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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/13/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/13/2026 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 06/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 3 and 11 have been canceled. The amendments to the claims were sufficient to overcome each 112 rejection previously set forth in the office action mailed 03/11/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues the applied references, whether taken singly or combined, fail to disclose or render obvious the features of “an optical configuration of the first steering lens, the second steering lens, and the magnifying lens is configured to position a virtual object of the first steering lens and the second steering lens at a position between fm and 2fm” and “an optical configuration of the steering lens and the magnifying lens is configured to position a virtual object of the steering lens at a position between fm and 2fm” of amended independent claims 1 and 4, respectively. These limitations are implicit from the disclosures of Raksi and Lewis. It is implicit that the lenses would be configured such that the virtual object of the steering lenses is positioned between fm and 2fm, given the structure, function, and intended use of the combination of Raksi in view of Lewis, e.g. having a desired expanded beam diameter still be in focus and have good resolution. However, in the case that it isn’t inherent to the combination, these limitations are just defining an optical working range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Raksi in view of Lewis has a the steering lenses, a magnifying lens, a field lens, an emission lens, and steering actuators coupled to the steering lenses, fulfilling the general conditions of independent claims 1 and 4. Determining the optimal spacing between elements, i.e. the optimal optical configuration would only require routine skill in the art to discover the optical working range. One would be motivated to have the spacing between the lenses be such a virtual object of the steering lenses is positioned between fm and 2fm for the purpose of having the desired beam diameter be in focus with an optimal numerical aperture (¶0161, ¶0212, ¶0249 of Raksi).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 4-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raksi et al. (US 20110028948 A1), hereinafter Raksi, in view of Lewis (EP 0903608 A2).
Regarding independent claim 1, Raksi discloses a system, comprising:
a steering system (300; Fig. 1; ¶0062) interposed between an electromagnetic (EM) source (100; Fig. 1; ¶0062) and a magnifying lens (a lens from 400; Figs. 1, 13; ¶0062);
the magnifying lens (a lens from 400) interposed between the steering system (300) and a field lens (500; Figs. 1, 13; ¶0062); and
the field lens (500) interposed between the magnifying lens (a lens from 400) and an emission lens (700; Fig. 1; ¶0062),
wherein the position fm comprises a magnifying lens focal length displaced from the magnifying lens (a lens from 400), and wherein the position 2fm comprises twice the distance fm (inherent, this is a definition).
Raksi does not disclose the steering system is a first steering lens and a second steering lens, and further does not disclose a first steering actuator coupled to the first steering lens, the first steering actuator configured to move the first steering lens along a first movement course; and a second steering actuator coupled to the second steering lens, the second steering actuator configured to move the second steering lens along a second movement course, wherein an optical configuration of the first steering lens, the second steering lens, and the magnifying lens is configured to position a virtual object of the first steering lens and the second steering lens at a position between fm and 2fm.
However, Lewis teaches a steering system comprising a first steering lens (6; Fig. 3; ¶0018) and a second steering lens (7; Fig. 3; ¶0018), and further teaches a first steering actuator (8; Fig. 3; ¶0020) coupled to the first steering lens (6) (Fig. 3), the first steering actuator (8) configured to move the first steering lens (6) along a first movement course (x-axis; ¶0021); and a second steering actuator (9; Fig. 3; ¶0020) coupled to the second steering lens (7) (Fig. 3), the second steering actuator (9) configured to move the second steering lens (7) along a second movement course (y-axis; ¶0021).
Raksi discloses the claimed invention except that scanning mirrors (300) are used instead of a first steering lens and a second steering lens. Lewis shows that a first steering lens (6) and a second steering lens (7) is an equivalent structure in the art. Therefore, because these two beam steering structures were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a first steering lens and a second steering lens for the scanning mirrors, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B). Further, one would have been motivated to substitute the beam steering lenses for the scanning mirrors for the purpose of allowing for more precision in how a user chooses to use the device.
Regarding the optical configuration of the first steering lens, the second steering lens, and the magnifying lens being configured to position a virtual object of the first steering lens and the second steering lens at a position between fm and 2fm, either (1) this is implicit given the structure, function, and intended use of the combination of Raksi as modified by Lewis or (2) this is defining an optical working range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Raksi in view of Lewis has a first steering lens, a second steering lens, a magnifying lens, a field lens, an emission lens, a first steering actuator coupled to the first steering lens, and a second steering actuator coupled to the second steering lens, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the spacing between the lenses be such that the first steering lens, the second steering lens, and the magnifying lens are configured to position a virtual object of the first steering lens and the second steering lens at a position between fm and 2fm for the purpose of having the desired beam diameter be in focus with an optimal numerical aperture (¶0161, ¶0212, ¶0249 of Raksi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spacing between the lenses be such that the first steering lens, the second steering lens, and the magnifying lens are configured to position a virtual object of the first steering lens and the second steering lens at a position between fm and 2fm for the purpose of having the desired beam diameter be in focus with an optimal numerical aperture (¶0161, ¶0212, ¶0249 of Raksi).
Regarding independent claim 4, Raksi discloses system, comprising:
a steering system (300; Fig. 1; ¶0062) interposed between an electromagnetic (EM) source (100; Fig. 1; ¶0062) and a magnifying lens (a lens from 400; Figs. 1, 13; ¶0062);
the magnifying lens (a lens from 400) interposed between the steering system (300) and a field lens (500; Figs. 1, 13; ¶0062);
the field lens (500) interposed between the magnifying lens (a lens from 400) and an emission lens (700; Fig. 1; ¶0062); and
a steering actuator coupled to the steering system 300 (inherent that there must be an actuator to move the steering system 300), the steering actuator configured to move the steering system along a movement course (Figs. 1, 11) (inherent that there must be an actuator to move the steering system 300),
wherein the position fm comprises a magnifying lens focal length displaced from the magnifying lens (a lens from 400), and wherein the position 2fm comprises twice the distance fm (inherent, this is a definition).
Raksi does not disclose the steering system is a steering lens, wherein an optical configuration of the steering lens and the magnifying lens is configured to position a virtual object of the steering lens at a position between fm and 2fm.
However, Lewis teaches a steering system comprising a steering lens (6, 7; Fig. 3; ¶0018).
Raksi discloses the claimed invention except that scanning mirrors (300) are used instead of a steering lens. Lewis shows that a steering lens (6, 7) is an equivalent structure in the art. Therefore, because these two beam steering structures were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a steering lens for the scanning mirrors, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B). Further, one would have been motivated to substitute the beam steering lenses for the scanning mirrors for the purpose of allowing for more precision in how a user chooses to use the device.
Regarding the optical configuration of the steering lens and the magnifying lens being configured to position a virtual object of the steering lens at a position between fm and 2fm, either (1) this is implicit given the structure, function, and intended use of the combination of Raksi as modified by Lewis or (2) this is defining an optical working range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Raksi in view of Lewis has a steering lens, a magnifying lens, a field lens, an emission lens, and a steering actuator coupled to the steering lens, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the spacing between the lenses be such that the steering lens and the magnifying lens are configured to position a virtual object of the steering lens at a position between fm and 2fm for the purpose of having the desired beam diameter be in focus with an optimal numerical aperture (¶0161, ¶0212, ¶0249 of Raksi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spacing between the lenses be such that the steering lens and the magnifying lens are configured to position a virtual object of the steering lens at a position between fm and 2fm for the purpose of having the desired beam diameter be in focus with an optimal numerical aperture (¶0161, ¶0212, ¶0249 of Raksi).
Regarding claim 5, Raksi in view of Lewis discloses the system of claim 4, as set forth above. Raksi further discloses the movement course comprises selected movement along each of two axes (XY scanner 300; Figs. 1, 11; ¶0062).
Regarding claim 6, Raksi in view of Lewis discloses the system of claim 5, as set forth above. Raksi further discloses a first one of the two axes comprises a first steering axis (inherent, Figs. 1, 11), and wherein a second one of the two axes comprises a second steering axis (inherent, Figs. 1, 11).
Regarding claim 7, Raksi in view of Lewis discloses the system of claim 5, as set forth above Raksi further discloses the two axes comprise perpendicular axes (abstract, Figs. 1, 11).
Regarding claim 9, Raksi in view of Lewis discloses the system of claim 4, as set forth above. Raksi further discloses the system comprises a second field lens (another lens from 400; Figs. 1, 13; ¶0062) positioned between the steering system (300) and the magnifying lens (a lens from 400) (Figs. 1, 13). Raksi does not disclose the steering lens comprises a positive lens.
However, Lewis teaches the steering lens (6, 7) comprises a positive lens (6; Fig. 1; ¶0018).
Raksi discloses the claimed invention except that scanning mirrors (300) are used instead of a steering lens. Lewis shows that a steering lens (6, 7) is an equivalent structure in the art. Therefore, because these two beam steering structures were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a steering lens for the scanning mirrors, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B). Further, one would have been motivated to substitute the beam steering lenses for the scanning mirrors for the purpose of allowing for more precision in how a user chooses to use the device.
Regarding claim 10, Raksi in view of Lewis discloses the system of claim 4, as set forth above. Raksi further discloses a source collimator lens (200; suggested by parallel beams coming out of 200 in Fig. 1) interposed between the EM source (100) and the steering system (300) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Raksi in view of Lewis discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Lewis further teaches the virtual object of the first steering lens (6) and the second steering lens (7) is a focal point of an equivalent lens of the first (6) and second steering lenses (7) (inherent that the focal point of the first and second steering lenses would be the same as the focal point of a hypothetical equivalent lens of the first and second steering lenses).
Regarding claim 13, Raksi in view of Lewis discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Raksi does not disclose at least one of a steering capability or a displacement capability of the first steering actuator is respectively different from at least one of a steering capability or a displacement capability of the second steering actuator.
However, Lewis teaches at least one of a steering capability or a displacement capability of the first steering actuator (8) is respectively different from at least one of a steering capability or a displacement capability of the second steering actuator (9) (different directions; ¶0021).
Raksi discloses the claimed invention except that scanning mirrors (300) are used instead of a first steering lens and a second steering lens. Lewis shows that a first steering lens (6) and a second steering lens (7) is an equivalent structure in the art. Therefore, because these two beam steering structures were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a first steering lens and a second steering lens for the scanning mirrors, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B). Further, one would have been motivated to substitute the beam steering lenses for the scanning mirrors for the purpose of allowing for more precision in how a user chooses to use the device.
Regarding claim 15, Raksi in view of Lewis discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Raksi does not disclose the first steering lens and the second steering lens have different optical powers.
However, Lewis teaches the first steering lens (6) and the second steering lens (7) have different optical powers (Fig. 3).
Raksi discloses the claimed invention except that scanning mirrors (300) are used instead of a first steering lens and a second steering lens. Lewis shows that a first steering lens (6) and a second steering lens (7) is an equivalent structure in the art. Therefore, because these two beam steering structures were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a first steering lens and a second steering lens for the scanning mirrors, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B). Further, one would have been motivated to substitute the beam steering lenses for the scanning mirrors for the purpose of allowing for more precision in how a user chooses to use the device.
Claim(s) 8, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raksi (US 20110028948 A1) in view of Lewis (EP 0903608 A2) and further in view of Gopinath et al. (US 20210333443 A1), hereinafter Gopinath.
Regarding claim 8, Raksi in view of Lewis discloses the system of claim 4, as set forth above. Neither Raksi nor Lewis disclose the steering actuator comprises a configurable lens element having an active lens portion, wherein the steering lens comprises the active lens portion, and wherein moving the steering lens along the movement course comprises changing a position of the active lens portion.
However, Gopinath teaches a steering system (Fig. 1) comprising a steering lens (108; Fig. 1; ¶0031) and a steering actuator (inherent for tunable lenses, abstract, ¶0031), wherein the steering actuator comprises a configurable lens element having an active lens portion (832; Table 1; Fig. 8; ¶0043), wherein the steering lens (108) comprises the active lens portion (832) (Fig. 8), and wherein moving the steering lens (108) along the movement course comprises changing a position of the active lens portion (832) (Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Raksi in view of Lewis to incorporate the active lens portion of Gopinath for the purpose of having a compact, low-loss method of beam steering (¶0005 of Gopinath).
Regarding claim 14, Raksi in view of Lewis discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Raksi does not disclose the first steering lens is a negative lens and the second steering lens is a negative lens.
However, Lewis discloses the second steering lens (6) is a negative lens (Fig. 1).
Additionally, Gopinath teaches a steering system (Fig. 2) comprising a first steering lens (108; Fig. 2; ¶0033) and a second steering lens (208; Fig. 2; ¶0033), wherein the first steering lens (108) and the second steering lens (208) are both liquid tunable lenses (abstract, ¶0033) and can both be negative lenses (implicit from ¶0033)1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Raksi in view of Lewis to incorporate the liquid tunable lenses of Gopinath for the purpose of having a compact, low-loss method of beam steering (¶0005 of Gopinath).
Regarding claim 17, Raksi in view of Lewis discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Raksi nor Lewis disclose the first steering lens is a negative lens and the second steering lens have different magnitudes of optical power.
However, Gopinath teaches a steering system (Fig. 2) comprising a first steering lens (108; Fig. 2; ¶0033) and a second steering lens (208; Fig. 2; ¶0033), wherein the first steering lens (108) and the second steering lens (208) are both liquid tunable lenses (abstract, ¶0033) and can have different magnitudes of optical power (Figs. 7-8; ¶0040-¶0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Raksi in view of Lewis to incorporate the liquid tunable lenses of Gopinath for the purpose of having a compact, low-loss method of beam steering (¶0005 of Gopinath).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raksi (US 20110028948 A1) in view of Lewis (EP 0903608 A2) as evidenced by MIL-HDBK-141 "Military Standardization Handbook Optical Design, pages 8-15, October 1962.
Regarding claim 16, Raksi in view of Lewis discloses the system of claim 15, as set forth above. Neither Raksi nor Lewis disclose the magnifying lens is an aspherical lens.
However, one skilled in the art could choose to make the magnifying lens an aspherical lens with a reasonable expectation of success, as evidences by the Military Standardization Handbook Optical Design MIL-HNDK-141 page 8-152. There are a limited number of possibilities for the curvature of the magnifying lens – that it is spherical or aspherical. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the magnifying lens be an aspherical lens since there are only two possible solutions and since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp for the purpose of correcting spherical aberration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-4.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 3rd, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995), see MPEP 2112.
2 As evidenced by MIL-HDBK-141 “Military Standardization Handbook Optical Design” October 1962, page 8-15 section 8.7.4.2 points 1-3. Particularly stating: “One of the main reasons that aspheric surfaces are so valuable, is that they do allow the introduction of aberration at nearly any place in the optical system, without upsetting the distribution of focal lengths of the different elements needed to correct for color and Petzval field curvature.”
Prosecution Insights