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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 18, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The examiner acknowledges the amending claims 1, 9 – 14, 16 – 35 and 38, adding claim 39 and canceling claim 15 by the amendment submitted by the applicant(s) filed on August 20, 2025. Claims 1, 9 – 14, 16 – 35, 38 and 39 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections of claims 9 – 35 and 38 are withdrawn due the current amendments.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
With regard claim 1, the phrase limitation “wherein N>2… that each of the N separate spots are spatially distinct from one another while simultaneously illuminating a material” is considered new matter. The disclosure does not provide sufficient structure associated “N>2… that each of the N separate spots are spatially distinct from one another while simultaneously illuminating a material” as is claimed and is not shown in the Figures. The Applicant disclosure in Figures 1 – 3 and paragraphs [0034 – 0047] disclose a multi-color laser system with multiple spots at the focal plane of an objective lens and that the beam(s) are then directed to a target material. The Applicant disclosure does not disclose the spatially distinct spots at the target. The Applicant disclosure have support for the spatially distinct spots existing “at the focal plane of the objective lens”. The Applicant disclosure not suggest and/or explicitly stated that the beams/spots are still spatially distinct when they arrive at the target material. Applicant disclosure do not disclose or suggest N>2: that each of the N separate spots are spatially distinct from one another while simultaneously illuminating a material. The “N>2: that each of the N separate spots are spatially distinct from one another while simultaneously illuminating a material” are not supported in the specification and figures presented by the applicant.
As such, the specification does not demonstrate the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed structure, because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Not corresponding to the structure describe in the specification.
Claims 9 – 14, 16 – 35, 38 and 39 depend on claim 1, are rejected since they inherit the lack of written description of the claims on which they depend.
Appropriated correction is required.
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 1, 35, 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierer et al. (US 2019/0179151, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024) in view of Tanaka (US 2004/0058553, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Pierer disclose a multi-color laser system (see Figure 12C, Character 1200c, Abstract and paragraphs [0014, 0023, and 0216] and the reference called “optical engine, which may also be referred to as a “multi-laser diode module” or an “RGB laser module”) that creates N beams (see Figure 12C, characters 1238a – 1238d and paragraphs [0102 – 0103 and 0216], the reference called “infrared beam, red beam, blue beam and green bean”) with an angular offset (see Figure 12C) such that they create N separate spots (see Figure 12C) at the focal plane (see Figure 12C) of an objective lens see (see Figure 12c, Character 1237, paragraph [0216] and the reference called “collimation lens”) where N≥2 (see Figure 12C, Abstract and paragraphs [0014, 0023, 0216]), wherein:
each of the N beams (see Figure 12C, characters 1238a – 1238d) is generated by its own respective laser module (see Figure 12C, characters 1210a – 1210d, paragraph [0202], the reference called “laser diodes” and/or “infrared laser diode, red laser diode, blue laser diode and green laser dude”)
the N beams (see Figure 12C, characters 1238a – 1238d) are angularly offset (see Figure 12C) relative to one another (see Figure 12C) such that they propagate along non- parallel and non-colinear beam paths (see Figure 12C):
the first of the N separate spot (see Figure 12C) has a wavelength of 400 nm – 500 nm (see paragraph [0014, 0023 and 0095], as evidence see US 10,333270 in column 7, lines 55 – 60 disclose the blue laser beam is approximately from 435 – 465 nm and US2009/0003390 in claim 7 disclose the blue laser beam is approximately from 450 nm);
the second of N separate spot (see Figure 12C) has a wavelength of 501 nm – 6000 nm (see paragraph [0014, 0023 and 0095], as evidence see US 10,333270 in column 7, lines 29 – 33 disclose the green laser beam is approximately from 500 – 550 nm and US2009/0003390 in claim 5 disclose the green laser beam is approximately from 540 nm); and
the objective lens (see Figure 12c, Character 1237) is an achromat (see paragraphs [0012, 0020 and claim 3]) that preserves the angular offsets (see Figure 12C) such that each of the N separate spots (see Figure 12C) are spatially distinct (examiner interpreted “spatially distinct” as different in space or area, Pierer in Figure 12C shown at least two beams that partially overlap are “spatially distinct” as they occupy slightly different spaces) from one another.
Pierer discloses the claimed invention except for the angular offsets such that each of the N separate spots are spatially distinct from one another while simultaneously illuminating a material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the angular offsets such that each of the N separate spots are spatially distinct from one another while simultaneously illuminating a material to the device of Pierer, the screen or display could be used in order to display an image or video. The screen or display is a desired component of a projector device. It is obvious to put or add a material, such as a screen or display, very close to the output of lens (e.g. Pierer’s lens (1237) shown in Figure 12C), since the beams are clearly spatially distinct very close to the lens output (e.g. Pierer’s shown in Figure 12C) so the beams would continue to be spatially discrete on the very close screen.
Regarding claim 35, Pierer disclose the laser system is used in projection applications (see Figure 3, Abstract and paragraphs [0113 – 114], it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987)).
Regarding claims 38 and 39, Pierer disclose the multi-color laser systems consisting of diode lasers or diode laser (see Figure 12C, characters 1210a – 1210d, Abstract and paragraphs [0009, 0014 0024, 0093 and 0202]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierer et al. (US 2019/0179151, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024) in view of Tanaka (US 2004/0058553, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024).
Regarding claim 9, Pierer discloses the claimed invention except for the beam homogenizer used with the laser system is a light pipe. Tanaka teaches a beam homogenizers is a light pipe. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the light pipe as discloses by Tanaka in (see Abstract and paragraphs [0032 – 0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the well-known light pipe as suggested by Tanaka to the device of Pierer, for the purpose of guiding light through a variety of shaped pipes to provide a uniform light beam output.
Claims 10 – 12, 26 – 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierer et al. (US 2019/0179151, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024) in view of Manni et al (US 2002/0196414, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024).
PNG
media_image2.png
288
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 10 – 12, Pierer discloses the claimed invention except for the beam homogenizer is a diffractive optic element, a micro lens array and a micro lens array with a diffractive optic element. Manni teaches a beam homogenizer is a diffractive optic element (see Figure 3, character 22, the reference called “microlenses or microlens array”), a micro lens array (see Figure 3, character 22) and a micro lens array with a diffractive optic element (see Figure 3, character 22). However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the beam homogenizer is a diffractive optic element, a micro lens array and a micro lens array with a diffractive optic element as discloses by Manni in (see Figure 3 and paragraphs [0035 – 0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the well-known the beam homogenizer is a diffractive optic element, a micro lens array and a micro lens array with a diffractive optic element as suggested by Manni to the device of Pierer, in order to focus and concentrate light onto a surface instead of allowing it to fall on non-photosensitive areas. Manni in Figure 3 disclose a two dimensional microlens array (22), subsequently also referred to as “fly-eye” lens, with lenslets (221 – 222, for diffraction caused by lenslets), into a substantially rectangular shape to conform to the size and aspect ratio of the modulator (26). In other words, the “fly-eye” lens array and a condenser lens deliver a uniform-intensity rectangular patch of bandwidth-enhanced light to a modulator in the image plane (homogenized light). The lenslets of the fly-eye lens are also designed so as to transform the circular or elliptical beans, into a substantially rectangular shape to conform to the size and aspect ratio of the modulator.
Regarding claims 26, 27 and 29, Pierer and Manni, Manni disclose the laser system uses spatially combined laser diodes to achieve the required power and beam parameters, uses wavelength combined laser diodes to achieve the required power and beam parameters and the laser system uses spatially combined laser diodes in combination with wavelength combined laser diodes to achieve the required power and beam parameters (see paragraphs 0007 – 0008 and 0039, the Manni invention is directed to a laser projection display system which uses, depending on the desire wavelength, semiconductor diode laser arrays… imagining optics combines the respective laser beams. The critical paraments (bema parameters) for designing a bandwidth enhanced laser array (BELA) include: the number n of emitters in the array, the center wavelength ʎ0i of each emitter, the spectral separation; between the center wavelength of an emitter and the center wavelength of an emitter being closest in wavelength, the respective bandwidth of the individual emitters, and the relative output power of each emitter (required power)).
