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 Amendments filed on July 28th, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections of the claims, as well as the objection to the cartesian coordinates of the drawings, previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 24th, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 211 in Figure 2 and Figure 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-13, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al. (United States Patent No. 5046795 A), hereinafter Morimoto, in view of Bao et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 20200026071 A1), hereinafter Bao.
Regarding claim 1, Morimoto teaches a head for directing energy radiated from a source along a beam axis to a coordinate in a field of view (FOV) defined by at least azimuthal and elevational orientations (Fig.4), comprising:
a first energy-redirecting element comprising a plurality of facets organized in a polygonal configuration, the facets being fully rotatable about a first axis that is at a first non-zero angle relative to the beam axis, for rotating the facets about the first axis, receiving the radiated energy incident along the beam axis on a facet facing the source at a second angle to a plane of the facet and redirecting the radiated energy at a reflected angle having a magnitude equal to the second angle as the first energy-redirecting element is rotated ([Col.5, lines 57-60] An auxiliary polygonal mirror 15 acts as an auxiliary deflector which deflects the light beam emitting from the collimator lens 11 in the vertical scanning plane along the optical axis X of the collimator lens);
and a second energy-redirecting element fully and independently rotatable, in at least one of direction and rate relative to the first energy-redirecting element, about a second axis at a third angle to the beam axis, for receiving the redirected energy incident thereon and further redirecting the redirected energy at a fourth angle to the second axis as the second energy-redirecting element is rotated, in a direction within the FOV ([Col. 6, lines 9-12] The polygonal mirror 30 behaves as a horizontal deflector It is rotatable about a rotary axis S.sub.2 that is perpendicular to the optical axis x and is parallel to the vertical scanning plane.).
Morimoto fails to teach the second axis at a non-zero angle other than substantially 90 with each of the beam axis and the first axis
However, Bao teaches the second axis at a non-zero angle other than substantially 90 with each of the beam axis and the first axis (Fig. 1; [0028] In some embodiments, second angle 110C is an angle that is greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Morimoto to comprise the second axis at a non-zero or 90 angle with the beam and first axis similar to Bao, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of spreading the scanning range creating from scattering off of the second energy-redirecting element.
Regarding claim 2, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim 1, wherein the FOV has a substantially rectangular shape oriented along its azimuthal and elevational orientations thereof (Morimoto: Fig. 4; [Col.6: 18-19] the reflected light beam reaches a surface to be scanned 50 that is orthogonal to the optical axis by way of the cylinder lens 40.)
Regarding claim 3, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim 1, wherein the first energy-redirecting element is associated with a controlled orientation of the FOV and the second energy-redirecting element is associated with an uncontrolled orientation of the FOV ([Col.6: 59-62] The y coordinate of the optical spot is determined only by the rotary angle of the auxiliary polygonal mirror 15, while its the z coordinate is determined only by the rotational angle of the horizontal polygonal mirror 40.) (The uncontrolled orientation is being interpreted as elevational orientation as shown in applicant specification paragraph [0083]).
Regarding claim 4, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim 3
Morimoto fails to teach the head according to claim 3 wherein the FOV extends substantially 85° along the controlled orientation thereof.
However, Bao teaches a head wherein the FOV extends substantially 85° along the controlled orientation thereof (Fig. 1; [0041] For example, as shown in FIG. 1, light source 102 can be configured to transmit light beams 107 along the z direction (e.g., no tilt with respect to the z direction). As a result shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B, with this configuration, the scanning range in the vertical direction (e.g., the y direction) can be about −21 degrees to 21 degrees (i.e., total about 42 degrees) and the scanning range in the horizontal direction (e.g., the x direction) can be about −35 degrees to 35 degrees (i.e., total about 70 degrees).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Morimoto to comprise FOV extended to 85° similar to Bao, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of extending the scanned FOV and would be a necessary product of the scanning head outlined by Bao.
Regarding claim 5, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim3, wherein the FOV extends substantially 21° along the uncontrolled orientation thereof.
Morimoto fails to teach the head according to claim 3 wherein the FOV extends substantially 21° along the uncontrolled orientation thereof.
However, Bao teaches a head wherein the FOV extends substantially 21° along the uncontrolled orientation thereof (Fig. 1; [0041] For example, as shown in FIG. 1, light source 102 can be configured to transmit light beams 107 along the z direction (e.g., no tilt with respect to the z direction). As a result shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B, with this configuration, the scanning range in the vertical direction (e.g., the y direction) can be about −21 degrees to 21 degrees (i.e., total about 42 degrees) and the scanning range in the horizontal direction (e.g., the x direction) can be about −35 degrees to 35 degrees (i.e., total about 70 degrees).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Morimoto to comprise FOV extended to 21° similar to Bao, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of extending the scanned FOV and would be a necessary product of the scanning head outlined by Bao.
Regarding claim 6, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim1, wherein the first non-zero angle is substantially 90° ([Col.9, lines 61-63] The polygonal mirror 15 is rotatable about a rotary axis which is perpendicular to the vertical scanning plane.)
Regarding claim 7, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim1, wherein the facets define a regular polygon about a plane substantially normal to the first axis (Fig. 4; [Col. 5: line 57] An auxiliary polygonal mirror 15).
Regarding claim 8, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim1, wherein the facets are each mirror surfaces for reflecting the radiated energy incident thereon at the reflected angle (Fig. 4 [Col. 5, lines 57-60] An auxiliary polygonal mirror 15 acts as an auxiliary deflector which deflects the light beam emitting from the collimator lens 11 in the vertical scanning plane along the optical axis X of the collimator lens).
Regarding claim 9, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim1any one of claims1 through 8, wherein a third axis, the beam axis and the first axis define a right-handed cartesian coordinate system (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim 9, wherein each of the facets substantially define a plane having an associated normal vector (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim 10, wherein the plane of each facet is substantially parallel to the first axis and the associated normal vectors all lie in a common plane normal to the first axis (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim 11, wherein the common plane is defined by the third axis and the beam axis and the first energy-redirecting element is associated with the azimuthal orientation of the FOV (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim 11, wherein the common plane is defined by the beam axis and the first axis and the second energy-redirecting element is associated with the elevational orientation of the FOV (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim1,
Morimoto fails to teach the head wherein the fourth angle is substantially between 0° and 15° .
However, Bao teaches the head wherein the fourth angle is substantially between 0° and 15° (Fig. 1; [0041] For example, as shown in FIG. 1, light source 102 can be configured to transmit light beams 107 along the z direction (e.g., no tilt with respect to the z direction). As a result shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B, with this configuration, the scanning range in the vertical direction (e.g., the y direction) can be about −21 degrees to 21 degrees (i.e., total about 42 degrees) and the scanning range in the horizontal direction (e.g., the x direction) can be about −35 degrees to 35 degrees (i.e., total about 70 degrees)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Morimoto to comprise the fourth angle substantially between 0° and 15° similar to Bao, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of extending the scanned FOV and would be a necessary product of the scanning head outlined by Bao.
Regarding claim 19, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim1, wherein the second energy-redirecting element is a second mirror surface ([Col.6: 9-12] The polygonal mirror 30 behaves as a horizontal deflector It is rotatable about a rotary axis S.sub.2 that is perpendicular to the optical axis x and is parallel to the vertical scanning plane.).
Regarding claim 21, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches a method for directing energy radiated from a source along a beam axis to a coordinate in a field of view (FOV) defined by at least one of azimuthal and elevational orientations, comprising actions of:
rotating a first energy-redirecting element comprising a plurality of facets organized in a polygonal configuration completely about a first axis that is at a first non- zero angle relative to the beam axis; directing the energy from the source onto the first energy-redirecting element at a second angle to a plane thereof; redirecting the energy incident on the first energy-redirecting element, at a reflected angle. Having a magnitude equal to the second angle, toward a second energy-redirecting element ([Col.5, lines 57-60] An auxiliary polygonal mirror 15 acts as an auxiliary deflector which deflects the light beam emitting from the collimator lens 11 in the vertical scanning plane along the optical axis X of the collimator lens);
independently rotating, in at least one of direction and rate relative to the first energy-redirecting element, the second energy-redirecting element completely about a second axis at a third angle relative to the beam axis, and further redirecting the energy incident on the second energy-redirecting element, from the first energy-redirecting element, at a fourth angle to the second axis in a direction within the FOV ([Col. 6, lines 9-12] The polygonal mirror 30 behaves as a horizontal deflector It is rotatable about a rotary axis S.sub.2 that is perpendicular to the optical axis x and is parallel to the vertical scanning plane.).
Morimoto fails to teach the method wherein the second axis is at a non-zero angle other than substantially 90 with each of the beam axis and the first axis;
However, Bao teaches the method wherein the second axis is at a non-zero angle other than substantially 90 with each of the beam axis and the first axis (Fig. 1; [0028] In some embodiments, second angle 110C is an angle that is greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Morimoto to comprise the second axis at a non-zero or 90 angle with the beam and first axis similar to Bao, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of spreading the scanning range creating from scattering off of the second energy-redirecting element.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto, in view of Bao, further in view of Sun et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20200191921 A1), hereinafter Sun.
Regarding claim 14, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim 11,
Morimoto, as modified, fails to teach the head wherein at least one facet is offset by a facet offset angle relative to the first axis.
