Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 4th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9, 11, 13-24, and 26-29 remain pending in the application.
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 1-9, 11, 13-24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campion et al. (United States Patent No. 8624177 B2) hereinafter Campion in view of Eichenholz (United States Patent Application Publication 20200025923 A1), hereinafter Eichenholz.
Regarding claim 1, Campion teaches an electro-optical system for scanning illumination onto a field of view ([Col. 6, line 63 - Col. 7, line 1] Central to preferred embodiments of our novel AMBS system is a MEMS scan-mirror array 59 (FIG. 1) in which each mirror is controlled in tip .theta..sub.X, tilt .theta..sub.Y and piston Z to point optical beams that image external scenes. The mirror array is also controlled in such a way as to refine the pointing process as will be seen.), comprising:
a light source (Fig. 1; [Col. 11, lines 28-29] a collimated auxiliary laser source 61 that is reimaged onto a dedicated focal plane.);
a scanning unit comprising a light deflector arranged with N rotational degrees of freedom at a desired height for deflecting light from the light source, wherein N is a positive integer, at least one actuator for controlling an orientation of the light deflector, and N+1 sensors configured to measure respective measuring values which are correlated with a height of the light deflector in the scanning unit and an orientation of the light deflector (Fig. 1; [Col. 6, lines 63-66] Central to preferred embodiments of our novel AMBS system is a MEMS scan-mirror array 59 (FIG. 1) in which each mirror is controlled in tip .theta..sub.X, tilt .theta..sub.Y and piston Z to point optical beams that image external scenes.; [Col. 6, line 17] FIG. 17 is a view like FIG. 1 but with an array of sensors; [Col. 11, lines 52-55] To complete the calibration procedure, the system processor-controllers then incrementally shift each MEMS mirror in turn, in each of its three degrees of freedom, and record resulting changes in the calibration-channel PSF.); and
wherein the N+1 sensor comprise light sensors ([Fig. 17]; [Col. 12, line 5-7] Still other approaches include using an array 121 (FIG. 17) of detectors, rather than just one detector, in the focal plane (with a suitable optic 122 to collect extreme rays 123, 124);)
a control unit connected with the N+ 1 sensors ([Col. 17, lines 39-41] These auxiliary data are useful in developing closed-loop control for finer resolution in a general MEMS optical system by correcting mirror positions. Using a MEMS-array model) and configured to:
receive for a given time a respective measuring value from each of the N+1 sensors; determine for the given time a first value indicative of an actual height and N second values indicative of an actual orientation of the light deflector as output of a model of the scanning unit using the measuring values of the N+1 sensors as input of the model of the scanning unit (Fig. 1; [Col. 6, lines 63-66] Central to preferred embodiments of our novel AMBS system is a MEMS scan-mirror array 59 (FIG. 1) in which each mirror is controlled in tip .theta..sub.X, tilt .theta..sub.Y and piston Z to point optical beams that image external scenes.; [Col. 6, line 17] FIG. 17 is a view like FIG. 1 but with an array of sensors; [Col. 11, lines 52-55] To complete the calibration procedure, the system processor-controllers then incrementally shift each MEMS mirror in turn, in each of its three degrees of freedom, and record resulting changes in the calibration-channel PSF.); and
determine an actuation parameter for the at least one actuator using the first value and the N second values ([Col. 20, lines 19-26] AMES control architecture for preferred embodiments includes a 10 kHz inner PID loop 47', 57, 58, 71, 59 (FIGS. 12, 13) using embedded capacitive sensors 59 for feedback, and an outer loop that includes the inner loop plus additional signal paths 87 through a PSF least-squares controller 88 and summation stage 89. The overall architecture thereby generates tip/tilt and piston commands for the actuators 59 of each mirror in the mirror plant.).