Claims 13 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierer et al. (US 2019/0179151, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024) in view of Dolgoff et al. (US 5,900,982, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024).
PNG
media_image3.png
202
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Pierer discloses a lens system used with the laser to create line widths in a lens of appropriate magnification operating on both beams simultaneously which have different wavelength or two lenses of appropriated magnifications operating on each wavelength beam independently. The wavelength of the light exiting the lens may be tuned by selecting the wavelength of the individual laser diode, the laser diodes emit suitable red light, green light and blue light, where the light passes through lens creates lines widths (see Figures 1A -3, and claims 1 – 5 rejection).
Pierer discloses the claimed invention except for create equal size line widths is a cylindrical lens pair or two cylindrical lens pairs. Dolgoff teaches a to create equal size line widths is a cylindrical lens pair or two cylindrical lens pairs. Collimated light passes through a double lens array, which again contains the same number of lenslets per array as three are pixels in the light valve. The focal lengths of the two arrays are different, such that a series of collimated beams is formed. The width of each beam is the size of pixel. A pair of cylinder lenses or prisms can be used in the beam before the light valve to alter the aspect ratio of the beam so that all available light illuminated the image-bearing area only. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the cylindrical lens pair or two cylindrical lens pairs as discloses by Dolgoff in (see Abstract, column 41, lines 46 – 55 and column 54, lines 63 – 67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the well-known a cylindrical lens pair or two cylindrical lens pairs as suggested by Dolgoff to the device of Pierer, for the purpose of generating light beams of a width which fits within a pixel for displaying images on a light valve.
Regarding claim 14, Pierer discloses a lens system used with the laser to create line widths in a lens of appropriate magnification operating on both beams simultaneously which have different wavelength or two lenses of appropriated magnifications operating on each wavelength beam independently. The wavelength of the light exiting the lens may be tuned by selecting the wavelength of the individual laser diode, the laser diodes emit suitable red light, green light and blue light, where the light passes through lens creates lines widths (see Figures 1A -3, and claims 1 – 5 rejection).
Pierer discloses the claimed invention except for create equal size line widths is a cylindrical lens pair of appropriated de-magnification, or two cylindrical lens pairs of appropriate de-magnifications. Dolgoff teaches a to create equal size line widths is a cylindrical lens pair of appropriate de-magnification, or two cylindrical lens pairs of appropriate de-magnification. Collimated light passes through a double lens array, which again contains the same number of lenslets per array as three are pixels in the light valve. The focal lengths of the two arrays are different, such that a series of collimated beams is formed. The width of each beam is the size of pixel. A pair of cylinder lenses or prisms can be used in the beam before the light valve to alter the aspect ratio of the beam so that all available light illuminated the image-bearing area only. The light is de-magnified into multiple smaller beams for matching the width of each pixel. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the cylindrical lens pair of appropriated de-magnification, or two cylindrical lens pairs of appropriate de-magnifications as discloses by Dolgoff in (see Figure 26, Abstract, column 41, lines 46 – 55 and column 54, lines 63 – 67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the well-known cylindrical lens pair of appropriated de-magnification, or two cylindrical lens pairs of appropriate de-magnifications as suggested by Dolgoff to the device of Pierer, for the purpose of generating light beams of a width which fits within a pixel for displaying images on a light valve.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierer et al. (US 2019/0179151, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024) in view of Dolgoff et al. (US 5,900,982, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024), further in view of Jackson et al. (US 5,229,883, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024).
Regarding claims 15 and 19, Pierer discloses the claimed invention except for an acylinder lenses to compensate for any spherical aberrations which would impact the magnification or de-magnification of the beamlets. Jackson teaches an acylinder lenses. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the acylinder lenses as discloses by Jackson in (see column 1, lines 47 – 49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the well-known acylinder lenses as suggested by Jackson to the device of Pierer, in order to eliminate spherical aberration and change the magnification.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierer et al. (US 2019/0179151, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024) in view of Dolgoff et al. (US 5,900,982, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024), further in view of Banerjee et al. (US 2018/0147992, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024).
Regarding claims 16 and 20, Pierer discloses the claimed invention except for achromatic cylindrical lenses to compensate for any chromatic aberrations which would impact the magnification of the beamlets. Banerjee teaches an achromatic cylindrical lenses. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the achromatic cylindrical lenses as discloses by Banerjee in (see paragraph [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the well-known achromatic cylindrical lenses as suggested by Banerjee to the device of Pierer, in order limit the effect of chromatic and spherical aberration and change the magnification.
Claims 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierer et al. (US 2019/0179151, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024) in view of Dolgoff et al. (US 5,900,982, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024), further in view of W. Litten et al. (US 2,503,751, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024).
Regarding claims 17 and 21, Pierer discloses the claimed invention except for cylindrical cook triplets to compensate for any chromatic aberrations and spherical aberrations which would impact the magnification of the beamlets and cylindrical cook triplets to compensate for any chromatic aberrations and spherical aberrations which would impact the de-magnification of the beamlets. Litten teaches a cook triplet. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the cook triplet as discloses by Litten in (column 1, lines 1 – 7 and claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the well-known cook triplet as suggested by Litten to the device of Pierer, in order to provide correcting aberrations within a lens system and change the magnification and de-magnification.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierer et al. (US 2019/0179151, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024) in view of Dolgoff et al. (US 5,900,982, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024), further in view of Duckett III (US 2013/0253273, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024).
Regarding claim 18, Pierer discloses the claimed invention except for cylindrical doublets to compensate for any chromatic aberrations and spherical aberrations which would impact the magnification of the beamlets. Duckett III teaches a doublet (see Figure 2, character 230). However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the doublet as discloses by Duckett III in (see Figure 2 and paragraphs [0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the well-known doublet as suggested by Duckett III to the device of Pierer, for the purpose of limiting the effects of chromatic and spherical aberration while reducing the total element count within an optical system and change the magnification.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierer et al. (US 2019/0179151, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024) in view of Denney et al. (US 2004/0182839, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024).
PNG
media_image4.png
220
386
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Pierer discloses the claimed invention except for the laser system is air cooled and is liquid cooled. Denney teaches cooling subsystem (see Figure 2, character 320, the cooling subsystem could be air cooled and liquid cooled). The generation of laser light by the laser generator creates excess heat which is preferably removed from the laser generator by the cooling subsystem coupled to the laser generator… a unitary cooling subsystem dedicated to the laser generator is preferably used. Unitary cooling subsystems may be air or liquid cooled. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the air cooled and liquid cooled as discloses by Denney in (see Abstract and paragraph [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the well-known air cooled and liquid cooled as suggested by Denney to the device of Pierer in order to prevent laser system from overheating.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierer et al. (US 2019/0179151, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024) in view of Yun et al. (US 6,816,515, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024).
Regarding claim 24, Pierer discloses the claimed invention except for the laser system operates in continuous mode. Yun teaches the laser system operates in continuous mode. In an example of a wavelength-swept laser without a non-linear medium, the laser produces continuous-wave output and the spectrum thereof can be shown as Figure 2A). However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the laser system operates in continuous mode as discloses by Yun in (see Figure 2A, column 2, lines 26 – 29 and column 6, lines 35 – 55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the well-known the laser system operates in continuous mode as suggested by Yun to the device of Pierer, in order to providing a method for obtaining a continuous wave output of a laser.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierer et al. (US 2019/0179151, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024) in view of Kakui et al. (US 2012/0307850, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024).
Regarding claim 25, Pierer discloses the claimed invention except for the laser system is modulated at a pre-determined rate. Kakui teaches a laser system is modulated at a pre-determined rate. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the laser system is modulated at a pre-determined rate as discloses by Kakui in (see paragraphs [0007 – 0009]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the well-known laser system is modulated at a pre-determined rate as suggested by Kakui to the device of Pierer, in order to avoiding the appearance of a nonlinear effect within a light system without risking the deterioration of the beam quality.
Claims 28, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierer et al. (US 2019/0179151, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024), in view of Manni et al (US 2002/0196414), examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024, further in view of Wolak (US 2015/0015952, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024).
Regarding claims 28, 30 and 31, Pierer and Manni discloses the claimed invention except for the laser system uses polarization combined laser diodes to achieve the required power and beam parameters, uses spatially combined laser diodes in combination with polarization combined laser diodes to achieve the required power and beam parameters and uses spatially combined laser diodes in combination with polarization combined laser diodes and wavelength combined laser diodes to achieve the required power and beam parameters. Manni disclose the laser system uses spatially combined laser diodes to achieve the required power and beam parameters, uses wavelength combined laser diodes to achieve the required power and beam parameters and the laser system uses spatially combined laser diodes in combination with wavelength combined laser diodes to achieve the required power and beam parameters (see paragraphs 0007 – 0008 and 0039, the Manni invention is directed to a laser projection display system which uses, depending on the desire wavelength, semiconductor diode laser arrays… imagining optics combines the respective laser beams. The critical paraments (bema parameters) for designing a bandwidth enhanced laser array (BELA) include: the number n of emitters in the array, the center wavelength ʎ0i of each emitter, the spectral separation; between the center wavelength of an emitter and the center wavelength of an emitter being closest in wavelength, the respective bandwidth of the individual emitters, and the relative output power of each emitter (required power)). Wolak teaches a polarization combined laser diode. Outputs of two sources, first laser diode source having a first spectra band and second laser diode source having a second spectral band, are split using polarization beam splitters. A first set of beams have a first polarization state, first beam from first sources. The second set of beams have a second polarization state, second beam from second sources. Combined beam is directed to highly reflective mirror where it is redirected towards polarization beam combiner. Polarization beam combiner is placed so that the two combined beams, combined beams, each having a different polarization state are combined into a single output beam. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the polarization combined laser diode as discloses by Wolak in (see Figure 3, and paragraphs [0020 – 0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the well-known polarization combined laser diode as suggested by Wolak to the device of Pierer, in order of outputting a beam with a high brightness from a laser system.
Claims 32 – 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierer et al. (US 2019/0179151, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024) in view of Brukilacchio (US 2021/0099308, examiner submitted in the PTO-892 form, filed on 10/30/2024).
Regarding claims 32 – 34, Pierer discloses the claimed invention except for the laser system is used in medical applications, in medical diagnostic applications and in industrial applications. Brukilacchio teaches a laser system is used in medical applications, in medical diagnostic applications and in industrial applications. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the laser system is used in medical applications, in medical diagnostic applications and in industrial applications as discloses by Brukilacchio in (see paragraph [0011]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the well-known the laser system is used in medical applications, in medical diagnostic applications and in industrial applications as suggested by Brukilacchio to the device of Pierer, in order to provide a flexible illumination and imagining system for use in a plurality of relevant application.
The laser system is used in medical applications, in medical diagnostic applications and in industrial applications, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed August 20, 2025 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The examiner wishes to point out the interpretation of "spatially distinct"; the examiner interpreted "spatially distinct" as different in space or area; therefore, Pierer, in Figure 12C, shows that at least two partially overlapping beams are "spatially distinct" because they occupy slightly different spaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Delma R. Forde whose telephone number is (571)-272-1940. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, MinSun O Harvey can be reached on 571-272-1835. 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.
/Delma R. Forde/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828