This is a Final office action for serial number 17/816,967.
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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Brewster 20130219678. The applicant is reminded that the optical system is not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the optical system. Brewster discloses (Claim 1) A rotational mount, comprising: a flexure member defining a base portion (see annotated figure below), a flexure portion , and a mounting portion, wherein the flexure portion defines a first flexure (150/151) and a second flexure (152/153) associated with rotations about a first axis and a second axis, respectively, wherein the second axis is orthogonal to the first axis; and at least one clamp situated to secure an optical system (60) to the mounting portion (181) of the flexure member so that the first flexure and the second flexure are operable to provide rotation of the optical system about the first axis and the second axis in response to bending at the first flexure and the second flexure, respectively; (Claim 2) The rotational mount of claim 1, wherein the first flexure is defined by a groove (151) in the flexure member, the groove extending parallel to the first axis; (Claim 3) The rotational mount of claim 2, wherein the second flexure is defined by opposing slots (153) in the flexure member, the opposing slots extending parallel to the first axis; (Claim 4) (Original) The rotational mount of claim 1, wherein the second flexure is defined by opposing slots (153) in the flexure member, the opposing slots extending parallel to the first axis; (Claim 5) The rotational mount of claim 1, wherein the flexure portion is situated between the base portion (see figure below) and the mounting portion (181).
[AltContent: textbox (Base portion
1st flexure (151/150)
2nd flexure (153/152)
Mounting portion (181)
Optical system (60))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (At least one clamp 80/90)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
354
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brewster 20130219678 in view of Mefferd 5,000,557. Brewster discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the optical system wherein the optical system is a laser beam generator. Brewster teaches that the invention within the background that the device can be used for such as, machinery, optics, or medical device, and round shafts as discussed in paragraph 0003 and 0004. Mefferd teaches it is known to have a support/mount for an (Claim 23) The rotational mount of claim 1, further comprising the optical system (laser system, see specification summary of invention) ; (Claim 24) The rotational mount of claim 23, wherein the optical system is a laser beam generator (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Brewster to have supporting or mounting the optical system wherein the optical system is a laser beam generator as taught by Mefferd since Brewster teaches that the invention within the background that the device can be used for such as, machinery, optics, or medical device, and round shafts as discussed in paragraph 0003 and 0004 which would include an optical system such as a laser beam generator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that,
While Brewster discloses multiple flexures, Brewster's flexures provide rotations about parallel axes in response to adjustment of the clamp. Each and every flexure of Brewster's FIG. 13 provides a rotation about a respective axis that is perpendicular to the plane of the drawing. By contrast, claim 1 recites that "a first flexure and a second flexure [are] associated with rotations about a first axis and a second axis, respectively, wherein the second axis is orthogonal to the first axis." Such an arrangement is described in the specification and illustrated in. for example, FIGS. 3-3A (reproduced below).
FIGS. 3-3A show a flexure member 306 having first flexure defined by a bridged region 310C and a second flexure defined by a groove, channel, or other thinned region 314. These flexures permit rotations about respective orthogonal axes 312, 314. [Specification at 10, lines 20-30]. Brewster fails to disclose such an arrangement. Moreover, the flexures in Brewster serve to clamp a shaft 60 against a base member 70 but do not rotate the shaft 60. The arrangement of Brewster is to secure the shaft and prevent rotation with the base member. Accordingly, Brewster fails to disclose that "the first flexure and the second flexure are operable to provide rotation of the optical system," as recited in claim 1.
For at least the above reasons, Brewster fails to disclose all the features of claim 1, arranged as claimed, and claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-5 are properly allowable.
the examiner’s remarks are as follows. Brewster clearly teaches that the 1st flexure 151/150 with rotations about a first axis and 2nd flexure 153/152 wherein the second axis is orthogonal to the second axis as shown below, therefore meeting the applicant’s claimed invention. Brewster also teaches in paragraph 0077 that,
“The dimensional relationship between the aperture and the shaft is such that the gaps 141 offer a minimal clearance, permitting unlimited linear, but limited rotational motion along the shaft axis when the pinch bolt is loose” therefore permitting rotation of the member 60 (optical system) meeting the applicant’s claimed invention.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd axis)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd flexure (153/152))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (At least one clamp 80/90)][AltContent: textbox (1st flexure (151/150)
Optical system (60))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
354
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631