Campion fails to teach the system comprising the scanning unit further comprising an internal light source for illuminating a backside of the light deflector
However, Eichenholz teaches the system comprising the scanning unit further comprising an internal light source for illuminating a backside of the light deflector (Fig. 1; [0036] The lidar system 100 may include a light source 110; [0069] As illustrated in FIG. 1, the lidar system 100 may include the mirror 115, which may be a metallic or dielectric mirror. The mirror 115 may be configured so that the light beam 125 passes through the mirror 115... As another example, the mirror 115 may be configured so that at least 80% of the output beam 125 passes through the mirror 115 and at least 80% of the input beam 135 is reflected by the mirror 115.);
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 Campion to comprise the main and backside deflector similar to Eichenholz, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of using a single mirror configuration for deflection and reflection of light for scanning in a compact design.
Regarding claim 2, Campion, as modified, teaches the electro-optical system of claim 1, wherein the electro-optical system is a LIDAR-system, and/or wherein the light deflector is a pivotable mirror (Fig. 1; [Col. 7, lines 18-22] The main function of the imaging channel is simply to address and image, at each moment, a desired relatively narrow external field of view ("FOV") 74. The optical system includes a detector 26 that is sensitive within the FOV, by virtue of the afocal lens assembly 21; [Col. 6, lines 63-66] Central to preferred embodiments of our novel AMBS system is a MEMS scan-mirror array 59 (FIG. 1) in which each mirror is controlled in tip .theta..sub.X, tilt .theta..sub.Y and piston Z to point optical beams that image external scenes.).
Regarding claim 3, Campion, as modified, teaches the electro-optical system of claim 1, wherein the light deflector is an un-hinged mirror, and/or wherein the light deflector is a MEMS mirror, in particular a MEMS tilt mirror ([Col. 6, lines 63-66] Central to preferred embodiments of our novel AMBS system is a MEMS scan-mirror array 59 (FIG. 1) in which each mirror is controlled in tip .theta..sub.X, tilt .theta..sub.Y and piston Z to point optical beams that image external scenes.).
Regarding claim 4, Campion, as modified, teaches the electro-optical system of claim 1, wherein N equals one or two, wherein the first value refers to the actual height at the given time, and/or wherein each of the N second values is indicative of and/or refers to an actual rotation angle of the light deflector at the given time ([Col. 19, lines 7-12] This initial examination can be expanded to include combined piston and tilt errors for a 2.times.2 array, and the algorithm tested using a MEMS array of that size. In addition it is advisable to study a mathematical model for an arbitrary number of mirrors, beginning with the one-dimensional case and moving to a realistic number of dimensions.).
Regarding claim 5, Campion, as modified, teaches the electro-optical system of claim 4, wherein the scanning unit comprises N+P+1 sensors configured to measure respective measuring values which are correlated with the actual height and the actual orientation, wherein P is a positive integer, and wherein the control unit is configured to use the N+P+1 measuring values as input of the model of the scanning unit to additionally determine an actual value for at least one parameter of the model ([Col. 17, lines 33-37] -Preferred embodiments of our invention incorporate PSF determination for a reference wavelength .lamda.. This calculation yields additional information about the orientation of the mirrors in the MEMS array.).
Regarding claim 6, Campion, as modified, teaches the electro-optical system of claim 6, wherein the at least one parameter of the model is indicative of and/or refers to a temperature of the scanning unit, and/or a gain of the scanning unit ([Col. 20, lines 8-14] A second major reason for closed-loop control is that gains of individual actuator elements in the array vary by as much as 10%, resulting in positional error equivalent to several wavelengths. Part of the variation in gain among elements is constant and could be compensated in a calibration lookup table. Much of the variation, however, is temperature and time sensitive (a function of the aging in the electronics)).
Regarding claim 7, Campion, as modified, teaches the electro-optical system of claim 5, wherein one of the at least one parameter of the model is indicative of and/or refers to a temperature of at least one of the sensors ([Col. 20, lines 8-14] A second major reason for closed-loop control is that gains of individual actuator elements in the array vary by as much as 10%, resulting in positional error equivalent to several wavelengths. Part of the variation in gain among elements is constant and could be compensated in a calibration lookup table. Much of the variation, however, is temperature and time sensitive (a function of the aging in the electronics)).
Regarding claim 8, Campion, as modified, teaches the electro-optical system of any of the claims 5, wherein one of the at least one parameter of the model is indicative of and/or refers to a gain of at least one of the sensors ([Col. 20, lines 8-14] A second major reason for closed-loop control is that gains of individual actuator elements in the array vary by as much as 10%, resulting in positional error equivalent to several wavelengths. Part of the variation in gain among elements is constant and could be compensated in a calibration lookup table. Much of the variation, however, is temperature and time sensitive (a function of the aging in the electronics)).
Regarding claim 9, Campion, as modified, teaches the electro-optical system of claim 1, wherein none of the measuring values is only correlated with the actual height of the light deflector, and/or wherein each of the measuring values is correlated with the actual height of the light deflector and the actual orientation of the light deflector (Fig. 1; [Col. 6, lines 63-66] Central to preferred embodiments of our novel AMBS system is a MEMS scan-mirror array 59 (FIG. 1) in which each mirror is controlled in tip .theta..sub.X, tilt .theta..sub.Y and piston Z to point optical beams that image external scenes.; [Col. 6, line 17] FIG. 17 is a view like FIG. 1 but with an array of sensors; [Col. 11, lines 52-55] To complete the calibration procedure, the system processor-controllers then incrementally shift each MEMS mirror in turn, in each of its three degrees of freedom, and record resulting changes in the calibration-channel PSF.).
Regarding claim 11, Campion, as modified, teaches the electro-optical system of claim 1,
Campion fails to teach the electro-optical system wherein the light deflector comprises a main reflective side for deflecting incoming light of the light source, wherein the backside is arranged between the main reflective side and at least one of the light sensors, and/or wherein one of the at least one parameter of the model is indicative of and/or refers to a temperature of the internal light source..
However, Eichenholz teaches the electro-optical system wherein the light deflector comprises a main reflective side for deflecting incoming light of the light source, wherein the backside is arranged between the main reflective side and at least one of the light sensors, and/or wherein one of the at least one parameter of the model is indicative of and/or refers to a temperature of the internal light source. (Fig. 1; [0069] As illustrated in FIG. 1, the lidar system 100 may include the mirror 115, which may be a metallic or dielectric mirror. The mirror 115 may be configured so that the light beam 125 passes through the mirror 115... As another example, the mirror 115 may be configured so that at least 80% of the output beam 125 passes through the mirror 115 and at least 80% of the input beam 135 is reflected by the mirror 115.).
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 Campion to comprise the main and backside deflector similar to Eichenholz, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of using a single mirror configuration for deflection and reflection of light for scanning.
Regarding claim 13, Campion, as modified, teaches the electro-optical system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to use the desired height of the light deflector in the scanning unit as a setpoint for closed-loop controlling the height ([Col. 20, lines 19-26] AMES control architecture for preferred embodiments includes a 10 kHz inner PID loop 47', 57, 58, 71, 59 (FIGS. 12, 13) using embedded capacitive sensors 59 for feedback, and an outer loop that includes the inner loop plus additional signal paths 87 through a PSF least-squares controller 88 and summation stage 89. The overall architecture thereby generates tip/tilt and piston commands for the actuators 59 of each mirror in the mirror plant.).
Regarding claim 14, Campion, as modified, teaches the electro-optical system of claim 13, wherein the control unit is configured to use the first value for closed-loop controlling the height of the light deflector ([Col. 20, lines 19-26] AMES control architecture for preferred embodiments includes a 10 kHz inner PID loop 47', 57, 58, 71, 59 (FIGS. 12, 13) using embedded capacitive sensors 59 for feedback, and an outer loop that includes the inner loop plus additional signal paths 87 through a PSF least-squares controller 88 and summation stage 89. The overall architecture thereby generates tip/tilt and piston commands for the actuators 59 of each mirror in the mirror plant.).
