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
This office action is in response to the communication filed 2/3/2026.
Amendments to claims 1, 10, 21, 23, filed 2/3/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Newly submitted claims 29-30, filed 2/3/2026, is acknowledged and accepted.
Cancellation of claims 11-16 and 19-20, filed 2/3/2026, remains in effect.
As a result of the claim amendments, the previous claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are now withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons given as follows:
On pgs. 12-13 of the Remarks, Applicant apparently attempts to argue against the prior art Paranjape applied in rejecting claim 1, stating that
‘"a light receiving unit provided inside the laser shutter unit" which receives the second light, namely unnecessary light, diffracted beams, is not disclosed or even suggested’ – Remarks pg. 13
However, to support their argument, Applicant merely rehashes/describes details surrounding Paranjape’s beam dump 126 and light sensor 122. Note that the former, which was mapped to the claimed light receiving unit, quite clearly receives diffracted beams – in fact, Applicant acknowledges as much, stating that
“the plurality of diffracted beams are dumped to the beam dump 126” – Remarks pg. 13,
in plain contradiction to the quoted argument, made just one sentence earlier in the very same paragraph.
No substantive showing or coherent argument – e.g., explaining specifically why beam dump 126 fails to read on the claimed light receiving unit – appear to be present otherwise. Examiner thus maintains the same grounds for rejection, which are updated below to accommodate amendments to the claim language, though these do not appear to be of much consequence to the facts already established in this case.
On pgs. 14-15 of the Remarks, Applicant refers to newly added claims 29-30, arguing that the prior art does not
“disclose, or even suggest, such an optical element having two flat plates arranged in parallel and having substantially same length” – Remarks pg. 15.
Examiner disagrees and finds that the phrase “two flat plates” is a rather broad term that would certainly encompass Parkinson’s parallel plane mirrors. Examiner also finds that “substantially [the] same length” does not set particularly strict (or even definite; see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below) limits on how much length discrepancy is allowed between the plates, and does not find that this recitation would prevent Parkinson’s mirrors (being of comparable size) from reading on the claim. See rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 17-18, 22, 24, 26, and 28-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, lines 16-17, “output […] as output laser beam” is ungrammatical. “laser beam” is a countable noun in singular form and will require an article; “output laser beam” should thus read “an output laser beam”.
In claim 29, line 3; claim 30, line 3, “having substantially same length” is ungrammatical and should read “having substantially the same length” or similar
Claims not specifically addressed in the objections above inherit the objections of the claim from which they depend. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 17-18, and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, lines 13-16 of claim 1 recite
“wherein, in a state in which the first light is output to outside of the laser shutter unit as output light of the laser shutter unit, the second light passes through an optical path different from that of the output light”
while lines 16-19 of claim 10 similarly recite
“wherein, in a state in which the first laser beam is output to outside of the laser shutter unit as output laser beam of the laser shutter unit, the second laser beam passes through an optical path different from that of the output laser beam”.
This language conditions the path of the second light (or laser beam) on “a state in which the first [light / laser beam] is output”. However, the claims previously established that the first and second lights (laser beams) correspond to different operating states (claim 1, lines 2-3; claim 10, lines 2-5). It is therefore unclear why the claim is now requiring both lights (laser beams) to exist in the same operation, such that the path of the second light (laser beam) is contingent on the first light (laser beam) being output. For examination purposes, the limitation shall be read without this requirement that the path of the second light (or laser beam) is contingent on output of the first light (or laser beam).
Regarding claims 9, 18, and 23-24, claim 9, line 5; claim 18, line 6; claim 23, line 5; and claim 24, line 6 each recite “a light receiving unit”. However, line 15 of claim 1 and line 17 of claim 10 already recited “a light receiving unit”. The phrase is thus overloaded with multiple introductions, causing ambiguity as to whether each “light receiving unit” refers to a common object or distinct ones. For examination purposes, each “light receiving unit” shall be treated as a reference to a common object within each chain of claim dependency.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, lines 3 of each claim recites “substantially same”, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially same” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Currently, it is unclear what plate lengths would qualify as being “substantially same”, i.e. what amount of discrepancy between lengths is permissible before they no longer satisfy the claim limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation shall be interpreted to encompass lengths which differ by no more than an order of magnitude.
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejection above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
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 1-4, 8, 10, 17, 21, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paranjape et al (US 20210050700 A1, hereinafter “Paranjape”) in view of Parkinson (NPL entitled A Treatise on Optics).
Regarding claim 1, Paranjape discloses a laser shutter unit comprising:
an acousto-optic element (acousto-optic modulator (AOM) 106) configured to switch an emission direction of incident laser light (laser beam 104) between a first direction and a second direction (see ¶ 20 and FIG. 1, annotated below); and
a multiple reflective optical element (mirror 120 and pair of mirrors forming slit 124) configured to reflect first light that is the laser light emitted from the acousto-optic element (AOM 106) in the first direction and second light that is the laser light emitted from the acousto-optic element (AOM 106) in the second direction, and comprising a pair of surfaces reflecting at least one of the first light and the second light (see ¶s 22-23, annotated FIG. 1 below),
wherein, when viewed in a direction parallel to the pair of surfaces, the multiple reflective optical element (mirror 120 and pair of mirrors forming slit 124) is arranged so that the first light and the second light are incident on the multiple reflective optical element (mirror 120 and pair of mirrors forming slit 124) from one side between the pair of surfaces and emitted from the multiple reflective optical element (mirror 120 and pair of mirrors forming slit 124) from an other side between the pair of surfaces (see annotated FIG. 1 below), and
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1 of Paranjape is annotated to highlight a first/second light or laser beam. The pair of surfaces are magnified and labeled in the inset.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
692
931
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, in a state in which the first light is output to outside of the laser shutter unit as output light of the laser shutter unit, the second light passes through an optical path different from that of the output light and reaches a light receiving unit (beam dump 126) provided inside the laser shutter unit (see annotated FIG. 1 below).
Paranjape does not disclose: reflecting at least one of the first light and the second light a plurality of times so as to reciprocate between the pair of surfaces.
Paranjape and Parkinson are commonly related to multireflective optical systems.
PNG
media_image3.png
632
897
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 32 of Parkinson (i.e. an unlabeled figure under section 32 of ch. 1, pg. 21) is annotated to identify first and second lights that are reflected a plurality of times so as to reciprocate between the surfaces of two parallel plane mirrors)]Parkinson discloses reflecting at least one of a first light and a second light a plurality of times (“successive reflexions”) so as to reciprocate between the pair of surfaces (“parallel plane mirrors”). (Parkinson investigates various optical systems used in the construction of optical instruments; see ch. 1, pg. 21, under section 32, providing an illustration (not labeled, but annotated below and henceforth referred to as “annotated FIG. 32”) involving an example with parallel plane mirrors.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Paranjape with the teachings of Parkinson, in order to simplify and reduce the size of the laser shutter system while achieving significant beam separation through successive reflections.
Regarding claim 2, modified Paranjape discloses the laser shutter unit of Claim 1.
Parkinson further discloses wherein the multiple reflective optical element includes a plurality of reflection members (“parallel plane mirrors”) each having an outer surface corresponding to one of the pair of surfaces that reflects the first light and the second light (see annotated FIG. 32 above).
Regarding claim 3, modified Paranjape discloses the laser shutter unit of Claim 2.
Parkinson further discloses wherein the plurality of reflection members are two reflection members (“parallel plane mirrors”), and the two reflection members (“parallel plane mirrors”) are disposed such that the outer surfaces of the two reflection members (“parallel plane mirrors”) face each other (see annotated FIG. 32 above).
Regarding claim 4, modified Paranjape discloses the laser shutter unit of Claim 3.
Parkinson further discloses wherein the two reflection members (“parallel plane mirrors”) are disposed such that the outer surfaces of the two reflection members (“parallel plane mirrors”) are parallel to each other (see annotated FIG. 32 above).
Regarding claim 8, modified Paranjape discloses the laser shutter unit of Claim 1.
Paranjape further discloses wherein the multiple reflective optical element (mirror 120 and pair of mirrors forming slit 124) has the pair of surfaces structure in which one surface (mirror forming slit 124) that last reflects the first light is a surface different from a surface (mirror 120) that last reflects the second light (see annotated FIG. 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Paranjape discloses a laser shutter unit comprising:
an acousto-optic element (AOM 106) configured to receive a laser beam (laser beam 104), selectively orient (i.e. diffract) the laser beam (laser beam 104) in a first direction or a second direction different from the first direction, and selectively emit a first laser beam that is the laser beam (laser beam 104) oriented in the first direction and a second laser beam that is the laser beam (laser beam 104) oriented in the second direction (see ¶ 20 and annotated FIG. 1 above); and
a multiple reflective optical element (mirror 120 and pair of mirrors forming slit 124) optically coupled to the acousto-optic element (AOM 106), the multiple reflective optical element (mirror 120 and pair of mirrors forming slit 124) being configured to receive the first laser beam and the second laser beam, reflect the first laser beam and the second laser beam, and comprising a pair of surfaces reflecting at least one of the first laser beam and the second laser beam (see ¶s 22-23, annotated FIG. 1 above),
wherein, when viewed in a direction parallel to the pair of surfaces, the multiple reflective optical element (mirror 120 and pair of mirrors forming slit 124) is arranged so that the first laser beam and the second laser beam are incident on the multiple reflective optical element (mirror 120 and pair of mirrors forming slit 124) from one side between the pair of surfaces and emitted from the multiple reflective optical element (mirror 120 and pair of mirrors forming slit 124) from another side between the pair of surfaces (see annotated FIG. 1 above) , and
wherein, in a state in which the first laser beam is output to outside of the laser shutter unit as output laser beam of the laser shutter unit, the second laser beam passes through an optical path different from that of the output laser beam and reaches a light receiving unit (beam dump 126) provided inside the laser shutter unit (see annotated FIG. 1 below).
Paranjape does not disclose reflecting at least one of the first laser beam and the second laser beam a plurality of times so as to reciprocate between the pair of surfaces.
Paranjape and Parkinson are commonly related to multireflective optical systems.
Parkinson discloses reflecting at least one of the first laser beam and the second laser beam a plurality of times (“successive reflexions”) so as to reciprocate between the pair of surfaces (“parallel plane mirrors”). (Parkinson investigates various optical systems used in the construction of optical instruments; see annotated FIG. 32 above involving an example with parallel plane mirrors.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Paranjape with the teachings of Parkinson, in order to simplify and reduce the size of the laser shutter system while achieving significant beam separation through successive reflections.
Regarding claim 17, modified Paranjape discloses the laser shutter unit of Claim 10.
Paranjape further discloses wherein the multiple reflective optical element (mirror 120 and pair of mirrors forming slit 124) has the pair of surfaces in which one surface (mirror 120) that last reflects the first laser beam is a surface different from an other surface (mirror forming slit 124) that last reflects the second laser beam (see annotated FIG. 1 above).
Regarding claim 21, modified Paranjape discloses the laser system of Claim 9.
Parkinson further discloses wherein a number of reflections of the first light by the pair of surfaces (“parallel plane mirrors”) is equal to a number of reflections of the second lights by the pair of surfaces (“parallel plane mirrors”). (See above-annotated FIG. 32)
Paranjape further discloses the light receiving unit (beam dump 126) and the output unit (slit 124) are located on a same side with respect to the pair of surfaces (See above-annotated FIG. 1’s “other side”).
Regarding claim 29, modified Paranjape discloses the laser shutter unit of Claim 1.
Paranjape further discloses wherein the multiple reflective optical element is two flat plates arranged in parallel (“parallel plane mirrors”), the two flat plates having substantially same length. (See annotated FIG. 32 above)
Regarding claim 30, modified Paranjape discloses the laser shutter unit of Claim 10.
Paranjape further discloses wherein the multiple reflective optical element is two flat plates arranged in parallel (“parallel plane mirrors”), the two flat plates having substantially same length. (See annotated FIG. 32 above)
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paranjape in view of Parkinson, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zhao and Bezel (US 20190235390 A1, hereinafter “Zhao”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Paranjape discloses the laser shutter unit of Claim 1.
Modified Paranjape does not disclose wherein the multiple reflective optical element includes an optical element having a transmission surface through which the first light and the second light transmit and the pair of surfaces.
Paranjape and Zhao are commonly related to multireflective laser systems.
Zhao discloses wherein the multiple reflective optical elements includes an optical element (rhomboid prism 352) having a transmission surface (input face 354, output face 356) through which the first light and the second light (broadband illumination 104) transmit and the pair of surfaces (flat surfaces 320) (see FIG. 3I and ¶ 74).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Paranjape with Zhao’s rhomboid prism, in order to filter out low-wavelength-components (Zhao Abstract), or to delay light’s travel time to coordinate with other time-sensitive laser processes.
Regarding claim 6, modified Paranjape discloses the laser shutter unit of Claim 5.
Zhao further discloses wherein the optical element (rhomboid prism 352) is a prism having a pair of the transmission surfaces (input face 354, output face 356) facing each other and the pair of the surfaces (flat surfaces 320) facing each other (see FIG. 3I and ¶ 74).
Regarding claim 7, modified Paranjape discloses the laser shutter unit of Claim 6.
Zhao further discloses wherein the pair of surfaces (flat surfaces 320) are parallel to each other (see FIG. 3I and ¶ 74).
Claims 9, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paranjape in view of Parkinson, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and in further view of Kakui (20090219955 A1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Paranjape discloses a laser system comprising (see annotated FIG. 1 above, ¶s 20, 22-23):
the laser shutter unit of Claim 1;
an output unit (slit 124) configured to output the first light to outside of the laser shutter unit (AOM 106 with beam dump 126, mirrors 118, 120, and slit 124); and
a light receiving unit (beam dump 126) configured to receive the second light,
wherein the laser shutter unit (AOM 106 with beam dump 126, mirrors 118, 120, and slit 124) receives the laser light (laser beam 104).
Modified Paranjape does not disclose:
a laser oscillation unit configured to oscillate laser light;
laser light output from the laser oscillation unit.
Paranjape and Kakui are commonly related to multireflective laser systems.
Kakui discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 5-10, 55-70):
a laser oscillation unit (laser 1) configured to oscillate laser light;
laser light output from the laser oscillation unit (laser 1).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Paranjape’s laser system by including Kakui’s laser oscillation unit, in order to generate pulsed laser beams with high peak power and consistent pulse widths (Kakui ¶s 5-10).
Regarding claim 18, modified Paranjape discloses a laser system comprising (see annotated FIG. 1 above, ¶s 20, 22-23):
the laser shutter unit of Claim 10;
an output unit (slit 124) configured to output the first laser beam to outside of the laser shutter unit (AOM 106 with mirrors 118, 120, and slit 124); and
a light receiving unit (beam dump 126) configured to receive the second laser beam,
wherein the laser shutter unit (AOM 106 with beam dump 126, mirrors 118, 120, and slit 124) receives the laser light (laser beam 104).
Modified Paranjape does not disclose:
a laser oscillation unit configured to oscillate laser light;
laser light output from the laser oscillation unit.
Paranjape and Kakui are commonly related to multireflective laser systems.
Kakui discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 5-10, 55-70):
a laser oscillation unit (laser 1) configured to oscillate laser light;
laser light output from the laser oscillation unit (laser 1).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Paranjape’s laser system by including Kakui’s laser oscillation unit, in order to generate pulsed laser beams with high peak power and consistent pulse widths (Kakui ¶s 5-10).
Regarding claim 22, modified Paranjape discloses the laser system of Claim 18.
Parkinson further discloses wherein a number of reflections of the first laser beam by the pair of surfaces (“parallel plane mirrors”) is equal to a number of reflections of the second laser beam by the pair of surfaces (“parallel plane mirrors”). (See above-annotated FIG. 32)
Paranjape further discloses the light receiving unit (beam dump 126) and the output unit (slit 124) are located on a same side with respect to the pair of surfaces. (See above-annotated FIG. 1’s “other side”)
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paranjape in view of Parkinson, as applied respectively to claims 8 and 17 above, and in further view of Kakui (20090219955 A1).
Regarding claim 23, modified Paranjape discloses a laser system comprising (see annotated FIG. 1 above, ¶s 20, 22-23):
the laser shutter unit of Claim 8;
an output unit (slit 124) configured to output the first light to outside of the laser shutter unit (AOM 106 with beam dump 126, mirrors 118, 120, and slit 124); and
a light receiving unit (beam dump 126) configured to receive the second light,
wherein the laser shutter unit (AOM 106 with beam dump 126, mirrors 118, 120, and slit 124) receives the laser light (laser beam 104),
a number of reflections of the first light by the pair of surfaces and a number of reflections of the second lights by the pair of surfaces are different.
Modified Paranjape does not disclose:
a laser oscillation unit configured to oscillate laser light;
laser light output from the laser oscillation unit,
the light receiving unit and the output unit are located on different sides with respect to the pair of surfaces.
Paranjape and Kakui are commonly related to multireflective laser systems.
Kakui discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 5-10, 55-70):
a laser oscillation unit (laser 1) configured to oscillate laser light;
laser light output from the laser oscillation unit (laser 1).
Moreover, Examiner finds that the remaining limitation, where the light receiving unit and the output unit are located on different sides with respect to the pair of surfaces, may only distinguish the claimed invention from those cited by a mere rearrangement of parts.
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Paranjape’s laser system by including Kakui’s laser oscillation unit, in order to generate pulsed laser beams with high peak power and consistent pulse widths (Kakui ¶s 5-10).
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further rearrange components of the modified Paranjape, in order to accommodate other size/shape constraints or design preferences (e.g. altering the size or shape of some reflective surface may slightly modify the geometry of reflected rays and require updated positioning for the light receiving unit and/or output unit) – since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 24, modified Paranjape discloses a laser system comprising:
the laser shutter unit of Claim 17;
an output unit (slit 124) configured to output the first laser beam to outside of the laser shutter unit (AOM 106 with beam dump 126, mirrors 118, 120, and slit 124); and
a light receiving unit (beam dump 126) configured to receive the second laser beam,
wherein the laser shutter unit (AOM 106 with beam dump 126, mirrors 118, 120, and slit 124) receives the laser light (laser beam 104),
a number of reflections of the first laser beam by the pair of surfaces and a number of reflections of the second laser beam by the pair of surfaces are different.
Modified Paranjape does not disclose:
a laser oscillation unit configured to oscillate laser light;
laser light output from the laser oscillation unit,
the light receiving unit and the output unit are located on different sides with respect to the pair of surfaces.
Paranjape and Kakui are commonly related to multireflective laser systems.
Kakui discloses (see FIG. 1, ¶s 5-10, 55-70):
a laser oscillation unit (laser 1) configured to oscillate laser light;
laser light output from the laser oscillation unit (laser 1),
Moreover, Examiner finds that the remaining limitation, where the light receiving unit and the output unit are located on different sides with respect to the pair of surfaces, may only distinguish the claimed invention from those cited by a mere rearrangement of parts.
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Paranjape’s laser system by including Kakui’s laser oscillation unit, in order to generate pulsed laser beams with high peak power and consistent pulse widths (Kakui ¶s 5-10).
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further rearrange components of the modified Paranjape, in order to accommodate other size/shape constraints or design preferences (e.g. altering the size or shape of some reflective surface may slightly modify the geometry of reflected rays and require updated positioning for the light receiving unit and/or output unit) – since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claims 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paranjape in view of Parkinson, as applied to claims 1, 8, 10, and 17 above, and in further view of Pisani and Astrua (NPL entitled Angle amplification for nanoradian measurements, hereinafter “Pisani”).
[Examiner note regarding arguments pertinent to claims 25-28 and based on Pisani’s disclosure:
First refer to FIG. 1(a-b) illustrating the ray optics for a configuration of (quasi-)parallel plane mirrors. See also FIGs. 2-4 depicting a second “autocollimation” configuration, where:
“the number of reflections for each mirror is between 30 and 60” (sec. 3, pg. 1727)
“the maximum number of reflections is approximately four times larger than in the parallel mirrors” (sec. 2, pg. 1726)
Note further that Pisani’s experimental apparatus uses (sec. 3A-3B, pg. 1727):
“a simple laser pointer emitting a 2 mm × 1 mm beam”
“two dielectric-coated 5 cm diameter λ/10 mirrors”
For a mirror of length L = 5cm, a distance (δℓ) between adjacent reflections for either the first or second lights are thus in a range:
(L/60 ≈ 0.08 cm) ≤ δℓ ≤ (L/30 ≈ 0.17 cm)
for the autocollimation configuration, while for the parallel mirrors,
(L/(60/4) ≈ 0.33 cm) ≤ δℓ ≤ (L/(30/4) ≈ 0.67 cm).
Note also from Pisani’s FIG. 1(b-c) (FIG. 1b annotated below), that the distance (d12) between last reflections of the first and the second light on the one surface is greater than half the distance (δℓ) between adjacent reflections (of either light). A range for the distance (d--12) between last reflections is therefore given rather conservatively (i.e. by taking d12 ≈ δℓ/2) for the parallel mirrors, such that
0.17 cm ≲ (d12 ≈ δℓ/2) ≲ 0.33 cm
Since Pisani’s laser beams have a 1 mm = 0.1 cm diameter, the distance (d12) between last reflections may span a range including values that are twice the beam diameter.)
PNG
media_image5.png
408
688
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1b of Pisani is annotated to highlight various features)]
Regarding claim 25, modified Paranjape discloses the laser shutter unit of Claim 1.
Parkinson further discloses wherein the multiple reflective optical element has the pair of surfaces (“parallel plane mirrors”) in which one surface that last reflects the first light is a surface that last reflects the second light. (See above-annotated FIG. 32)
Modified Paranjape does not disclose a distance between a center position of the first light on the one surface when the first light is last reflected and a center position of the second light on the one surface when the second light is last reflected is equal to or more than twice of a beam diameter of the incident laser light.
Paranjape and Pisani are commonly related to multireflective laser systems.
Prisani discloses a distance between a center position of the first light on the one surface when the first light is last reflected and a center position of the second light on the one surface when the second light is last reflected is equal to or more than twice of a beam diameter of the incident laser light. (See Examiner’s note above)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine design aspects of Paranjape and Pisani, in order to adopt laser/reflector specifications routinely employed in high-performance/ precision optics.
Regarding claim 26, modified Paranjape discloses the laser shutter unit of Claim 10.
Parkinson further discloses wherein the multiple reflective optical element has the pair of surfaces (“parallel plane mirrors”) in which one surface that last reflects the first laser beam is a surface that last reflects the second laser beam. (See above-annotated FIG. 32)
Modified Paranjape does not disclose a distance between a center position of the first laser beam on the one surface when the first laser beam is last reflected and a center position of the second laser beam on the one surface when the second laser beam is last reflected is equal to or more than twice of a beam diameter of the laser beam.
Paranjape and Pisani are commonly related to multireflective laser systems.
Pisani discloses a distance between a center position of the first laser beam on the one surface when the first laser beam is last reflected and a center position of the second laser beam on the one surface when the second laser beam is last reflected is equal to or more than twice of a beam diameter of the laser beam. (See Examiner’s note above)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine design aspects of Paranjape and Pisani, in order to adopt laser/reflector specifications routinely employed in high-performance/ precision optics.
Regarding claim 27, modified Paranjape discloses the laser shutter unit of Claim 8.
Paranjape further discloses a center position of the first light on the one surface when the first light is last reflected and a center position of the second light when the second light passes through a surface obtained by extending the one surface after the second light is last reflected. (See newly annotated FIG. 1 below)
[AltContent: textbox (FIG. 1 of Paranjape is newly annotated.)]
PNG
media_image7.png
413
562
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Modified Paranjape does not disclose wherein a distance between the center position of the first light on the one surface and the center position of the second light through the surface obtained by extending the one surface is equal to or more than twice of a beam diameter of the incident laser light.
Paranjape and Pisani are commonly related to multireflective laser systems.
Pisani discloses wherein a distance between the center position of the first light on the one surface and the center position of the second light through the surface obtained by extending the one surface is equal to or more than twice of a beam diameter of the incident laser light. (See Examiner’s note above)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine design aspects of Paranjape and Pisani, in order to adopt laser/reflector specifications routinely employed in high-performance/ precision optics.
Regarding claim 28, modified Paranjape discloses the laser shutter unit of Claim 17.
Paranjape further discloses a center position of the first laser beam on the one surface when the first laser beam is last reflected and a center position of the second laser beam when the second laser beam passes through a surface obtained by extending the one surface after the second laser beam is last reflected. (See newly annotated FIG. 1 above)
Modified Paranjape does not disclose wherein a distance between the center position of the first laser beam on the one surface and the center position of the second laser beam through the surface obtained by extending the one surface is equal to or more than twice of a beam diameter of the laser beam.
Paranjape and Pisani are commonly related to multireflective laser systems.
Pisani discloses wherein a distance between the center position of the first laser beam on the one surface and the center position of the second laser beam through the surface obtained by extending the one surface is equal to or more than twice of a beam diameter of the laser beam. (See Examiner’s note above)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine design aspects of Paranjape and Pisani, in order to adopt laser/reflector specifications routinely employed in high-performance/ precision optics.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights