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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see response to arguments in the present Office action below.
Applicant asserts that "[t]his paper is filed in response to the Office Action mailed June 99, 2025 (the "Office Action"), in which claims 1-20 were pending in the Application," the Examiner traverses. This remark is incorrect, for the Non-final Rejection (previous Office action filed) being referred to is dated 09 June 2025.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Applicant notes that the "environment" recited in claim 1 is not positively claimed. Applicant respectfully submits that the rules only requires showing features that are positively recited in the claims," the Examiner traverses. The “environment” is positively recited throughout the claims in connection with specific structural and functional limitations. Each instance stated below ties the claimed optical components directly to the environment:
“[a] detection system for a vehicle in an environment” in Claim 1, “the optical receiver elements each configured to receive light from the environment” in Claim 1, “the line detector configured to capture an image of the environment in a series of line scans” in Claim 1, “the optical scanning element configured to rotate around an axis to change a field of view of the line detector with respect to the environment” in Claim 1, “a light transmitter configured to transmit a light beam into the environment” in Claim 3, “the line detector is configured to receive said light beam after the light beam returns from the environment” in Claim 3, and “a near-infrared filter positioned between the optical scanning element and the line detector such that unwanted background light from the environment is filtered through the near- infrared filter before receipt by the optical receiver elements” in Claim 8.
These recitations establish a definite spatial and optical relationship between the claimed components and the external environment, and thus, the environment is an integral feature of the claimed operation rather than a merely contextual, “not positively claimed” term. Pursuant 37 CFR 1.83(a) and MPEP § 608.02, “[t]he drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.” Since the “environment” defines where and how light is transmitted, received, filtered, etc., it constitutes a claimed feature necessary to understand the invention, and thus, must be represented in the drawings. Without any depiction or indication of the “environment,” the relationship between the optical components and the way in which they function e.g., vehicle surroundings, air, reflective surfaces, etc., cannot be understood. Thus, omission of the “environment” renders the drawings incomplete and noncompliant with the disclosure requirements because it is a claimed feature defining the optical system’s operation.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[m]oreover, the relevant statute, 35 U.S.C. § 113…these standards are met by the implicitly recited "environment" of claim 1," the Examiner traverses. See previous argument above with 37 CFR 1.83(a) and MPEP § 608.02. Examiner reminds the applicant that “[t]he Office no longer considers drawings as formal or informal; drawings are either acceptable or unacceptable.” See 37 CFR 1.84 and MPEP § 608.02.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[i]ndeed, as those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate, the invention of claim 1…depicting the environment is far from essential for a proper understanding of the invention," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the ”environment” is not merely a background context, for it is a structural and operational reference frame integral to the functioning of multiple claimed components, as claimed. The claims explicitly require transmitting and receiving light into and from the environment, capturing an image of the environment, and filtering light from the environment. Therefore, these limitations literally define the function, spatial orientation, and optical path of the claimed system. Without depiction or explanation of the environment, a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain how the claimed optical receiver elements, transmitters, filters, etc., interact to achieve their recited purposes. See arguments above for drawing requirements. Furthermore, the applicant relying on what those skilled in the art would “appreciate” does not remedy the deficiency, for “[i]t is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function.”), quoting Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1999)”. See MPEP § 2163. The burden of proof is on the specification and drawings themselves to enable and describe the claimed features, not on the person having ordinary skill in the art to infer unstated or undescribed elements. Examiner reminds the applicant that “[a] patent claim is invalid if it is not supported by an enabling disclosure.” See MPEP § 2164.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[w]ith respect to the objections to the specification, Applicant similarly notes that the rules only require consistency between the reference numbers used in the description and drawings," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the “rules” being referred to (within 37 CFR 1.84 and MPEP § 608.02) here governs how features are referenced, not what features must be illustrated. The controlling requirement for what must be depicted is found in 37 CFR 1.83(a), which explicitly states “[t]he drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.” Consistency of numbering is a matter of formatting while the depiction of every claimed feature is a matter of substantive disclosure. Examiner submits that applicant’s argument has conflated the two and fails to address the deficiency of the absence of any visual and descriptive representation of the claimed “environment.”
In response to the applicant's argument that "[a]s mentioned above, the Office Action alleges that Send anticipates claim 1… submits that Send's angle dependent optical element 130 fails to meet any of these limitations, let alone all of them," the Examiner traverses. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "this optical scanning element must: (1) be defined by four glass sides; (2) be defined by a reflective member within the glass body") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner reminds the applicant that Claim 1 explicitly states “the optical scanning element having a glass body defined by four glass sides and a reflective member within the glass body,” and thus, an optical scanning element having (1) a glass body defined by four sides and (2) a reflective member within the glass body is well within reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations. “During prosecution, applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude. See, e.g., Johnson & Johnston Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052, 62 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2002)…” See MPEP § 2173.02. The prior art of Send anticipates all claim limitations regarding the optical scanning element, and will be detailed in further arguments below.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[w]ith respect to the required "four glass sides," the Office Action cites FIGS. 2a-b and 7. These figures appear to depict optical element 130 with four sides. However, these are cross-sectional views," the Examiner traverses. As stated above, the claim recites “the optical scanning element having a glass body defined by four glass sides” not that the optical scanning element itself is defined solely by the four sides. Thus, the limitation does not require the entire optical scanning element’s structural definition be limited to four planar boundaries.
In the instant case, Send discloses the optical scanning element (angle dependent optical element 130; [0463]) having a glass body (angle dependent optical element 130 comprises optical fiber 138; [0464] wherein optical fiber material is glass; [0060]) defined by four glass sides (fig. 2a-b & 7) and a reflective member within the glass body (angle dependent optical element 130 comprises angle dependent reflective element; [0464]), the optical scanning element (angle dependent optical element 130; [0463]) configured to rotate around an axis (rotated optical axis i.e., optical axis 126, 129; [0273] & [0462]) to change a field of view (scanning system rotated as a whole or rotating particular optics package e.g., angle dependent optical element 130, scanning system having full 360 degree view or even be moved and or rotated out of plane to further increase the scanned area; [0225]).
The cross-sectional figures showing rectangular and quadrilateral geometry discloses a body defined by four sides, for the depiction illustrates the physical boundary of the glass structure enclosing the optical fiber. Nothing in the claims restricts interpretation to a particular projection or view e.g., top, cross-sectional, etc., and the figures are sufficient to disclose a glass body having four sides within ordinary understanding of geometric depiction. “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972).” See MPEP § 2125. Since the angle dependent optical element 130 of Send includes a glass body having four sides in at least one figure and view, Send anticipates the claimed limitation. Applicant’s attempt to limit “defined by four glass sides” to exclude depictions in cross-sectional or geometric form imposes an improper narrow interpretation not supported by the claim language or the specification. “The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation.” See MPEP § 2143 and 2111.
In response to the applicant's argument that "FIG. 3 depicts angle dependent optical elements 130 from another perspective…typically have a circular cross-section," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that figure 3 of Send is not relied upon the claimed limitation teachings of the angle dependent optical elements 130 having a glass body defined by four glass sides, for the Examiner cites figures 2a-b and 7. Counsel's assertion that "[f]iber optics typically have a circular cross-section" is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP § 2145, 716.01(c). As stated above, applicant’s attempt to limit “defined by four glass sides” to exclude depictions in cross-sectional or geometric form imposes an improper narrow interpretation not supported by the claim language or the specification. See MPEP § 2143 and 2111.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[w]ith respect to the claimed "reflective member within the glass body," the…suggesting that the optical element might, in some cases, be a reflective element," the Examiner traverses. Send discloses the optical scanning element (angle dependent optical element 130; [0463]) having a reflective member within the glass body (“angle dependent optical element 130 comprises…” “at least one angle dependent reflective element;” [0464]). Counsel's assertion that "Send is suggesting that the optical element might, in some cases, be a reflective element" is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP § 2145, 716.01(c). Send explicitly discloses angle dependent optical element 130 comprising at least one angle dependent reflective element. The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995). See MPEP 2112.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[i]n any event, however, Send fails to include any teachings or suggestion that an angle dependent reflective element might be positioned within another optical element, let alone within one having "four glass sides," as required by the claim language," the Examiner traverses. Applicant alleges that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., 'an angle dependent reflective element might be positioned within another optical element, let alone within one having "four glass sides,"') are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner reminds the applicant that Claim 1 explicitly states “the optical scanning element having a glass body defined by four glass sides and a reflective member within the glass body,” and thus, an optical scanning element having (1) a glass body defined by four sides and (2) a reflective member within the glass body is well within reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations. “Transitional phrases such as “having” must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended. See, e.g., Lampi Corp. v. American Power Products Inc., 228 F.3d 1365, 1376, 56 USPQ2d 1445, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” See MPEP § 2111.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[w]ith respect to optical axes 126 and 129, these are axes along which light beams are configured to propagate. However, Applicant sees no indication of any element being rotated about these axes, let alone the angle dependent optical element 130 of Send," the Examiner traverses. Send discloses the optical scanning element (angle dependent optical element 130; [0463]) configured to rotate around an axis (rotated optical axis i.e., optical axis 126, 129; [0273] & [0462]) to change a field of view (scanning system rotated as a whole or rotating particular optics package e.g., angle dependent optical element 130, scanning system having full 360 degree view or even be moved and or rotated out of plane to further increase the scanned area; [0225]). Therefore, Send explicitly discloses rotation about one or more optical axes since the scanning system and/or illumination source e.g., an angle dependent optical element 130 is rotated as a whole or that a particular optics package is rotated ([0225]). Examiner reminds the applicant that figures 2a & 2b clearly illustrate the angle dependent optical element 130 positioned along the rotated optical axes 126, 129, and the disclosure of Send supports that the rotation of these components directly affects the scanning optical path ([0225], [0273], and [0462-463]). Furthermore, the angle dependent optical element 130, which generates a light beam and exhibits transmission properties ([0463]), inherently functions as an optical scanning element when used in a rotating configuration to alter the beam’s field of view. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” See MPEP 2112.01.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[w]ith respect to Paragraph [0273], this paragraph includes a discussion of the use of various sensors….there is no "measurement head" in the cited embodiments/figures of Send, nor there is there any context provided for what element(s) are being rotated during this measurement process," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that both para. [0273] and [0463] are recited in the previous Office action, dated 09 June 2025, when referencing the rotated optical axes 126, 129 (fig. 2a-b). Examiner submits that the rotating optical axes were cited for and that the Examiner did not cite anything regarding the distance between two objects, motion sensor, measurement head, measurement process, etc., for the citation of what elements are being rotated is stated in different citations of para. [0225] and [0463].
In response to the applicant's argument that "[w]ith respect to Paragraph [0462], this paragraph discusses the aforementioned…characteristics of the optical scanning element of according to claim 1," the Examiner traverses. Send explicitly discloses rotation about one or more optical axes since the scanning system and/or illumination source e.g., an angle dependent optical element 130 is rotated as a whole or that a particular optics package is rotated ([0225]). Examiner reminds the applicant that figures 2a & 2b clearly illustrate the angle dependent optical element 130 positioned along the rotated optical axes 126, 129, and the disclosure of Send supports that the rotation of these components directly affects the scanning optical path ([0225], [0273], and [0462-463]). Furthermore, the angle dependent optical element 130, which generates a light beam and exhibits transmission properties ([0463]), inherently functions as an optical scanning element when used in a rotating configuration to alter the beam’s field of view. Please see arguments previously stated above. See MPEP 2112.01.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification must provide detail and label every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the environment must be labeled with a reference numeral or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show and label every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the environment must be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Send et al. US 20200011995 A1 (herein after "Send").