Regarding claim 15, Campion, as modified, teaches the electro-optical system of claim 13, wherein the control unit is configured to use the second value for closed-loop controlling the orientation ([Col. 20, lines 19-26] AMES control architecture for preferred embodiments includes a 10 kHz inner PID loop 47', 57, 58, 71, 59 (FIGS. 12, 13) using embedded capacitive sensors 59 for feedback, and an outer loop that includes the inner loop plus additional signal paths 87 through a PSF least-squares controller 88 and summation stage 89. The overall architecture thereby generates tip/tilt and piston commands for the actuators 59 of each mirror in the mirror plant.).
Regarding claim 16, Campion, as modified, teaches the electro-optical system of claim 1, wherein the desired height is a calibration height of the light deflector in the scanning unit, wherein the actual height and/or the desired height refer to a respective distance of the light deflector from a mounting plate or a wafer of the at least one actuator, wherein the actual height and/or the desired height refer to a direction perpendicular to a main surface of the mounting plate or the wafer, wherein the actual height and/or the desired height refer to a direction perpendicular the main reflective side of the light deflector or a central portion thereof, wherein the actual height and/or the desired height refer to a direction of an optical axis of the light deflector, and/or wherein the actual height refers to a distance of a center of the light deflector from the center of the light deflector at rest and/or in a calibrated position ([Col. 13, lines 18-26] For optical applications such as scanning micromirrors, various approaches may provide the additional degrees of freedom--particularly rotation of micromirrors about single or double axes, and micromirrors with independently controlled rotation and piston motion. These motions in turn can be produced by fabricating either (1) vertically displaced structures that convert in-plane actuation to out-of-plane actuation and rotation, or (2) vertical comb drives that directly convert electrostatic force to rotation.).
Regarding claim 17, Campion, as modified, teaches the electro-optical system of claim 1, wherein the desired height, the actual height and/or the actual orientation are determined with respect to a coordinate system defined by the scanning unit (Fig. 1; [Col. 6, lines 63-66] Central to preferred embodiments of our novel AMBS system is a MEMS scan-mirror array 59 (FIG. 1) in which each mirror is controlled in tip .theta..sub.X, tilt .theta..sub.Y and piston Z to point optical beams that image external scenes.).
Regarding claim 18, Campion, as modified, teaches the electro-optical system of claim 17, wherein the coordinate system is fixed with respect to at least one of a center of mass of the scanning unit, a center point of the light deflector, a frame of the scanning unit, a baseplate of the of the scanning unit, the main surface of the mounting plate, and the main surface of the wafer (Fig. 1; [Col. 6, lines 63-66] Central to preferred embodiments of our novel AMBS system is a MEMS scan-mirror array 59 (FIG. 1) in which each mirror is controlled in tip .theta..sub.X, tilt .theta..sub.Y and piston Z to point optical beams that image external scenes.).
Regarding claim 19, Campion teaches a method for controlling a pivotable light deflector of a scanning unit of an electro-optical system configured to scan illumination onto a field of view, the light deflector being arranged at the desired height and with N rotational degrees of freedom, wherein N is a positive integer ([Col. 6, line 63 - Col. 7, line 1] Central to preferred embodiments of our novel AMBS system is a MEMS scan-mirror array 59 (FIG. 1) in which each mirror is controlled in tip .theta..sub.X, tilt .theta..sub.Y and piston Z to point optical beams that image external scenes. The mirror array is also controlled in such a way as to refine the pointing process as will be seen.), the method comprising:
measuring for a given time N+1 measuring values which are correlated with an actual height of the light deflector in the scanning unit and an actual orientation of the light deflector (Fig. 1; [Col. 6, lines 63-66] Central to preferred embodiments of our novel AMBS system is a MEMS scan-mirror array 59 (FIG. 1) in which each mirror is controlled in tip .theta..sub.X, tilt .theta..sub.Y and piston Z to point optical beams that image external scenes.; [Col. 6, line 17] FIG. 17 is a view like FIG. 1 but with an array of sensors; [Col. 11, lines 52-55] To complete the calibration procedure, the system processor-controllers then incrementally shift each MEMS mirror in turn, in each of its three degrees of freedom, and record resulting changes in the calibration-channel PSF.);
wherein the N+1 measuring values are measured by light sensors of the scanning unit ([Fig. 17]; [Col. 12, line 5-7] Still other approaches include using an array 121 (FIG. 17) of detectors, rather than just one detector, in the focal plane (with a suitable optic 122 to collect extreme rays 123, 124);)
determining for the given time a first value indicative of the actual height and N second value indicative of the actual orientation of the light deflector using the N+1 measuring values as input of a model of the scanning unit; and controlling the light deflector using the first value and the N second value (Fig. 1; [Col. 6, lines 63-66] Central to preferred embodiments of our novel AMBS system is a MEMS scan-mirror array 59 (FIG. 1) in which each mirror is controlled in tip .theta..sub.X, tilt .theta..sub.Y and piston Z to point optical beams that image external scenes.; [Col. 6, line 17] FIG. 17 is a view like FIG. 1 but with an array of sensors; [Col. 11, lines 52-55] To complete the calibration procedure, the system processor-controllers then incrementally shift each MEMS mirror in turn, in each of its three degrees of freedom, and record resulting changes in the calibration-channel PSF.).
Campion fails to teach the scanning unit further comprising an internal light source for illuminating a backside of the light deflector;
However, Eichenholz teaches an internal light source for illuminating a backside of the light deflector (Fig. 1; [0036] The lidar system 100 may include a light source 110; [0069] As illustrated in FIG. 1, the lidar system 100 may include the mirror 115, which may be a metallic or dielectric mirror. The mirror 115 may be configured so that the light beam 125 passes through the mirror 115... As another example, the mirror 115 may be configured so that at least 80% of the output beam 125 passes through the mirror 115 and at least 80% of the input beam 135 is reflected by the mirror 115.);
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 Campion to comprise the main and backside deflector similar to Eichenholz, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of using a single mirror configuration for deflection and reflection of light for scanning in a compact design.
Regarding claim 20, Campion, as modified, teaches the method of claim 19, wherein controlling the light deflector comprises determining an actuation parameter for at least one actuator of the scanning unit ([Col. 20, lines 19-26] AMES control architecture for preferred embodiments includes a 10 kHz inner PID loop 47', 57, 58, 71, 59 (FIGS. 12, 13) using embedded capacitive sensors 59 for feedback, and an outer loop that includes the inner loop plus additional signal paths 87 through a PSF least-squares controller 88 and summation stage 89. The overall architecture thereby generates tip/tilt and piston commands for the actuators 59 of each mirror in the mirror plant.).
Regarding claim 21, Campion teaches the method of claim 19, wherein each of the N second values is indicative of the actual orientation of the light deflector, and wherein N is a positive integer ([Col. 6, lines 63-66] Central to preferred embodiments of our novel AMBS system is a MEMS scan-mirror array 59 (FIG. 1) in which each mirror is controlled in tip .theta..sub.X, tilt .theta..sub.Y and piston Z to point optical beams that image external scenes.).
Regarding claim 22, Campion, as modified, teaches the method of claim 21, wherein N equals one or two, wherein the first value refers to the actual height at the given time, and/or wherein each of the N second values is indicative of and/or refers to an actual rotation angle of the light deflector at the given time ([Col. 19, lines 7-12] This initial examination can be expanded to include combined piston and tilt errors for a 2.times.2 array, and the algorithm tested using a MEMS array of that size. In addition it is advisable to study a mathematical model for an arbitrary number of mirrors, beginning with the one-dimensional case and moving to a realistic number of dimensions.).
Regarding claim 23, Campion, as modified, teaches the method of claim 21, wherein N+P+1 measuring values which are correlated with the actual height and the actual orientation of the light deflector are measured for the given time, wherein the N+P+1 measuring values are used as input of the model of the scanning unit to determine at least one parameter of the model ([Col. 17, lines 33-37] -Preferred embodiments of our invention incorporate PSF determination for a reference wavelength .lamda.. This calculation yields additional information about the orientation of the mirrors in the MEMS array.).
Regarding claim 24, Campion, as modified, teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the at least one parameter of the model is indicative of and/ or refers to a temperature of the scanning unit or a gain of the scanning unit, in particular a gain of at least one of the sensors ([Col. 20, lines 8-14] A second major reason for closed-loop control is that gains of individual actuator elements in the array vary by as much as 10%, resulting in positional error equivalent to several wavelengths. Part of the variation in gain among elements is constant and could be compensated in a calibration lookup table. Much of the variation, however, is temperature and time sensitive (a function of the aging in the electronics)).
Regarding claim 26, Campion, as modified, teaches the method of claim 21, wherein none of the measuring values is only correlated with the actual height of the light deflector, and/or wherein each of the measuring values is correlated with the actual height of the light deflector and the actual orientation of the light deflector (Fig. 1; [Col. 6, lines 63-66] Central to preferred embodiments of our novel AMBS system is a MEMS scan-mirror array 59 (FIG. 1) in which each mirror is controlled in tip .theta..sub.X, tilt .theta..sub.Y and piston Z to point optical beams that image external scenes.; [Col. 6, line 17] FIG. 17 is a view like FIG. 1 but with an array of sensors; [Col. 11, lines 52-55] To complete the calibration procedure, the system processor-controllers then incrementally shift each MEMS mirror in turn, in each of its three degrees of freedom, and record resulting changes in the calibration-channel PSF.).
Regarding claim 27, Campion, as modified, teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the first value is used for closed-loop controlling the height of the light deflector, wherein a desired height of the light deflector in the scanning unit is used as a setpoint for controlling the height of the light deflector, and/or wherein controlling the light deflector is performed to keep the height of the light deflector within a predefined range ([Col. 20, lines 19-26] AMES control architecture for preferred embodiments includes a 10 kHz inner PID loop 47', 57, 58, 71, 59 (FIGS. 12, 13) using embedded capacitive sensors 59 for feedback, and an outer loop that includes the inner loop plus additional signal paths 87 through a PSF least-squares controller 88 and summation stage 89. The overall architecture thereby generates tip/tilt and piston commands for the actuators 59 of each mirror in the mirror plant.).
Regarding claim 28, Campion, as modified, teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the desired height, the actual height and/or the actual orientation are determined with respect to a coordinate system defined by the scanning unit, and/or wherein the desired height is a calibration height of the light deflector in the scanning unit (Fig. 1; [Col. 6, lines 63-66] Central to preferred embodiments of our novel AMBS system is a MEMS scan-mirror array 59 (FIG. 1) in which each mirror is controlled in tip .theta..sub.X, tilt .theta..sub.Y and piston Z to point optical beams that image external scenes.).
Regarding claim 29, Campion, as modified, fails to teach a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a one or more processors of a system, cause the system to carry out the steps of the method according to claim 19.
However, Eichenholz teaches a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a one or more processors of a system, cause the system to carry out the steps of the method according to claim 19 ([0157] In any case, the method 620 can be implemented as a set of instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executable by one or more processors.).
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 Campion to comprise the computer-readable storage medium similar to Eichenholz, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of using a well-known method of method execution to automate the electro-optical system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 29th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the prior art of Campion fails to tech the sensors cited as light sensors, the examiner points to the amended rejection citation, necessitated by the amendments made to the independent claims, in which the sensors are noted as detecting incoming rays that, consistent with the rest of the specification of the prior art, are light rays. As such, the sensors are, by necessity, light sensors and remain valid as teaching the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the argument that the amendment overcomes the combined prior art of record, an amended rejection has been presented above that addresses the amendments made. As the subject matter is largely similar to the dependent claim 11, as mentioned by the applicant, the prior art of Eichenholz remains relevant to render the immediate invention as unpatentable by means of obviousness combination.
Further, regarding the argument that the prior art of Eichenholz only teaches a mirror and fails to teach a light source, the examiner points to the cited rejection of claim 11 in which the first figure of Eichenholz is used, outlining both the mirror mentioned as well as the light source which has been presented and highlighted above, with the configuration shown teaching the claimed limitation. As such, the rejection is maintained in this Non-Final Office Action.
Conclusion
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, 8:00-5:00 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, HELAL ALGAHAIM can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights