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 October 29th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-29 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final office Action mailed August 4th, 2025.
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 1-10, and 13-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campion et al. (United States Patent No. 8624177 B2), hereinafter Campion.
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
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.).
Regarding claim 2, Campion 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 10, Campion teaches the electro-optical system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the sensors is a light sensor ([Col. 7, lines 20-22] The optical system includes a detector 26 that is sensitive within the FOV, by virtue of the afocal lens assembly 21.).
Regarding claim 13, Campion 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 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 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 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 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 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.);
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.).
Regarding claim 20, Campion 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 teaches the method of claim 22, 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 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 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 25, Campion teaches the method of claim 21, wherein at least one of the measuring values is measured by a light sensor, an ultra- sound sensor, a magnetic sensor, an inductance sensor, a capacitance sensor, a resistant sensor, or a piezoelectric sensor ([Col. 7, lines 20-22] The optical system includes a detector 26 that is sensitive within the FOV, by virtue of the afocal lens assembly 21.).
Regarding claim 26, Campion 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 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 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.).
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 11, 12, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campion in view of Eichenholz (United States Patent Application Publication 20200025923 A1), hereinafter Eichenholz.
Regarding claim 11, Campion teaches the electro-optical system of claim 11,
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 scanning unit comprises an internal light source for illuminating a backside of the light deflector, 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 scanning unit comprises an internal light source for illuminating a backside of the light deflector, 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 12, Campion teaches the electro-optical system of claim 1,
Campion fails to teach the electro-optical system wherein at least one of the sensors comprises an electrode pair, wherein at least one of the sensors is a capacitance sensor, wherein at least one of the sensors is an ultra-sound sensor, wherein at least one of the sensors is a magnetic sensor, wherein at least one of the sensors is an inductance sensor, and/or wherein at least one of the sensors comprises a piezoelectric element.
However, Eichenholz teaches the electro-optical system wherein at least one of the sensors comprises an electrode pair, wherein at least one of the sensors is a capacitance sensor, wherein at least one of the sensors is an ultra-sound sensor, wherein at least one of the sensors is a magnetic sensor, wherein at least one of the sensors is an inductance sensor, and/or wherein at least one of the sensors comprises a piezoelectric element ([0137] Additionally, the APD 400 may include an upper electrode 402 and a lower electrode 406 for coupling the ADP 400 to an electrical circuit.).
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 electrode pair sensor similar to Eichenholz, with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of using a known implementation of sensor technology for an electro-optical system.
Regarding claim 29, Campion 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 claims 1 and 19, the applicant argues that the method of Campion is indirect in its correlation of the height and orientation of a deflector, however the claim, as written, does not specify that the measurement is made directly, only that it is correlated. As such the scope of the written claim is broader than the interpretation made by the applicant in their argument and the method of Campion is seen as still reading on the claim limitation.
The applicant further argues that the method of Campion teaches the time-incremented mirror shift only with the goal of calibration, however the claim, as written, does not specify that the scan made is not in a calibration procedure, only that the control unit is able to make such measurements as has been previously discussed. As such the method of Campion does read on the limitations as written in the claim limitation.
The applicant also argues that the method of Campion teaches the use of a PID control loop and calibration look-up tables to determine an orientation and height of the deflector, however the claim, as written, is not so specific in its language to not include this method as one that would also be a feasible method with which the sensors may determine the proposed parameters, and as such the method of Campion is considered to read on this claim limitation.
The applicant finally argues that the method of Campion teaches the iteratives PSF calibration method as a way to determine an actuation parameter and that this is fundamentally different to that which is described by the claim, however, as written in the claims, the actuation parameter is broadly described as using the values and is not specific the manner in which it must be used. As such the method of Campion does use the values, argued above to be the same as reading on those of the first and second values, as a means to determine the actuation parameters, and is maintained in this Final rejection.
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, 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, 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