DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued that paragraph [0093] of applicant’s specification supports the recitation of a waveplate that “blocks all laser electromagnetic or blocks of the laser electromagnetic radiation”. The examiner does not agree. Paragraph [0092] of applicant’s specification discloses “The laser beam which is polarized, for example in the horizontal plane, passes through the waveplate 220, which in turn rotates the polarized laser beam anywhere from 0 to 90 degrees, based on the rotational position of the waveplate 220. After passing through the waveplate 220, the laser beam reaches the polarizer plate 70, which stops any laser beam energy that is not polarized in the same plane as the polarizer plate 70 and allows to pass all laser beam energy that is polarized in the same plane as the polarizer plate 70.” and paragraph [0093] of applicant’s specification discloses “the waveplate 220 entirely blocks the laser electromagnetic radiation, by changing the polarity to be rotated 90 degrees with respect to the polarizer plate 70”. It is clear from the two paragraphs that both the waveplate 220 and the polarizer plate 70 work together to pass or block laser radiation. Therefore, The claimed limitation “…wherein the different operating modes of the waveplate include…a block-all-radiation mode in which all of the laser electromagnetic radiation is blocked from passing through, and at least one allow-partial-radiation mode in which some of the laser electromagnetic radiation is allowed to pass through and some of the laser electromagnetic radiation is blocked” in claims 17 and 19 are indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claims to mean “wherein the different operating modes of the waveplate include an allow-all-radiation mode in which all of the laser electromagnetic radiation is allowed to pass through”
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 17 and 19 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.
The claimed limitation “…a block-all-radiation mode in which all of the laser electromagnetic radiation is blocked from passing through, and at least one allow-partial-radiation mode in which some of the laser electromagnetic radiation is allowed to pass through and some of the laser electromagnetic radiation is blocked” in claims 17 and 19 are indefinite. Applicant’s specification discloses in paragraph [0092] that “The waveplate 220 works with a polarizer plate 70 to pass or block laser energy level via the rotation of the waveplate 220.” The claimed limitation in claims 17 and 19 require the waveplate to block all laser electromagnetic radition or block some of the laser electromagnetic radiation which is not supported by applicant’s specification. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the claims to mean “wherein the different operating modes of the waveplate include an allow-all-radiation mode in which all of the laser electromagnetic radiation is allowed to pass through”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie (US 8,064,043) in view of Gregor et al. (US 5,099,147) and Romano et al. (US 4,571,712).
Regarding claim 17, Irie discloses: a laser configured to emit electromagnetic radiation (laser device used as the light source) (col. 10, lines 17-32); and an energy control assembly, wherein the energy control assembly comprises: a shutter (11, 12, 13), the shutter having an axis of rotation (axis of rotation of the motor 17) and at least one open area (area between blades 11, 12 and 13) and at least one solid area (are of blades 11, 12 and 13) arranged around the axis of rotation of the shutter (Figs. 1A and 1B, col. 4, lines 21-40); and a shutter rotation motor (17) configured to rotate the shutter around the axis of rotation of the shutter; wherein the shutter is arranged such that, when rotated around the axis of rotation of the shutter, an open area of the shutter and a solid area of the shutter are alternately positioned in a path of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the laser (Figs. 1A and 1B, col. 4, lines 21-40 and 62-67).
Irie does not disclose: a waveplate; a rotatable carriage, wherein the waveplate is connected to the rotatable carriage and is configured to rotate with the rotatable carriage; and a waveplate position motor operatively connected to the rotatable carriage and configured to move the rotatable carriage to rotate the waveplate into different positions corresponding to different operating modes of the waveplate, wherein the different operating modes of the waveplate include an allow-all-radiation mode in which all of the laser electromagnetic radiation is allowed to pass through.
Gregor et al. disclose: a waveplate 38 which is mechanically rotatable by a motor drive 40 under control of the control unit 36 (col. 4, lines 24-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Irie by replacing the shutter with a waveplate in order to adjust the polarization of the laser output directed at a target. The device as modified disclose: wherein the different operating modes of the waveplate include an allow-all-radiation mode in which all of the laser electromagnetic radiation is allowed to pass through.
Irie as modified do not disclose: a carriage.
Romano et al. disclose: a detector, a carriage position motor configured to move the carriage (col. 20, lines 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Irie as modified by coupling a carriage to the waveplate assembly in order to moveably attach the waveplate to the motor.
Regarding claim 19, Irie as modified disclose: a method of controlling a laser system comprising: emitting electromagnetic radiation from a laser; and rotating a waveplate in a path of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the laser into different positions corresponding to different operating modes of the waveplate, wherein the different operating modes of the waveplate include an allow-all-radiation mode in which all of the laser electromagnetic radiation is allowed to pass through (see the rejection of claim 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-16 are allowed.
Claims 1 and 9 are allowable as the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “…wherein the shutter comprises a plurality of tracks corresponding to its different positions, including a first track in which a first percentage of laser pulses emitted by the laser are allowed to pass through and a second track in which a second percentage of laser pulses emitted by the laser are allowed to pass through, wherein the second percentage is higher than the first percentage.”
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 XINNING(TOM) NIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minsun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828