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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (Claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 11/3/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Response to Amendment
Cancellation of Claims 8-19 in the submission filed 11/3/2025 is acknowledged and accepted.
Pending Claims are 1-7.
Drawings
The drawings with 10 Sheets of Figs. 1-10 received on 11/3/2025 are acknowledged and accepted.
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.
Claim 2 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.
Claim 2 recites “block electromagnetic radiation” in lines 1-2. There is sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the base claim. It is not clear whether the electromagnetic radiation in claim 2 is different from the electromagnetic radiation recited in claim 1. From the specification, it appears that electromagnetic radiation is the same as recited in claim 1. Hence, for the purposes of examination, electromagnetic radiation in claim 2 is interpreted to be “the electromagnetic radiation” from claim 1.
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) 1,4,7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittenberg et al (US 2006/0119805) in view of Gurevich et al (WO 2009/058556).
Regarding Claim 1, Wittenberg teaches (fig 1,8) a scan engine (hand-held instrument 10 with image projection arrangement 20, “projecting a two-dimensional color image at a variable distance from the instrument”, para 29) for capturing at least one image of an object appearing in an imaging field of view (FOV) (“The raster pattern is a grid made of multiple pixels on each line, and of multiple lines. The image is a bit-map of selected pixels. Every letter or number, any graphical design or logo, and even machine-readable bar code symbols, can be formed as a bit-mapped image.”, para 55), comprising:
a chassis (chassis, para 61) including a chassis body defining at least one confined volume (as in fig 8), the chassis body including a chassis mounting portion (chassis bottom portion is on the support plate 102 as in fig 1,8 and the mounting portion is considered to be the structure of chassis with open window for red laser light to enter the tubular holder 204) and a redirecting region (inside walls of tubular holder 204, para 61) adapted to at least partially surround the chassis mounting portion ;
an adhesive material (adhesive, para 65) adapted to be disposed on the chassis mounting portion (“plurality of adhesive inlet passages 212, for introduction of a curable adhesive 214 into the gap 208 surrounding the holder to fix the holder after alignment in a fixed position upon curing”, para 65) and
an aiming system (lens 24 in tubular holder 204, “The focusing lens 24, 30 is a strong positive aspheric lens and has a centration or mechanical axis 202 determined by the way that the lens is mounted within a hollow, tubular holder 204”, para 61, “The lens 26, which is a negative lens, is also mounted within the holder 204. Lens 26 is fixed within a hollow tubular sleeve 216”, para 68)
the aiming system (lens 24 in tubular holder 204, lens 26 in tubular sleeve 216, para 61) at least partially disposed within the at least one confined volume of the body (chassis body), the aiming system (lens 24 in tubular holder 204,lens 26 in tubular sleeve 216, para 61) extending along a longitudinal axis in a first direction (as in fig 8),
wherein at least a portion of the aiming system (tubular holder, para 61) is adapted to engage the adhesive material (adhesive, para 65) to be at least partially retained within the at least one confined volume of the body (“a plurality of adhesive inlet passages 212, for introduction of a curable adhesive 214 into the gap 208 surrounding the holder to fix the holder after alignment in a fixed position upon curing”, para 65, “The sleeve 216 is fixed in place by introducing a UV-curable adhesive from the front of the holder and exposing the front of the holder to UV light”, para 68);
wherein upon directing electromagnetic radiation towards the at least one confined volume, the redirecting region (inside walls of tubular holder 204, para 61) is adapted to redirect the electromagnetic radiation towards the adhesive material (adhesive, para 65) to initiate a curing process (“the holder is constituted of a synthetic plastic material, such as glass fiber-filled polycarbonate, which is translucent to UV light. The UV light is beamed through the opposite end region of the holder, i.e., further from the laser. The UV light passes through the translucent holder and cures the adhesive everywhere around the holder”, para 66).
However, Wittenberg does not teach
aiming system adapted to generate a cosmetic pattern to assist with identifying the FOV.
Wittenberg and Gurevich are related as aiming systems.
Gurevich teaches (fig 1),
aiming system (collimating lens 130 and multi-segmented pattern forming element 150, para 19) adapted to generate a cosmetic pattern (“an aiming pattern 160”, para 19) to assist with identifying the FOV (“an aiming pattern should accurately represent the imaging field of view”, para 3).
Therefore, 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 aiming system of Wittenberg to include the cosmetic pattern of Gurevich for the purpose of improving the efficiency of light utilization, para 38).
Regarding Claim 4, Wittenberg-Gurevich teaches the scan engine of claim 1,
the redirection region is made of a polycarbonate (“the holder is constituted of a synthetic plastic material, such as glass fiber-filled polycarbonate”, para 66, “Lens 26 is fixed within a hollow tubular sleeve 216, preferably constituted of polycarbonate”, para 68) which has surface roughness.
However, Wittenberg-Gurevich does not teach
wherein the redirecting region comprises at least one surface having a surface roughness of approximately 0.8 microns.
However, 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). The surface roughness can be in a range of values. A decrease in surface roughness results in increased smoothness and higher reflectivity but makes the intensity of the output beam high. An increase in surface roughness results in improved intensity but makes the device lossy. Therefore, the surface roughness of the redirecting region is a result effective variable.
One would have chosen the surface roughness of the redirecting region to be approximately 0.8 microns according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving reflectivity with intensity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the surface roughness of the redirecting region. One would have been motivated to have an optimal roughness balancing a desired effectiveness of desired image quality and losses due to intensity.
Regarding Claim 7, Wittenberg-Gurevich teaches the scan engine of claim 1,
wherein the electromagnetic radiation (“The UV light is beamed through the opposite end region of the holder, i.e., further from the laser”, para 66, Wittenberg) comprises at least one of a light source (UV light source) or a heating element.
Claim(s) 2,5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Wittenberg et al (US 2006/0119805) in view of Gurevich et al (WO 2009/058556) and further in view of Tillotson et al (US 10,652,441).
Regarding Claim 2, Wittenberg-Gurevich teaches the scan engine of claim 1.
However, Wittenberg-Gurevich does not teach
wherein the aiming system is adapted to block electromagnetic radiation traveling in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aiming system from contacting the adhesive material.
Wittenberg-Gurevich and Tillotson are related as aiming systems.
Tillotson teaches (fig 3),
wherein the aiming system (second lens 20, col 10, lines 48-56) is adapted to block electromagnetic radiation (UV light) traveling in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aiming system (second lens 20, col 10, lines 48-56).
Therefore, 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 aiming system of Wittenberg to include the blocking of radiation of Tillotson for the purpose of preventing UV related damage (col 10, lines 58-60).
Regarding Claim 5, Wittenberg-Gurevich teaches the scan engine of claim 1.
However, Wittenberg-Gurevich does not teach
an opaque lens
Wittenberg-Gurevich and Tillotson are related as aiming systems.
Tillotson teaches (fig 3),
opaque lens (second lens 20, col 10, lines 48-56) (“the second lens 20 is opaque to UV, in which case it acts as a UV filter”, col 10, lines 48-56).
Therefore, 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 aiming system of Wittenberg-Gurevich to include the blocking of radiation of Tillotson for the purpose of preventing UV related damage (col 10, lines 58-60).
Claim(s) 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Wittenberg et al (US 2006/0119805) in view of Gurevich et al (WO 2009/058556) and further in view of Drzymala et al (US 2019/0294840).
Regarding Claim 6, Wittenberg-Gurevich teaches the scan engine of claim 1.
However, Wittenberg-Gurevich does not teach
further comprising an imaging assembly adapted to be operably coupled with the body of the chassis.
Wittenberg-Gurevich and Drzymala are related as aiming systems.
Drzymala teaches (fig 6,7),
further comprising an imaging assembly (first lens assembly 202, para 44) adapted to be operably coupled with the body of the chassis (chassis 200, para 44).
Therefore, 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 aiming system of Wittenberg-Gurevich to include the cosmetic pattern of Drzymala for the purpose of improving the imaging capability of imaging devices (para 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Claim 3 is allowable for at least the reason:
“wherein the redirecting region comprises at least one surface having a parabolic shape forming a focal point at the adhesive material.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2/7/2026