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 Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 2/10/2026. Claims 30, 38, 40, 42, 47 are amended, claim 50 is new, and claims 30-47 and 49-50 are currently pending.
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 30-35, 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2010264494 to Uchida (hereinafter Uchida) in view of WO 2008/006957 to Vaucher (hereinafter Vaucher) and EP 3312656 to Fischer, et al. (hereinafter Fischer).
Regarding claim 30, Uchida discloses a deflection module (Figs. 1-2) comprising: a first deflection unit (emission means 32, Figs. 1-2) comprising a first scanning device (“X-axis scan mirror 122 is connected to the X-axis galvanometer 132 via the drive shaft 130” and “Y-axis scan mirror 124 is connected to the Y-axis galvanometer 136 via the drive shaft 134”) configured for scanning a first working beam over a first working field (Fig. 1-2), wherein the first scanning device comprises: a first movable mirror (mirror 122, Fig. 1-2) for scanning the first working beam in a first direction by tilting around a first axis (X-axis, Fig. 1-2); and a second movable mirror (mirror 124, Fig. 1-2) for scanning the first working beam in a second direction by tilting around a second axis (y-axis, Figs. 1-2); a second deflection unit (emission means 36, Figs. 1-2) comprising a second scanning device (“X-axis scan mirror 142 is connected to the X-axis galvanometer 152 via the drive shaft 150”, Fig. 1-2) configured for scanning a second working beam over a second working field (Figs. 1-2); wherein the second scanning device comprises: a first movable mirror (x-axis mirror 142, Fig. 2) for scanning the second working beam in the first direction by tilting around a third axis (X-axis, Fig. 2); and a second movable mirror (y-axis mirror 144, Fig. 2) for scanning the second working beam in the second direction by tilting around a fourth axis (y-axis, Fig. 1-2); wherein the second movable mirror of the first scanning device and the second movable mirror of the second scanning device are arranged mirror-symmetrically with respect to each other and to a common plane of mirror symmetry (Y-Z plane and X-Z plane relative to respective X- and Y- axis mirrors, Fig. 1-2), wherein the second axis is aligned with the fourth axis (Y-axis, Figs. 1-2); and wherein the first working field and the second working field overlap in a common overlap area (Fig. 1-2).
Uchida discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: second movable mirror for scanning the first working beam in a second direction by tilting around a second axis and a second movable mirror for scanning the second working beam in the second direction by tilting around a fourth axis, wherein the second axis is aligned with and in parallel with the fourth axis.
Vaucher discloses: second movable mirror (mirror 2, Fig. 2-2A) for scanning the first working beam (beam 11, Fig. 2-2A) in a second direction (“rotation of the mirrors 2, 3 rotates the light spot produced by the laser beam 11 on the target surface, in two directions of deflection x, y perpendicular to the direction of reflection”) by tilting around a second axis (axis A2, Fig. 2-2A) and a second movable mirror (mirror 2’, Fig. 2-2A) for scanning the second working beam (beam 11’, Fig. 2-2A) in the second direction by tilting around a fourth axis (axis A2’, Fig. 2-2A), wherein the second axis is aligned with and in parallel with the fourth axis (“Axes A2 and A2 'are parallel”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide parallel mirror tilting axes as taught by Vaucher with the system as disclosed by Uchida. As the limitation on axes to be parallel amounts to a duplication and rearrangement of parts, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the modification of Uchida in view of Voucher as providing no unexpected result. While the rearrangement could be considered a matter of aesthetic design choice, the identical duplication of the deflection devices allows for two beams to be scanned on a same target surface with known orientations – due to duplication. Such duplication an rearrangement would have been motivated by reducing costs and system complexity (“the DFL1 deflection device is relatively inexpensive” & “deflection device DFL2 shown in FIG. 2 makes it possible to apply two beams 11, 11 'to the target surface 5. In FIGS. 1 and 2, the elements of the device DFL2 which are identical to the elements of the device DFL1 bear the same references”).
Uchida discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose an optical path of the second working beam from the second movable mirror to the second working field is free of any mirrors or lenses.
Fischer discloses an optical path of the second working beam from the second movable mirror to the second working field is free of any mirrors or lenses (Figs. 1-2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optical paths without a lens or mirror between a scanning mirror and projection surface as taught by Fischer with the system as disclosed by Uchida. As evidenced by Fischer an artisan would have been motivated to include a lens intervening between the scanning mirror and projection surface to focus the incident light (), and it has been recognized that removal of a known element and its corresponding function would have been an obvious modification of prior art. Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989)
Regarding claim 31, Uchida discloses the first working beam is incident on the first scanning device propagating in a first incidence direction perpendicular to the common plane of mirror symmetry, and wherein the second working beam is incident on the second scanning device propagating in a second incidence direction perpendicular to the common plane of mirror symmetry, wherein the first incidence direction is aligned with and opposed to the second incidence direction (X- and Y-axis mirrors, Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 32, Uchida discloses the first deflection unit and the second deflection unit are arranged mirror-symmetrically with respect to the common plane of mirror symmetry, such that a beam path of the first working beam before being scanned by the first scanning device (from source 20, Fig. 2) and a beam path of the second working beam before being scanned by the second scanning device (from source 22, Fig. 2) are mirror symmetric with respect to each other and to the common plane of mirror symmetry (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 33, Uchida discloses a beam path of the first working beam before being scanned by the first scanning device is aligned with a beam path of the second working beam before being scanned by the first scanning device in a direction perpendicular to the common plane of mirror symmetry (Abstract, Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 34, Uchida discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a separation between the second movable mirror of the first scanning device and the second movable mirror of the second scanning device corresponds to not more than 1/3 of a diameter of the second movable mirror of the first scanning device
The claim language amounts to only a different in the relative dimensions of a device known in prior art, evidenced by Uchida. The relative proportionality of the separation between mirrors and the mirror diameter details the relative proportionality of the size of the system baselined to the mirror dimensionality. This proportionality and the corresponding dimensionality of the mirror size and spacing would not perform differently than the prior art device. It is noted that the only difference is the relative compactness of the device, and the change in size is an obvious modification of prior art. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Regarding claim 35, Uchida discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a distance between an optical center of the second movable mirror of the first scanning device and an optical center of the second movable mirror of the second scanning device corresponds to not more than 4 times an aperture of the first movable mirror of the first scanning device or of the first movable mirror of the second scanning device
The claim language amounts to only a different in the relative dimensions of a device known in prior art, evidenced by Uchida. The relative proportionality of the separation between mirrors and the mirror diameter details the relative proportionality of the size of the system baselined to the mirror dimensionality. This proportionality and the corresponding dimensionality of the mirror size and spacing would not perform differently than the prior art device. It is noted that the only difference is the relative compactness of the device, and the change in size is an obvious modification of prior art. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Regarding claim 37, Uchida discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a distance between an optical centre of the second movable mirror of the first scanning device and an optical centre of the second movable mirror of the second scanning device is not more than 120 mm.
The claim language amounts to only a different in the relative dimensions of a device known in prior art, evidenced by Uchida. The relative proportionality of the separation between mirrors and the mirror diameter details the relative proportionality of the size of the system baselined to the mirror dimensionality. This proportionality and the corresponding dimensionality of the mirror size and spacing would not perform differently than the prior art device. It is noted that the only difference is the relative compactness of the device, and the change in size is an obvious modification of prior art. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Regarding claim 38, Uchida discloses the first working field and the second working field are aligned with each other in a direction parallel to the common plane of mirror symmetry, and wherein the common overlap area has an extension in an overlap direction perpendicular to the common plane of mirror symmetry corresponding to at least 75% the extension covered by the first or second working field in the overlap direction (beam 30 and 34 overlap; Fig. 3).
Claims 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida in view of Vaucher and Fischer, as applied to claim 35 in view of US Pat. No. 4,024,545 to Dowling et al. (hereinafter Dowling).
Regarding claim 36, Uchida discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the first working beam is incident on the first scanning device having a first 1/e2 beam diameter, and wherein the second working beam is incident on the second scanning device having a second 1/e2 beam diameter, wherein the aperture of the first movable mirror of the first scanning device or of the first movable mirror of the second scanning device corresponds to at least 1.3 times the first 1/e2 beam diameter or the second 1/e2 beam diameter, respectively.
Dowling discloses the first working beam is incident on the first scanning device having a first 1/e2 beam diameter, and wherein the second working beam is incident on the second scanning device having a second 1/e2 beam diameter, wherein the aperture of the first movable mirror of the first scanning device or of the first movable mirror of the second scanning device corresponds to at least 1.3 times (col. 23, ll. 21-29).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a sufficiently large mirror aperture for a beam as taught by Dowling with the system as disclosed by Uchida. The motivation would have been to provide a laser beam for efficient and legible marking (col. 23).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida in view of Vaucher and Fischer as applied to Claim 30, in view of CN 109590611 to Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 39, Uchida discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: wherein the second movable mirror of the first scanning device is arranged along a beam path of the first working beam towards the first working field after the first movable mirror of the first scanning device, wherein the second movable mirror of the second scanning device is arranged along a beam path of the second working beam towards the second working field after the first movable mirror of the second scanning device, and wherein a height of the second movable mirror of the first scanning device over the first working field or a height of the second movable mirror of the second scanning device over the second working field is not more than 800 mm.
Zhang discloses wherein the second movable mirror of the first scanning device is arranged along a beam path of the first working beam towards the first working field after the first movable mirror of the first scanning device, wherein the second movable mirror of the second scanning device is arranged along a beam path of the second working beam towards the second working field after the first movable mirror of the second scanning device, and wherein a height of the second movable mirror of the first scanning device over the first working field or a height of the second movable mirror of the second scanning device over the second working field is not more than 800 mm (“height of it is necessary marking is (300 + 100) * 1.2 = 480mm”; Figs. 1-3).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to set a height above a work surface as taught by Zhang with the system as disclosed by Uchida. The motivation would have been to improve working efficiency and reduces the cost (Abstract).
Claims 40-41 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida in view of Vaucher and Fischer, as applied to Claim 30 above, and further in view of US Pat. 11,167,497 to Brown et al. (hereinafter Brown).
Regarding claim 40, Uchida discloses enclosing elements in a housing (Figs. 1-2).
Uchida discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the first deflection unit and the second deflection unit are enclosed within the system wherein the system comprises a first transparent window configured for letting through the first working beam propagating from the first scanning device to the first working field and a second transparent window configured for letting through the second working beam propagating from the second scanning device to the second working field.
Brown discloses the first deflection unit and the second deflection unit are enclosed within the system (light-tight housing 157a, 157b, Fig. 1) wherein the system comprises a first transparent window (window 107 having portion beside light-tight housing 157a, Fig. 1) configured for letting through the first working beam propagating from the first scanning device to the first working field (Fig. 1) and a second transparent window (window 107 having portion beside light-tight housing 157b, Fig. 1) configured for letting through the second working beam propagating from the second scanning device to the second working field.
The claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation and does not require that the first and second transparent windows be physically separate. Even if the claim were to require physically separate windows through which the optical paths traverse, the separation of a known element into pieces would have been an obvious modification of the prior art at the time of the invention.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide first and second transparent windows as taught by Brown with the system as disclosed by Uchida. Windows are old and well-known in optical and laser systems for being a gas and debris barrier for components to be maintained under particular design conditions and an artisan would have been motivated to utilize windows for maintaining gas and debris conditions of components.
Regarding claim 41, Uchida discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a window as detailed above.
Brown discloses the first transparent window and the second transparent window are adjacent to each other or to the same lateral wall of the housing (window 107, Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide first and second transparent windows as taught by Brown with the system as disclosed by Uchida. Windows are old and well-known in optical and laser systems for being a gas and debris barrier for components to be maintained under particular design conditions and an artisan would have been motivated to utilize windows for maintaining gas and debris conditions of components.
Regarding claim 50, Uchida discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a window as detailed above.
Brown discloses the optical path of the first working beam includes a first transparent window (window 107 having portion beside light-tight housing 157a, Fig. 1) between the second movable mirror of the first deflection unit and the first working field and is free of mirrors and lenses between the second movable mirror of the first deflection unit and the first working field; and wherein the optical path of the second working beam includes a second transparent window (window 107 having portion beside light-tight housing 157b, Fig. 1) between the second movable mirror of the second deflection unit and the first working field and is free of mirrors and lenses between the second movable mirror of the second deflection unit and the first working field (window 107, Fig. 1).
The claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation and does not require that the first and second transparent windows be physically separate. Even if the claim were to require physically separate windows through which the optical paths traverse, the separation of a known element into pieces would have been an obvious modification of the prior art at the time of the invention.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide first and second transparent windows as taught by Brown with the system as disclosed by Uchida. Windows are old and well-known in optical and laser systems for being a gas and debris barrier for components to be maintained under particular design conditions and an artisan would have been motivated to utilize windows for maintaining gas and debris conditions of components.
Claim 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida in view of Vaucher and Fischer, as applied to Claim 41 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 6,480,645 to Peale, et al. (hereinafter Peale).
Regarding claim 49, Uchida discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the second axis and the fourth axis are arranged perpendicular to the common plane of mirror symmetry.
Peale discloses the second axis and the fourth axis are arranged perpendicular to the common plane of mirror symmetry (axes defined by pivot arms 127, Figs. 1-3a).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange axes perpendicularly as taught by Peale with the system as disclosed by Uchida. The motivation would have been to provide parallel manufacturing of deflectable mirror devices increasing ease of alignment, accuracy of mirror position, and broad multiplexing capabilities (col. 1, ll. 42-59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 42-47 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination with other references, neither teaches nor suggests a modular deflection system comprising a first deflection module and a second deflection module, wherein each of the first deflection module and the second deflection module comprises: a first deflection unit comprising a first scanning device configured for scanning a first working beam over a first working field, wherein the first scanning device comprises: a first movable mirror for scanning the first working beam in a first direction by tilting around a first axis; and a second movable mirror for scanning the first working beam in a second direction by tilting around a second axis; a second deflection unit comprising a second scanning device configured for scanning a second working beam over a second working field; wherein the second scanning device comprises: a first movable mirror for scanning the second working beam in the first direction by tilting around a third axis; and a second movable mirror for scanning the second working beam in the second direction by tilting around a fourth axis; wherein the second movable mirror of the first scanning device and the second movable mirror of the second scanning device are arranged mirror-symmetrically with respect to each other and to a common plane of mirror symmetry, wherein the second axis is aligned with and in parallel with the fourth axis; wherein the first deflection unit and the second deflection unit of the first deflection module are enclosed within a first housing and the first deflection unit and the second deflection unit of the second deflection module are enclosed within a second housing; wherein the second movable mirrors of the first deflection module are arranged adjacent to a lateral housing wall of the first housing offset from a central position with respect to a longitudinal axis of the first housing; wherein the second movable mirrors of the second deflection module are arranged adjacent to a lateral housing wall of the second housing offset from a central position with respect to a longitudinal axis of the second housing (Claim 42). And wherein the deflection module further comprises a housing, wherein the first deflection unit and the second deflection unit are enclosed within the housing, wherein the housing comprises a first transparent window configured for letting through the first working beam propagating from the first scanning device to the first working field and a second transparent window configured for letting through the second working beam propagating from the second scanning device to the second working field, wherein the first transparent window is arranged adjacent to a lateral wall of the housing and offset from a longitudinal axis of the housing, wherein the second transparent window is arranged adjacent to the lateral wall of the housing and offset from the longitudinal axis of the housing, the first transparent window being adjacent to the second transparent window (Claim 47).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights