx 6,000 RPM).
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation systems, Kekkonen teaches an effective rotational speed of the beam of approximately 30,000 RPM (“rotation speeds can have values in a wide range from a fraction of rps to tens of thousands of rpm (0.01 rps-100,000 rpm),” para 0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair to include as a matter of routine optimization, an effective rotational speed of the beam of approximately 30,000 RPM, in view of the teachings of Kekkonen, by increasing the rotation speed, as taught by Kekkonen, of the motors M1 and M2, as taught by Zair, such that they rotated at a speed of 30,000 RPM (appx 3,000 rad/sec) instead of 6,000 RPM in order to enable a higher production rate of removal by performing the scans at a higher speed, because it is known that as a matter of routine optimization, the production rate can be optimized by increasing the pulse repetition rate, which should be based on the rotation speed of the mirrors (Kekkonen, paras 0015 and 0064).
Regarding claim 38, Zair teaches wherein the first and second galvanometer scanners (scanner system 6, fig. 1) are controlled by the microprocessor (controller 16, fig. 1) such that oscillation distances (“A=Θf/√2=0.207; B=θf=0.293,” column 4, line 45; these “A” and “B” distances are construed as the claimed “oscillation distances;” “A” and “B” are in mm and are used to create fig. 6) and oscillation speeds (Omega in equations 5 and 6, column; represents the rotational speed of the motors, column 6, line 21) of the first and second galvanometer scanners are proportioned and synchronized to produce a circular or annular beam path with an effective and stable rotational speed of the beam (“20 revolution scan period is about 0.2 seconds,” column 4, lines 49-50). Zair does not explicitly disclose an effective rotational speed of the beam in a range of 30,000-100,000 RPM (Zair teaches appx 6,000 RPM).
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation systems, Kekkonen teaches an effective rotational speed of the beam in a range of 30,000-100,000 RPM (“rotation speeds can have values in a wide range from a fraction of rps to tens of thousands of rpm (0.01 rps-100,000 rpm),” para 0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair to include as a matter of routine optimization, an effective rotational speed of the beam in a range of 30,000-100,000 RPM, in view of the teachings of Kekkonen, by increasing the rotation speed, as taught by Kekkonen, of the motors M1 and M2, as taught by Zair, such that they rotated at a speed of 30,000 RPM (appx 3,000 rad/sec) instead of 6,000 RPM in order to enable a higher production rate of removal by performing the scans at a higher speed, because it is known that as a matter of routine optimization, the production rate can be optimized by increasing the pulse repetition rate, which should be based on the rotation speed of the mirrors (Kekkonen, paras 0015 and 0064) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zair (US-5618285-A) in view of Zamisel (“Laser scanners,” NPL filed and cited in IDS 29 March 2024 with a publication date of 19 Jan 2013; considered Applicant admitted prior art because fig. 9 is labeled “prior art” and is the work of another, MPEP 2129), and Warner et al. (US-20080192316-A1).
Zair teaches a device comprising:
a first galvanometer scanner (“The scanning system 6 includes two mirrors 12, 14, each rotated by a motor M1, M2,” column 3, lines 1-2; the system with the motor M1 and the mirror 12 is construed as the claimed “first galvanometer scanner”) that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1; equations 1-2 describe the reciprocal oscillation that takes place across the X1 and Y1 axes, column 3, lines 35-40);
a second galvanometer scanner (the system with the motor M2 and the mirror 14 is construed as the claimed “second galvanometer scanner”) that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror (mirror 14, fig. 1; equations 3-6 describe the reciprocal oscillation that takes place across the X2 and Y2 axes, column 4, lines 11-23);
a laser source (laser 2, fig. 1) directing a laser beam (beam 4, fig. 1) into the first mirror (mirror 12, fig. 1);
a lens (lens 10, fig .1) that focuses the laser beam (column 2, lines 64-67); and
a controller (control system 16, fig. 1) configured to control the first galvanometer scanner and the second galvanometer scanner (as shown in fig. 1) so as to create a contact curve with the laser beam (elliptical patterns that are slanted right, fig. 6), the contact curve comprising a leading arc portion (similar to how the Applicant distinguishes between trailing edges and leading edges in fig. 3C, the beam patterns on the right side of the Lissajous in fig. 6 are construed as the claimed “leading arc portion;” please see annotated fig. 6 below) and a trailing arc portion (the beam patterns on the left side of the Lissajous in fig. 6 are construed as the claimed “trailing arc portion;” please see annotated fig. 6 below)
Zair does not explicitly disclose a first galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation; a second galvanometer scanner that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation, Zamisel teaches a first galvanometer scanner (annotated in fig. 4 above) that reciprocally oscillates a first mirror (annotated in fig. 4 above) in a back-and-forth motion (the first mirror is construed as oscillating back and forth because of the rotation of the first galvanometer); a second galvanometer scanner (annotated in fig. 4 above) that reciprocally oscillates a second mirror (annotated in fig. 4 above) in a back-and-forth motion (the second mirror is construed as oscillating back and forth because of the rotation of the second galvanometer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair, in view of the teachings of Zamisel, by using galvanometers that tilt mirrors, as taught by Zamisel, instead of galvanometers that rotate mirrors, as taught by Zair, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one galvanometer system for another with predictable results (using mirrors that tilt back and forth instead of mirrors that rotate in circles will not change the resultant scanning of the laser beam but will simplify the scanning of the laser beam across an x-axis and y-axis).
Zair/Zamisel do not explicitly disclose an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation.
However, in the same filed of endeavor of laser ablation, Warner teaches an angular range of less than 360 degrees in each oscillation (“the useful range of angles should avoid the extremes, however, i.e., near 0 degrees and near 90 degrees,” para 0066; construed as a range greater than zero degrees and less than 90 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Zair/Zamisel, in view of the teachings of Warner, by limiting the ranges of the first mirror and second mirror, as taught by Zamisel, to between 0 and 90 degrees, as taught by Warner, in order to prevent the mirrors from tilting at 0 and 90 degrees, because when the mirror is at zero degrees, the beam will be parallel to the mirror and when the mirror is at 90 degrees, the beam will be reflected back to its source, resulting in the laser beam becoming uncontrollable beyond a 90-degree range (Warner, paras 0056 and 0066).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 3 March 2026 have been fully considered.
Interview Summary
The examiner agrees with the interview summary provided in the first two pages of the arguments filed 3 March 2026. During the interview the Applicant explained how their invention can be distinguished over Zair (US561285). Zair teaches oscillating the mirrors by rotating the mirrors. However, in the Applicant’s invention the mirrors are oscillated by tilting the mirrors back and forth (e.g., see fig. 9 of the Drawings). The examiner notes that claims 34-35, 39-40, and 44 were amended to include this back-and-forth limitation. However, claims 1 and 21 do not include this limitation.
Response to Rejections Under 35 USC § 112
In the second page of the arguments, the Applicant addresses the 35 USC 112(a) rejection and states that there is support for claims 36-38 in paragraphs 0024-0025 and 0040-0042 of the Specification. Claims 36-38 were rejected for containing new matter because “oscillation distances” and “oscillation speeds” are not described in the Specification. The examiner reviewed paragraphs 0024-0025 and 0040-0042 of the Specification, but could not find any mention of “oscillation distances” or “oscillation speeds.” However, paragraph 0042 of the Specification describes “the speed of rotation.” Thus, the claims could be amended to recite “rotation speeds” instead of “oscillation speeds.”
The second and third pages of the arguments address the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, which was based on the claims combining apparatus structure with method steps. The arguments reference MPEP 2173.05.p.II and a decision from IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc. The arguments state the examiner is misunderstanding this section from the MPEP because this rejection only applies if the claims require user action. For example, in IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc, an apparatus claim was found to be indefinite because the claim required a user to perform a method step. The Applicant argues that because the claims do require user action, then this rejection is improper.
The examiner did not find this argument persuasive because is not supported by the decision in IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc. Although this decision was focused on the specific instance of whether user action in an apparatus claim is indefinite, the decision acknowledged that “the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences … has made it clear that reciting both an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus renders a claim indefinite under section 112, paragraph 2.” For example, the decision referenced Ex parte Lyell, where an apparatus claim that included method steps was found to be indefinite. The claims that were reviewed in Ex parte Lyell do not include steps requiring user action.
Furthermore, presupposing that the Applicant’s argument was correct that user action is a necessary requirement for this 112(b) rejection, why does the addition of a user within the claim scope cause the claim to be indefinite but the absence causes the claim to be definite? Respectfully submit that MPEP 2173.05.p.II explains that the reason why the claim is indefinite is because it is unclear whether the claim is directed to the structure of the apparatus or the method steps for using that apparatus. Therefore, based on MPEP 2173.05.p.II, respectfully submit that the Applicant is partially correct—“action” is a necessary element for this rejection to be made. However, the presence of a user within the claim scope is not a requirement for this determination.
The third page of the arguments provide the following statements:
“The claims at issue contain no user-performed steps. Each limitation the Examiner identified describes inherent apparatus function, not user action. The limitation "a first galvanometer scanner that oscillates a first mirror" describes what the galvanometer scanner does when operating. A galvanometer scanner, by definition, oscillates a mirror. This is an inherent characteristic of the apparatus, not a step a user performs. Similarly, "a laser source directing a laser beam" describes the laser source's inherent function. An optical element "that focuses the laser beam" describes the element's optical property. The microprocessor "executing the executable instructions to: move the first and second galvanometer scanners" describes what the microprocessor does during apparatus operation.”
The examiner agrees that the claims require an apparatus and functions that the apparatus must perform. The examiner disagrees that the functions that are described in the claim are necessarily inherent functions. For example, there are optical elements that instead of focusing a laser beam cause the laser beam to diffuse or spread out. Regardless, it is not clear why the determination of inherent vs. non-inherent functions are pertinent to this rejection. MPEP 2173.05.p.II does not provide an exception for inherent functions.
The third page of the arguments state that “a person infringes by making, using, or selling the claimed device, not by personally performing ‘oscillating’ or ‘moving’ actions.” The examiner agrees that “a person infringes by making, using, or selling the claimed device.” However, what is at issue with the current rejection is whether “a person infringes by making, using, and selling the claimed device.” In other words, the metes and bounds of the claim should be clear as to whether the claim is an apparatus claim or a method claim (cannot be both).
The third page of the arguments states that “the Examiner appears to believe present participle verbs like ‘oscillates’ and ‘directing’ are per se improper, while ‘configured to oscillate’ and ‘configured to direct’ would be acceptable.” The examiner agrees with this statement.
The fourth page of the arguments states that “a claim reciting ‘a pump that pumps fluid’ is no more a hybrid claim than ‘a pump configured to pump fluid.’ Both describe apparatus function.” The examiner disagrees that “a pump that pumps fluid” has the same meaning as “a pump configured to pump fluid.” For example, a pump that is not pumping fluid is not a “a pump that pumps fluid.” However, a pump that is not pumping fluid can still be “a pump configured to pump fluid.” Using “configured to” makes clear that what is required is a pump that is capable of pumping fluid. By using “configured to,” the emphasis is placed on the capabilities of the structure instead of the use of the structure.
Thus, the examiner agrees with the Applicant’s argument on the fourth page that what is important is that “the claim language describe apparatus capability.” Although the Applicant believes that this requirement is met because there is no mention of a user action within the claims, the examiner disagrees. Instead, the examiner recommends that the Applicant insert “configured to” into the claims clarifies in order to clarify that the limitations are directed to the capabilities of the apparatus instead of the method steps that the apparatus must perform.
Response to Rejections Under 35 USC § 103
The fifth page of the arguments reference Zair (US5618285) and state that “Zair does not teach the claimed galvanometer scanners that oscillate mirrors. As discussed above, Zair explicitly teaches motors that rotate mirrors through complete revolutions.” Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because they do not explain how their claimed invention is different from what is taught in the prior art references. Instead of identifying these differences and explaining how these differences are captured in the claim limitations, the Applicant’s arguments are focused on finding faults in the rejections. As a result, the Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made.
Respectfully submit that the Applicant is not able to make this distinction because the Applicant’s invention is drawn to mirrors that rotate. The Applicant’s original Specification mentions mirrors that “rotate” thirty-nine times. In contrast, there is only two mentions of the word “oscillate” in the original Specification; however neither of these occasions describe mirrors that oscillate (in paragraph 0043, which describes an oscillating pattern, and in paragraph 0050, which describes an oscillator power amplifier….there is no disclosure in the original Specification of oscillating mirrors).
The basis for oscillating mirrors is fig. 9 of the Drawings (please see Arguments filed 27 March 2024). The examiner agrees that fig. 9 shows mirrors that oscillate. However, these mirrors oscillate as a result of their rotation. In other words, mirrors can both oscillate and rotate.
The Applicant’s claims further support this duality. For example, claim 1 requires “a first galvanometer scanner that oscillates a first mirror; a second galvanometer scanner that oscillates a second mirror.” Claim 42 is dependent on claim 1 and requires “mirror rotation.”
However, the premise of the Applicant’s arguments is that an “oscillating” motion is mutually exclusive of a “rotating” motion. In other words, either a mirror oscillates or a mirror rotates. A mirror cannot both oscillate and rotate. The examiner does not agree with this argument.
An explanation as to why the examiner does not agree with this argument was provided on pages 33-37 of the Office action filed 6 May 2025, pages 31-33 of the Office action filed 13 January 2025, pages 27-29 of the Office action filed 28 August 2024, and pages 35-36 of the Office action filed 11 January 2024.
The seventh page of the arguments references claim 8 and 27 and state that “as amended, the claims explicitly require galvanometer scanners that ‘reciprocally oscillate’ mirrors ‘in a back-and-forth motion through an angular range of less than 360 degrees.’” However, respectfully submit that this limitation is not present in claims 8 or 27 nor in their respective independent claims (claims 1 and 21).
The examiner also disagrees with the argument. In polar coordinates, rotation along a circle becomes in Cartesian coordinates oscillation along an x-axis and oscillation along a y-axis. Referencing Zair, this rotation/oscillation results in a Lissajous figure in fig. 6. The Applicant shows this same figure in fig. 7A of the drawings. Thus, per the rejection above, Zair teaches in fig. 6 the “moving annular or circular contact curve laser pattern” that is required in claims 8 and 27.
The seventh and eight pages of the arguments state that an “oscillation distance” must be an “angular range” and cannot be the amplitude parameters described by Zair. The examiner disagrees. Instead, the examiner respectfully submits that distances and angles are two separate parameters. For example, a distance can be measured in meters or in feet. Angles are typically measured either in radians or degrees. Amplitude parameters use distance measurements (e.g., feet or meters). Thus, an amplitude parameter can be an “oscillation distance.” However, an angular range cannot be an “oscillation distance” because an angle is not a distance. An amplitude component multiplies the sinusoidal function and describes the amount of distance a sinusoidal function will travel. In contrast, the angular component (inside the sinusoidal function) controls the frequency of the distance that is traveled.
The eighth page of the arguments states that the “rotation speed” taught by Zair cannot be the claimed “rotation speed.” As an initial matter, the examiner notes that the Specification of the Instant Application describes rotation speed and makes no mention of angular speed. The examiner agrees that “rotation speed (Omega) describes the continuous angular velocity of a motor that spins indefinitely in one direction.” The examiner also agrees that ”a galvanometer scanner operating at a given oscillation speed repeatedly accelerates, decelerates, stops, and reverses direction.” For example, assume the distance equation is:
x
t
=
A
s
i
n
(
Ω
t
)
. Then, the speed/velocity equation is:
d
x
t
d
t
=
A
Ω
c
o
s
(
Ω
t
)
. Accordingly, if the distance equation is a sine function, then the speed/velocity will repeatedly accelerate, decelerate, stop, and reverse direction based on a cosine function.
Applicant’s statements on the eighth and ninth pages of the arguments are not commensurate with the actual scope of claim 42. Specifically, the arguments state that claim 42 requires “varying” angles and angles of mirror rotation and oscillation speed that “vary dynamically.” However, respectfully submit that these “varying” limitations are not present in the claim.
The ninth page of the arguments disputes the rejection that incorporates Kekkonen (US20170350000) to teach claimed rotational speeds. The basis for the rejection is that different rotational speeds are taught by Kekkonen to be a matter of routine optimization (MPEP 2144.05.II). The arguments do not dispute the finding that rotational speeds are routinely optimized. Furthermore, the Applicant’s Specification does not place any specificity on the claimed rotation speeds. Finally, it is noted that Kekkonen teaches the same rotation of the mirrors that Zair teaches and that “reciprocally oscillating through a limiting range” is not a limitation that is present in claims 1, 37, or 38. As a result, the examiner was not persuaded by the Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant' s remaining arguments filed 3 March 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Zair combined Zamisel and Warner.
For the above reasons, the rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 4/15/2026
Prosecution Insights