However, Sun teaches a head wherein at least one facet is offset by a facet offset angle relative to the first axis ([0051] Referring to FIG. 6, a diagram 600 illustrating an expanded scanning angle range according to one embodiment is shown. Because the reflective surfaces 502 tilt upwardly from the bottom base face of the mirror assembly at different angles (e.g., 89 degrees, 90 degrees, and 91 degrees, respectively), the scanning angle range is expanded)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Morimoto to comprise the polygon mirror with a facet offset angle similar to Sun, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the field of view of the scanned target area.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto, in view of Bao, further in view of Slusher (United States Patent No. 4387952 A), hereinafter Slusher.
Regarding claim 16, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim 9,
Morimoto, as modified, fails to teach the head wherein a projection of the second axis onto a first plane defined by the third axis and the beam axis is substantially along the third axis and a projection of the second axis onto a second plane defined by the third axis and the first axis is substantially at 45° with the first axis.
However, Slusher teaches a head wherein a projection of the second axis onto a first plane defined by the third axis and the beam axis is substantially along the third axis and a projection of the second axis onto a second plane defined by the third axis and the first axis is substantially at 45° with the first axis (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Morimoto to comprise the configuration of the second axis similar to Slusher, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of redirecting the emitted light at a desired angle while compacting the space required by the overall structure.
Regarding claim 17, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim 16,
Morimoto fails to teach the head wherein the second axis is subjected to at least one positioning adjustment relative to the projection thereof onto at least one of the first and second planes.
However, Slusher teaches the head wherein the second axis is subjected to at least one positioning adjustment relative to the projection thereof onto at least one of the first and second planes (Fig. 5; [Col.3: lines 12-14] Similarly to the first mirror, the second mirror is tilted at an angle .alpha. from the axis of rotation) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Morimoto to comprise the second axis to be adjustable similar to Slusher, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the field of view of the scanned target area.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto, in view of Bao, further in view of Cooper et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 20130241761 A1), hereinafter Cooper.
Regarding claim 20, Morimoto, as modified above, teaches the head according to claim 19,
Morimoto fails to teach the head wherein the second energy redirecting element is a substantially circular wedge mirror angled at the fourth angle relative to a base normal to the second axis.
However, Cooper teaches a head wherein the second energy redirecting element is a substantially circular wedge mirror angled at the fourth angle relative to a base normal to the second axis ([0009] The second optical element can be a refractive optical element (e.g., a wedge prism) or a reflective optical element (e.g., a mirror); [0073] In an alternative configuration, the wedge prism 324 is replaced with a mirror that is mounted to the rotation stage 325 so as to receive light flux from the lens 314 and reflect the light flux downstream toward a target surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Morimoto to comprise the second energy redirecting element to be a circular wedge mirror, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of creating a periodically varied increase in the range of the field of view of the scanned target area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 28th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that the disclosed prior art fails to teach a field of view defined by an azimuthal and elevation orientation, instead teaching one of a 2D y-z plane, it should be noted that in the absence of language defining the azimuthal and elevation relative to a fixed and defined plane beyond that of the claimed invention the broadest reasonable interpretation of the relative angles can be understood as the same 2-dimensional plane taught by Morimoto in the above rejection.
In response to the argument that the angled formed from the beam axis and the nominal axis of Bao is not a relevant teaching that would match that of the claimed invention, and that the combination with Morimoto would make the invention of Morimoto non-functional, the examiner points out that the claim limitation that Bao teaches on references the non-90 degree angle that the second rotating element forms between itself it’s normal axis and the axis of both the beam and first axis. In teaching the non-zero orientation of the second reflective surface relative to the beam axis, and by combining this teaching with the reflective element taught in Morimoto, it would be obvious to a person of reasonable skill in the art to reorient the reflective surface of Morimoto in such a way that it would be of the same mechanism of the claimed invention. This reorientation of the part would not be patentably distinct from that taught in the prior art.
Finally, in regards to the argument that the prior art of Slusher does not teach the limitations of claim 16, citing that the configuration of Slusher lies on a common plane that does not define the same orientation as that of the claimed invention, it is noted by the examiner that the figure of Slusher, namely figure 5 as cited in the above rejection, does show a mirror that can be oriented in relation to the adjoining relative axis such that, in conjunction to the other cited prior art rejections, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine in such a way that the claims are not patentably distinct from what has been taught previously. As such, the rejections of the previous Non-Final Office Action are held in the current Final Office Action.
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 ROBERT WILLIAM VASQUEZ JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday, Flex Friday, 7:00-4:00 PST.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at (571)272-2097. 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.
/ROBERT W VASQUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645