With respect to Claim 1, Send discloses a detection system (scanning system 166; [0480]; fig. 2a-b & 7, wherein fig. 7 corresponds to the embodiments shown in fig. 2a-b; [0478]) for a vehicle (devices utilized in vehicles wherein at least one detector monitors e.g., speed and/or the direction of moving objects; [0284]) in an environment (scenery comprising object 112; [0480]), comprising:
a line detector (detector 110; [0461]) including a plurality of optical receiver elements (two optical sensors 113; [0461]) arranged in a line (sensors 113 each comprising first optical sensor 118 and a second optical sensor 120 arranged in a line; [0461]; as seen in fig. 2a-b), the optical receiver elements (two optical sensors 113; [0461]) each configured to receive light (optical sensors 113 receiving incident light beam 116; fig. 2a-b) from the environment (scenery comprising object 112; [0480]), the line detector (detector 110; [0461]) configured to capture an image (detector 110 embodied as/a part of camera 156 for imaging and acquiring standstill images and/or image sequences; [0478]; fig. 7) of the environment (scenery comprising object 112; [0480]) in a series of line scans (line scanning; [0219]); and
an optical scanning element (angle dependent optical element 130; [0463]), the optical scanning element (angle dependent optical element 130; [0463]) having a glass body (angle dependent optical element 130 comprises optical fiber 138; [0464] wherein optical fiber material is glass; [0060]) defined by four glass sides (fig. 2a-b & 7) and a reflective member within the glass body (angle dependent optical element 130 comprises angle dependent reflective element; [0464]), the optical scanning element (angle dependent optical element 130; [0463]) configured to rotate around an axis (rotated optical axis i.e., optical axis 126, 129; [0273] & [0462]) to change a field of view (scanning system rotated as a whole or rotating particular optics package e.g., angle dependent optical element 130, scanning system having full 360 degree view or even be moved and or rotated out of plane to further increase the scanned area; [0225]) of the line detector (detector 110; [0461]) with respect to the environment (scenery comprising object 112; [0480]).
With respect to Claim 3, Send discloses the detection system (scanning system 166; [0480]; fig. 2a-b & 7) of Claim 1, further comprising a light transmitter (illumination fiber 140; [0470]) configured to transmit a light beam (adapted to transmit the light beam 142; [0470]) into the environment (scenery comprising object 112; [0470]), wherein the line detector (detector 110; [0461]) is configured to receive said light beam (transmitted to the detector 110; [0341]; fig. 2a) after the light beam (light beam 142; fig. 2a) returns from the environment (scenery comprising object 112; [0480]).
With respect to Claim 4, Send discloses the detection system (scanning system 166; [0480]; fig. 2a-b & 7) of Claim 3, wherein the light transmitter (illumination fiber 140; [0470]) is positioned to face orthogonal (fig. 2a) to the optical receiver elements (two optical sensors 113; [0461]) of the line detector (detector 110; [0472]).
With respect to Claim 5, Send discloses the detection system (scanning system 166; [0480]; fig. 2a-b & 7) of Claim 4, further comprising a 90 degree reflector (illumination source 115 directed to scan an area or a volume by using one or more movable mirrors to redirect the light beam 142; [0224]; fig. 7), the 90 degree reflector (of illumination source 115; fig. 7) positioned such that the light transmitter (illumination fiber 140; [0470]) and the line detector (detector 110; [0461]) are co-axial ([0472]; fig. 2a), wherein the 90 degree reflector (of illumination source 115; fig. 7) is configured to redirect the light beam (movable mirrors to redirect the light beam 142; [0224]; fig. 7) from the light transmitter (illumination fiber 140; [0470]) towards the optical scanning element (angle dependent optical element 130; fig. 7).
With respect to Claim 6, Send discloses the detection system (scanning system 166; [0480]; fig. 2a-b & 7) of Claim 5, wherein the 90 degree reflector (of illumination source 115; fig. 7) is one or more of the following: a reflective mirror; a reflective prism; or a polarized beam splitter (specially adapted optical elements, such as beam-splitting devices, mirrors [0224], and prisms [0227]).
With respect to Claim 7, Send discloses the detection system (scanning system 166; [0480]; fig. 2a-b & 7) of Claim 5, further comprising:
a Powell lens (transfer device 128, such as at least one lens or a lens system specifically for beam shaping; [0462]) positioned between (fig. 7) the 90 degree reflector (of illumination source 115; fig. 7) and the optical scanning element (angle dependent optical element 130; [0463]), the Powell lens (transfer device 128; [0462]) configured to expand light (adapted to strengthen and/or to amplify angle dependency of the direction of propagation of the light beam 116; [0473]) from the 90 degree reflector (of illumination source 115; fig. 7) from a pencil beam into a fan beam (adapted to adjust and/or to generate an angle of propagation e.g., pencil to fan beam through amplification; [0473]; fig. 2b), directing the fan beam towards (fig. 2a) the optical scanning element (angle dependent optical element 130; [0463]) co-axial to the line detector (detector 110; [0461]).
With respect to Claim 8, Send discloses the detection system (scanning system 166; [0480]; fig. 2a-b & 7) of Claim 3, wherein:
the light transmitter (illumination fiber 140; [0470]) is a near-infrared laser transmitter (adapted to transmit the light beam 142; [0470] & use of one or a plurality of lasers as illumination source or as part thereof, is particularly preferred; [0237]) and the light beam is near-infrared light (at least one illumination source emits light wherein the light in the part of the near infrared region may be used; [0239]); and
the detection system (scanning system 166; [0480]; fig. 2a-b & 7) further comprises a near-infrared filter (bandpass filter of optical element 130; [0464]) positioned between the optical scanning element (angle dependent optical element 130; [0463]) and the line detector (detector 110; [0461]) such that unwanted background light from the environment (scenery comprising object 112; [0480]) is filtered through the near-infrared filter (bandpass filter of optical element 130; [0464] & transfer device 128 performing filtering method; [0169]) before receipt by the optical receiver elements (two optical sensors 113; [0461]).
With respect to Claim 9, Send discloses the detection system (scanning system 166; [0480]; fig. 2a-b & 7) of Claim 1, wherein the line detector (detector 110; [0461]) is a time delay integrating line camera (detector 110 embodied as/a part of camera 156 for imaging and acquiring standstill images and/or image sequences; [0478]; fig. 7; e.g., digital 3D camera acquiring digital video sequences; [0303] light-field camera acquiring images in multiple focal planes; [0312]).
With respect to Claim 10, Send discloses the detection system (scanning system 166; [0480]; fig. 2a-b & 7) of Claim 1, wherein the optical receiver elements (two optical sensors 113; [0461]) of the line detector (detector 110; [0461]) are one of the following: a linear array (optical sensors of the detector may form a sensor array or may be part of a sensor array; [0191]) of avalanche photodiodes; or a linear array of single photon avalanche photodiodes (photo-sensors, such as silicon photodiodes, each having precisely one sensitive area can be utilized; [0044]; detector specifically may use two or more linear silicon photodiodes; [0353]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Send et al. US 20200011995 A1 (herein after "Send") in view of Ouderkirk et al. US 20200089005 A1 (herein after "Ouderkirk").
With respect to Claim 2, Send discloses the detection system (scanning system 166; [0480]; fig. 2a-b & 7) of Claim 1, wherein an exterior of the glass body (optical fiber 138 of optical element 130; [0464] wherein optical fiber 138 material is glass; [0060]) is formed by four transmissive faces (angle dependent optical element 130 having one or more of angle dependent transmission properties; [0052] & [0463] four faces/sides as seen in fig. 2a-b & 7), the four transmissive faces (fig. 4) including:
a first pair of two transmissive faces on a first side (angle dependent optical element 130 having one or more of angle dependent transmission properties; [0052] & [0463] four faces/sides as seen in fig. 2a-b & 7) of the reflective member (angle dependent reflective element of optical element 130; [0464]) and forming a first isosceles right triangular prism (reflective element, preferably at least one prism, for deflecting the illuminating light beam onto the optical axis; [0064]) with the reflective member (angle dependent reflective element of optical element 130; [0464]).
a second pair of two transmissive faces on a second side (angle dependent optical element 130 having one or more of angle dependent transmission properties; [0052] & [0463] four faces/sides as seen in fig. 2a-b & 7) of the reflective member (angle dependent reflective element of optical element 130; [0464]) and forming a second (comprising one or more reflective elements; [0213]) isosceles right triangular prism (reflective element, preferably at least one prism, for deflecting the illuminating light beam onto the optical axis; [0064]) with the reflective member (angle dependent reflective element of optical element 130; [0464]).
Send does not appear to teach the following limitation wherein the reflective member is the hypotenuse of first and second isosceles right triangular prisms.
However, in another field of endeavor, Ouderkirk teaches a polarizing beam splitting system ([0002]) wherein a reflective polarizer 130 is the hypotenuse (hypotenuse opposite the angle; [0002]; fig. 1) of a first prism 110 and second prism 120 formed of two isosceles right triangular prisms ([0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scanning system of Send to include the technical feature of a reflective element disposed between two right triangular prisms, for the purpose of producing illuminators that are more compact and allowing a light source to be placed closer to a reflective element thereby achieving a more compact design within an optical system, as taught by Ouderkirk ([0017]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the angle dependent reflective element of optical element 130 of Send to be disposed between two prisms, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 17 October 2025
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872